skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've been musing about these sorts of issues of "what is really complex" lately, too. I started evaluating new languages for low-level application code again after spending a lot of time overly close to web browsers, and then ended up deciding that Free Pascal beat them on the stuff I cared about, relative to C compilers as a baseline:

* Best-in-class compile times

* Modules; preprocessor is relevant, but not dominant

* Generics, variant records, function and operator overloads, exceptions, safe string and dynamic array types

* Libraries for common things, with a reasonably conventional style: APIs, containers, bindings, etc.

* No GC; pointers are available, but language features discourage casual usage. RAII pattern is achievable.

* Strong + static types, nominal types and type aliasing.

* Good IDE support, mature tooling, compiler has very broad platform support.

The new languages do win on a lot of the language-feature aspects(particularly memory safety when performing deep optimizations), but they don't have as good a story on the tooling. The compile speed is a major feature and is only likely to remain advantageous over time - and the features already in place are quite effective at limiting source code size, boilerplate, and dangerous constructs. This despite "Pascal is verbose" being memetic.

And if I want more high-level power, I've found that writing a FSM is the most probable path to achieving it. A FSM that embraces the problem domain is a tiny compiler: input source constructs, FSM checks them, applies appropriate algorithms, then emits a list of actions. More power? Add a second FSM to make it a two-pass compiler. Add a stack, or attach it to a database. If it has to be fast, it can generate code in the last step, too. Those things add tons of power to model the problem and aren't heavily dependent on language-side support.
Yes, non-standard ports transfer it to the domain of either somewhat targeted scan or serious effort - scanning all ports of all IPv4 requires many machines and/or many weeks, so that's not available to everyone. However, I'd still expect multiple organizations to keep an up-to-date scan of all public facing ports worldwide; it's impractical to do it for fun, but if have a need and some budget, it seems doable.
I think it's partly motivational. There is definitely a level of understanding where it feels like you understand a concept, and then when you try to teach it to someone else, you realize when they ask basic questions that you don't understand it as deeply as you thought you did.

So, if you think you understand something, it's worth trying to explain it simply, so you can push your own understanding of the subject.
A couple? We're looking at 16 full-bandwidth Quadro GP100's with 256 PCIE lanes. That's pretty awesome, in the fullest sense of the word.

I'm interested to see what AMD does on the GPU Compute front in the near future with this beast of a platform as a foundation.
The question is why don't they offer the cheapest (i5/8GB) XPS 13s with Linux.
> It's clear it is not about actual defense of the US, but about extracting as much wealth as possible from all of us; the tax payers.

I wouldn't say that's what it's about. It's just that America's prevailing mindset about defense and weapon systems is 'performance at all costs' and 'if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing'.

So they don't set out to develop a weapon system that will perform well on the battlefield at some level of risk in exchange for a reasonable cost, they set out to build a weapon system that is absolutely dominant to the point of negligible risk on the battlefield. So every system coming down the pipe gets loaded up with every bell and whistle possible.

Of course the defense industry actively lobbies for bleeding edge and expensive weapons systems. But the fact is that the military and congress are all about dominance, not competence.

It makes sense to a degree. If you've got stealth bombers and the enemy doesn't, they may not want to start a war at all. But at a certain point your next-gen stealth bomber becomes so expensive and complex that it may never work properly or you can't field enough of them to make a difference. Or you've built something extremely expensive to perform a job that a plane 1/20th the cost can perform at little to no risk.
It's better to have no context than misleading context.
Are you doing a personal project or are you just going down a list of features that you have to implement? For a CRUD app it's fairly easy to just trudge through the list since you aren't making creative solutions or passionate about what you're doing.
I actually enjoy the snapchat UX, I'm not sure why exactly, but its the only app I actually enjoy using... I just realized all the other apps I use are facebook, so maybe i just dont like the way they do it.
The problem wouldn't be with the guy, but with the people who hired him.
Why even have manned fighter planes? Self driving cars is a much harder problem than war drones, and everybody seems convinced the former's just around the corner.
Don't be silly. Sardonic libertarians don't believe in the free rider problem!
The CPython implementation does have a "compile" step (to produce bytecode, which is what actually gets executed, by a simple stack-based virtual machine), and does not do any type checking in that step no matter how many annotations you give it.
So what? That's one project in many. The F-35 program _will_ cost over 1 trillion. We spend ~$600 billion a year on the entire military. Trillions are spent on defense over the course of just a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
> "So the price of Bitcoin may be related to mining costs in the short term, as miners quit when it gets too expensive."

This is wrong. Supply does not decrease when mining gets too expensive and it does not increase when mining gets cheaper. This is the very special property of Bitcoin. See my other post.

> "then the 21 million Bitcoins would equal the entire human wealth"

Not necessarily. There are lost coins. And likely not all remaining coins will participate on the market. More precisely bitcoins supply offered on the market times velocity would be equal to the entire wealth offered on the market.
Haven't been following this closely, but has the random segfault problem [1] been addressed? I would imagine this a bigger problem for servers almost constantly maxing out all cores and threads compared to a desktop/laptop... Just imagine the horror when you write safe Rust code and get hit hard by heisenbugs in production...

[1]: https://community.amd.com/thread/215773
Some non-paywalled information at Anandtech: PathForward: US Dept. of Energy Awards $258M in Research Contracts To Develop Exascale Supercomputer Technology [0]

[0] http://www.anandtech.com/show/11547/us-dept-of-energy-awards...
Why is my system slow?

$ grep -R "map" *

reduce(filter even? (apply ( 3) (map inc (i for i in (filter even? collection)))))*

What's with the dissing on map? Awkward code like that can be written in lots of ways... (rewrite it with transducers, friend catfish, rewrite it with transducers!)
Honestly I think Ardor will eclipse Ethereum-- if they can get to marketing it better, the technology is light years more advanced and more secure. When the ardor chain goes live I'm hoping it is an ethereum/bitcoin killer, being able to exchange assets between child chains just makes good sense, as does some of the other tech built in.
I feel like a lot of the commenters here are making a false assumption, arguing "just because you can explain something in simple terms doesn't mean you understand it - look how much nuance and complexity gets lost!" That statement makes the assumption that you must explain the subject to another individual to the point where they understand that subject as well as you do. Well, obviously you are going to lose complexity, just on the basis of explaining something in simple terms. The point is that if you cannot distill something to its core ideas to the point where someone else will gain a basic understanding of that concept, then you do not understand what its core ideas are, and therefore do not understand the concept itself. No one is arguing that what took you 10 years and a PhD to understand is something you can explain "simply" to someone and they will emerge with the same level of understanding as you have. No, they will emerge with a basic understanding of that concept if you have explained it well.
Thinking about how to solve a work problem is work.
Yesterday I had about 5 hours of straight work within the usual 8 hour window (different from the "you only get x < 8 hours of not necessarily continuous productive work per 8 hours" some people like to claim), not even getting up from my chair once. I had to psyche myself up for it after lunch though. The reason is I had to work on finding a solution to a deep and complicated bug, and I knew it would take a long time. (I had to work on it some more today to fix some issues with what I settled on last night.) But I was able to devote my entire focus to it and put aside code reviews and doc reviews and email checking and so forth until I had a potential fix.

Most days I don't have such long periods of continuous focus. The culprit is usually multitasking. Context switching carries a cost for me. Even if the context is justified (important meeting, hammock-time to figure something out, lunch break) there's a cost. I'm somewhat jealous of people who seem to have such a minimum cost and can go even more than 8 hours grinding away and working very productively indeed, since I can taste that focus on occasion, and it'd be cool to have it always. I probably wouldn't spend most of it on work-work though.
> I'm starting my own business and the cost of health insurance is absolutely insane.

Why do you think that is? Why is medicine so expensive? Don't we live in a highly-technological society? Shouldn't the price of medical treatment follow the downward path taken by other technical domains, like computer devices?
INAGOA (I'm not a general or admiral) but aren't aircraft carriers essentially obselete? Van Riper destroyed nearly the entire U.S. Fleet back in 2002 in one day with small boats and Cessnas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Understanding the fine details is one thing, but unless you can really communicate a synthesis or an analogy, it's impossible to really prove you understand something.

Nobody cares about a genius who understands something until he can really interact about the subject.

Humans work with communication. When you learn about something, you read about it and you process it. To see if you understand it, you must communicate it back. It's not really possible to guess how you brain just learned about something unless you ask that brain to reformulate it.
Pennies.
It is not in interests of government to negotiate it hard. If anything - they will lose budget. Same with private insurances - unless it hits their bottom line, they will not negotiate and simply accept slowly increasing medical care costs, and push costs to payers (just like government will push costs to taxpayers)

Having less of insurance money (both federal and private) will make pool of cheap money less which in effect should drive price lower. So if anything, attempts of current government to decrease amount of cheap money means that it might only move costs lower.

Granted, these changes are minor in dollars, so effect will be not very visible.

Stop paying for family doctor visit via insurance - and you immediately see costs going down. (also please decrease cheap money available to student to get loans without any qualification to pay for it and you will see tuition fees going down)
Theranos Wins Dismissal of Most Claims in Class Action Suit
You can take a break by looking up the next ticket.
We share a similar mindset. I actually get a kick working through crappy code as I find reverse-engineering quite exciting, in a kind of "order from chaos" way. Take something crap, make it better, learn something and get paid for it. Ideal!
Do you have no decency left?
> A currency and markets primary purpose is to provision the state.

Not at all. "State" is a political constructions while currencies are a value transport mechanism and markets are a network of those, both of which, as "pure" concepts, arises pretty quickly when one starts to ponder how to model "actors in need to exchange and use scarce resources which have alternative uses".

In that sense, saying that "currencies and markets" have any particular purpose (political at that) is like saying that someone invented the concept/idea of "hash functions" for the purpose of serving P2P piracy, which isn't the case: "hash functions" just are a thing that arises in the universe. Same with currencies and markets, they're just pretty arbitrary, easy to come up with, concepts.
Can you explain to me how this works, please? If it's just selecting a random person, this seems as though it would be liable to all sorts of problems such as the person not even having to demonstrate to anyone that he is capable of holding such a position. If it's selecting a random person from a smaller group of people, how is it decided who gets to be in the group? You're pushing the problem of professional politician one step back, so the solution has no explanatory power.
There are electronic prescriptions as well.
This is why you low-pass audio before quantizing. If you put the square-wave through a low-pass filter before recording it digital and on high-quality tape, the digital recording will be more accurate than the tape.
Yes, however they still profit from winning such lawsuits, if this was typical behavior, then theoretically they should be on the hook for any money they avoided paying by using such methods. For example if they were invading the privacy of the people in the drivers lawsuit (where they ended up paying 100 million) and used it to win instead, then that would be the amount they should be on the hook for. The point is that any illegal behavior in corporate governance means the corporation and the people who stand to benefit from it automatically loose entirely on the related matters. Which is guaranteed to be effective at stopping illegal behavior.

Of course this is in the case of criminal fraud, which hasn't been brought up in this news case you are correct.
If you're working remotely how does having access to your webcam and speakers help the manager in any way?

Edit: Here's me just now realising you're probably referring to a completely different desktop in an office that has the webcam and speakers.. I'm gonna head to bed now :)
Here [1] is not 1, but 3 different levels of complexity. Not 90 seconds though :)

[1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9452701/ukkonens-suffix-...
I think it's meant to apply to a single, atomic concept that the audience is suitably prepared to understand. It couldn't be something like "how to build a car starting from a lump of steel" -- that would not be a single, atomic idea. "How anti-lock brakes work" might be a better idea to explain in simple terms.
Hmm, you'll need some lanes for disk IO, networking and other peripherals. And of course a motherboard (and a PSU!) that can actually feed such a monster - alone 14 GPUs would consume 3.2 kW, that's more than a normal 230VAC power cord can supply. Add the 400W of two CPUs, 100-150W for RAM, 200W for fans, RAM and other peripherals and you're looking at something above 3.7 kW.

edit: as a commenter above noted, the 2P version has only 128 lanes, too - which still means 6-7 GPUs. Enough power to last a few years, I'd say.
Lofty goals, and needed. However I can't help but mourn that at least in Chicago, all of the taxis I've ever taken in the past several years have been hybrid vehicles. I think I can count on one hand the number of hybrids/electric Lyfts and Ubers I've taken. So in Chicago (like everywhere else) ridesharing is decimating the taxi industry, but here when you take a rideshare instead of a taxi there's a greater chance your ride is not climate-friendly today.

So while it's nice that Lyft is targeting 2025, in this specific case you could have already been saving carbon by taking regular taxis instead.

I don't know if Lyft/Uber already have a feature like this (someone else always calls one for us) but it would be nice if they allowed you to only take rides in hybrid/electric vehicles, or if they would otherwise incentivize drivers who had such vehicles.
It is not wrong, americans, because they dump so much money into private and federal insurance, only to get the most health care it is physically possible where in UK they are much more conservative with spending tons of money on anything possible.

This is both good and bad. Bad for expenses. Good for medial innovation, since this industry attracts alot of funding to do more innovation.
sure but the same machine that propels these advancements is also non-complacent to the tax-payer
You pay someone $100 to comb your child's hair?
People want information. But the people who want the information want it to be free, so that they can get it for free. The people who create that information usually want it to be expensive, and also to be controlled (so that they can get paid). But all it takes is one person who paid for the information to decide to redistribute it for free, and the game is over for that bit of information.

Thus "freeing" is a one-way function for information. It's easy for information to go from non-free to free, but it's almost impossible for information to go from free to non-free. In that sense, information, by its nature, "wants" (if we can anthropomorphize a bit) to be free, in the same sense that matter "wants" to move to a lower energy state.
What is a monad?
The best we can say is that if there is a strong consensus among experts that it is, to the best of our current knowledge, correct.

It's at least more correct than someone with zero training in that field. Dissenting opinions among experts should also be considered, by such experts, and the points at which they disagree with the logic or knowledge carefully examined by all.
See https://youtu.be/7ZbwZgrXnwY for a talk from the mypy team.

Description: https://us.pycon.org/2017/schedule/presentation/678/
I feel like articles like this fundamentally miss the point of a peacetime military, which is:

1.) To sit there and look powerful, and ideally dissuade potential adversaries from forcing you to build a wartime military.

2.) To experiment with a bunch of new technologies, so that when you need to go to war, there is some report buried on a bureaucrat's desk detailing precisely the capabilities that the wartime military will have.

3.) To keep military industrial capacity alive, so that you don't have to build new shipyards & tooling from scratch if war breaks up.

4.) To keep military human capital engaged & employed, so that you don't need to train up a generation of engineers to build the tooling to build the war machines that you actually want.

5.) As a form of Keynesian stimulus & political welfare, to redistribute money from wealthy regions of the country to poor regions.

In basically every military conflict since the American revolution, people have found that military doctrine is going to be out-of-date, and all the best tactics & weapon systems you thought you had are largely useless. When Vietnam started, we thought that the war would be conducted through missiles, airplanes, and ICBMS; instead we had a long hard slog of infantry jungle warfare. When Korea started, we thought the next war would be nuclear and over in an hour; instead, jets & amphibious landings had a large place. When WW2 started, we thought we'd have a titanic clash of battleships; instead, the whole naval war was fought by submarines in the Atlantic and aircraft carriers in the Pacific. There's no reason to believe that the next war will be any different; for all we know, it'll be fought with drones in the sky, or hackers in cyberspace, or maybe we'll finally get the nuclear apocalypse that we thought Korea would be.

The point of a peacetime military is to keep options open so that when you find out just how the next war will be fought, there is some low-level engineer, somewhere, who has been experimenting with precisely the technology you need, and can be rapidly promoted and tell everyone else how to do it. Things like the Gerald Ford or F-35 fit right into that strategy. They aren't intended to be fighting machines in their own right; they're floating/flying R&D platforms for developing new technologies, most of which are useless but a couple of which will probably be crucial.
Also, no foothold and lots of strong incumbents in Asia, so no growth opportunities there.
Both 1P and 2P have 128 PCIe lanes, as in 2P configuration half the lanes of each chip are used for cross socket communication.
Why Do Men Harass Women? New Study Sheds Light on Motivations
Advanced CIA firmware has been infecting Wi-Fi routers for years
There is also Google's pytype: https://github.com/google/pytype
Well he made that statement in 1965, and then wrote QED, which is a layman's explanation of his Nobel Prize work, in 1985. So perhaps he set out to prove himself wrong.

QED does explain quantum electrodynamics without any calculus or other math (for example, he uses imaginary clocks as a way to explain wave interference), but I think if the average person read it they wouldn't walk away with even a partial understanding of it.
They shoulda invested 256 million, woulda been more efficient.
I want to make an obvious point, but I know it confused me quite a bit for a while, so just in case it helps anyone else: There's CouchDB and then there's Couchbase which is similarly named but completely different.

I recommend anyone shopping for databases with easy master/master replication with eventual consistency and no single points of failure to consider Couchbase as well. It's not the same will have it's own set of pros and cons.
This article does not really need to exist.
Run Vue on React
Higher expenditure can be due less efficiency (btw, what we are going to do with all the inefficient people, pay them welfare?) or due more money spent on more procedures. Is it bad or good - I am not going to say.
Do you see large groups of them? Photos?
Digital Marketing Campaign Benchmarks May Be Different Than You Think
At a certain point you get to the post friendship stage of life. :-/
It's not hard to build a good quality (not top level, but good) DAC for less than $50.

JEDAC (http://users.abo.fi/jskata/JEDAC/) is a good example of a cheap DAC that is reasonable quality. I don't think that TI does their free sample program any more, but at one point as a student, it was possible to build it for a few bucks.

I guess if you're paying full price for your ICs and you're factoring in labour, it's not any cheaper than buying one, but if you don't value your time and you're handy with a soldering iron, it's definitely worth it.
Incorrect on both counts.

There are, and have been, both currencies and markets without (or outside) state purview. Though having a state helps standardise much about both.

See the content of the Code of Hammurabi, much of which concerned both commerce and tort.
Ah, I had assumed a separate form of interconnection. Thanks for the info!
Another way of putting this is: If you can't use lego blocks to build something, then you don't understand it. But why would anyone want to recreate Shakespeare using lego blocks, or recreate a motorcycle using lego blocks? I'm sure a 5 year old would love it to pieces. I would rather make a reproduction of a motorcycle with real metal.