skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The problem with privatization is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation--look at Russia after the USSR caved in and how oligarchs came to own factories and all kinds of infrastructure simply because of the gold rush moment where they could get away with it. Privatization in the US works the same way--the insiders get the deals, the rest of us get nothing. If there was a way to randomize it, we might be able to make it work.

I don't like the current situation in DC where there is a permanent government workforce that is mostly unionized. It is bloated and out of touch and that's where the calls for accountability are coming from. Right-size that government workforce, make the employees actually work (I know many do, so don't downvote me--I was a state employee for awhile once upon a time, I damn well know how many people worked and how many read newspapers and napped all day).

I bet if we were to perform some simple reforms of the federal workforce that the calls for privatization would cease. It's about creating better outcomes, and the last Administration was more about creating a huge dependent class everywhere possible of people who would reliably vote their interests.
I'd say neither Go nor JavaScript are predominantly used to solve complex problems. The main use cases for both are solving mundane problems by mundane programmers. In case of Go that's an explicit design philosophy.
¿Porque no los dos?

Store the files in a database but expose them via FUSE.
This has been done many times before, to allow only the 'right' people to vote. Its been made illegal for a reason.
That 57 years is assuming they're storing their passwords MD5 hashed, with a salt (hah, i'm sure they thought of that if they're using MD5), and using the least efficient method possible to crack the passwords.
Hundreds died while taking an arthritis drug, but nobody alerted patients
I'm not so sure: https://twitter.com/SeinfeldToday
TLDR
Author thinks Bitcoin is mostly worthless because there is no single organization deciding how Bitcoin should work or enforcing its rules.

And ironically, most Bitcoiners believe this is exactly what gives Bitcoin its worth.

Sidenote: I also find it ironic that the author, a Faculty Fellow of the Alan Turing Institute, is enamored with governance when it was governance that forced Alan Turing to be chemically castrated.
How big do you think the intersection is of people who can use git and people who want to use Microsoft Word?
I was evaluated by two US transplant centers that function under a government-regulated evaluation regimen, and spent more than a year researching the process.

Neither would proceed with any paperwork or testing without proof of insurance coverage specifically for transplant.

Honestly, I'm not especially concerned with edge cases like "is it possible to get a transplant without insurance if I offer to pay cash?" or questions about what a transplant really costs.

Those are irrelevant academic questions for the vast majority of transplant patients.
That's not at all what I mean: I mean the accounting entries for debt and assets.

If a bank lends a bridge-building company $1m, that produces a $1m liability for Bridge LLC and a $1m asset for Bank. (In fact slightly more, due to interest). When Bridge LLC spends money on concrete, its free cash goes down and its asset value labelled "bridge" goes up.

In the worst case, Bridge LLC spends the money to no effect and goes bankrupt - leaving Bank to take a writedown on the "asset" side of the loan. But until it does that the loan still exists as two sides held by the two companies which should have the same value.

The "missing" money is money owed where it is not clear from the outside statistical reporting where it is owed to - and in a global sense, the ledger must balance unless we owe money to aliens.

The PDF explains the methodology.

(An unsafe bridge may be a "liability" in the legal sense, but in any accounting sense it's an asset. Maybe subject to depreciation. But unless it's something that you owe to someone else, it's not an accounting liability.)
Getting rid of unions will increase income inequality. Just compare for profit higher education with public higher education. The wages/benefits for workers former very much lag those of the latter. Private prisons pay way less too. But the people at the top get outsized pay. The cost savings to taxpayers are not sufficient to justify this inequity.
Yes, as long as you don't want to convert your crypto currency into fiat currency at either end.
How can I run chromium as a daily driver on windows? What about automatic updates?
Do you block all web sites that use react? I would assume based on your ideology that you cannot use any web site that uses react or any other facebook funded technology.
Fair enough. I'll concede that - I could have phrased it more neutrally vs. cherry picking.
you can also include Lisa Su, CEO of AMD and Mary Barra, CEO of GM (also the highest paid CEO in the car industry)
It is not even legal to trade. It is tolerated (but not quite legal) to trade and own small amounts (5g), and a coffee shop may have 300g in stock on their premises. The shop needs to acquire its weed in illegal, non-tolerated ways. This causes all kinds of problems and absurdities.

Despite our reputation, the Netherlands are now behind when it comes to legalization of marijuana.
Bitcoin network is going to split at end of summer, driving uncertainty in its future value. The SegWit proposal does not have universal support.
Some mining groups are advocating a hard fork, some advocate soft fork, many even want it to remain as is.
https://blog.bitmain.com/en/uahf-contingency-plan-uasf-bip14...
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/why-viabtc-rejects-segw...
http://www.uasf.co/
http://www.coindesk.com/bip-148-segwit2x-bitcoin-scaling-com...
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/beginners-guide-survivi...
This isn't the entire source code. It's just the changes that they've made directly to Chromium. They can still bundle all kinds of closed-source stuff alongside that, just like Google does with Chrome.
Is it possible to throw out one without the other?
Rather interesting data points refuting the idea that butt-in-seat time matters for productivity and excellence matters, as some on HN have suggested:

"In 2014, the social networking company The Draugiem Group used a time-tracking productivity app to study what habits set their most productive employees apart.

Surprisingly, the top 10% of employees with the highest productivity didn’t put in longer hours than anyone else – often they didn't even work eight-hour days. Instead, the key to their productivity was that for every 52 minutes of focused work, they took a 17-minute break."

and

"One study from Illinois Institute of Technology by Raymond Van Zelst and Willard Kerr in 1951 found that scientists who spent 25 hours per week in the workplace were no more productive than those who spent just five."

Another interesting point hints at why the poorly done agile at most organizations is so painful and ineffective:

"... points to a study in the early 1980s that divided undergraduates into two groups: some were advised to set out monthly goals and study activities; others were told to plan activities and goals in much more detail, day by day.

While the researchers assumed that the well-structured daily plans would be most effective when it came to the execution of tasks, they were wrong: the detailed daily plans demotivated students. Harford argues that inevitable distractions often render the daily to-do list ineffective, while leaving room for improvisation in such a list can reap the best results."

The list of tasks for a sprint are never supposed to be a ironclad promise that all of them will be done and that they are precisely what will be worked on and nothing else; that's just micromanagement by story point. They are just a best guess using the information available at the time of sprint planning. If some tasks aren't completed, that's normal and expected, as long as there's a valid engineering reason other things needed to be done first to make progress toward the overall goal. (And there often are; "yak-shaving" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yak_shaving) entered the software development lexicon for a reason.)
A closer look at the Sci-Hub corpus: what is being downloaded and from where?
Do you have the same objection to grouping the simple gates you mention under the name of "boolean logic"?

I know almost nothing about quantum computing (aside from the fact that it's not just a matter of trying all possible values simultaneously), but looking up the Hadamard transform on Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure the barrier to understanding is going to be the fact that it's a highly complicated operation, not the three-syllable name.
The underlying paper was posted seven (7!) years ago. Is the WSJ so far behind...???
I can recommend "The Oligarchs" by David E. Hoffman - it makes even the wildest stories of Silicon Valley sound very tame indeed.
I would argue that all the people yelling "gotcha" aren't actually involved. Anything more than a superficial understanding see through that. Many of the people shouting "gotcha" can name their governor or congressional reps, and how many don't know about their local/state reps?

If they can't name more than one or two key people how involved are they?

Involvement is larger more complex issue. (So is education, but I am not touching that one for now)
> This is a cheaper and better alternative

Flying a drone in India require permits from multriple authorities [1] Their import is also highly regulated [2].

It may be cheaper to throw a couple bucks at a few thousand people than go through the license Raj. At the very least, it would be faster and more predictable.

[1] http://m.hindustantimes.com/india/us-citizen-arrested-for-ph...

[2] http://mashable.com/2016/03/02/india-drones-duties/#ib1XDcXp...
Another HW FPGA guy here. Albeit one who has never used HLS. My concern with the whole idea of HLS is that it fails to take advantage of the parallelization capability of FPGAs, which in my opinion is one of the main reasons to use an FPGA in the first place. It sounds great for designs that are linear in nature, that is, putting data through a bunch of sequential processing blocks and then outputting some result. But for most of those cases, why not just use a processor + DSP SoC? Or even something like a Zynq? It will probably be faster.

Seeing how FPGAs do not operate in a linear way the way that software does on a processor, why are we trying to make them work that way? It would make more sense to me to design a high-level synthesis language with a paradigm that is also not imperative: functional programming. Like, for example, how would this kind of C code even be synthesized in hardware?:

A = 5;
B_out = A + 3;
A = 6;
C_out = A;

"A" is used as two different things, which is totally fine when the code is run sequentially, which must be what is happening when code like this is synthesized, but that's wasteful on an FPGA, because B_out and C_out don't actually have dependence on each other and could be computed concurrently, which is what would happen if we used VHDL to do something similar. We need a high-level synthesis language that describes a system which solves the algorithm we want, the same way VHDL does, except with more abstraction capabilities. In my opinion this could be a functional language.
> Where is it? It was spent on crap rather than invested in assets.

What makes something crap rather than an asset? How could they have done it "the right way"?
I'm a lobbyist in Washington DC and it is appalling The work ethic of federal employees. The governments hands are tied, they can't fire anyone, and if there's no work, they just sit around and do whatever they want. The federal bureaucracy is absolutely bloated, and there's really nothing anyone can do about it. They get amazing pay, amazing benefits, amazing retirement, and if they screw up, there is really nothing you can do to them.
> Then how do strictness annotations (and/or module flags) not solve this problem?

Strictness annotations (and associated pragmas) only change the strictness of constructors and functions defined in my modules. I still have to reason about laziness as I use almost anything from the Haskell ecosystem.
In dit gezond dieet programma eet je niet minder wél anders
Does your database transparently DMA the buffer cache to the NIC after loading the file in the background using read-ahead without any process context switching or upcalls to userland?

That's what I thought.

https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=sendfile&sektion=2

http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/sendfile.2.html
I wonder if that existed as a thing beyond the normal linguistic drift. I see a lot of linguistic drift in my families genealogy research. It continues to the present day which is awash in Jaxsons, Kathrinns, Mykels, Jessikya/Jessyka/Jessekas, and Camrinns. Those are all from my daughter's recently received elementary school yearbook.

Sort of like a long time ago tattoos were super rebellious, but times have changed and now not having a tattoo is being hyper rebellious, misspelling your kids name or playing phonetics games used to be rebellious but now times have changed and it would be hyper rebellious to name your kid "John". I didn't misspell my daughter's name at all, and now she doesn't fit in.

Cultural drift in names is not new at all. Decades ago I dated a girl with a legal name right out of Tolkien's Silmarillion. A former boss dated a daughter of a hippie with the first name "Marijuana", which is so rare it might be doxxable. At least some gen-x kids received rare names.

Also in my genealogical research a lot of German, or generally axis powers, names disappeared around WW1 and WW2 for obvious reasons. They had immigrated a century ago and their grand kids dropped a lot of European vowels and consonants, making my genealogical research extra complicated. You might be amazed at the prefixes some -smiths or -schneiders used to have. My handful of Irish ancestors randomly added and subtracted letter O and some vowels, also.
"I have at least briefly looked at a number of them."

So you are wanting to build a new init system from scratch and you haven't taken the time to see all the stuff that already exists? I mean if this is just a project you want to do go for it but if you are seriously trying to build something for others you know whats out there and why people choose one over the other beyond just systemd and sys V.
> The name "AND" is just as opaque as "Hadamard", if taken by itself

It's great that "AND" is not taken by itself. It very much helps that AND comes from our language. The AND gate is named after "and" which is an English concept.

The word 'and' is used to group two things that will happen together. For example: "I will go to the park and go to the pool." This is much like the AND gate which only turns on after the two inputs turn on.

Unfortunately "Hadamard" is not part of the English language.

> The problem is that nearly everything on quantum physics is so profoundly unfamiliar that we cannot map these concepts and operations to familiar words

There is no simple way to explain this in laymen terms? From what the Wikipedia article says I doubt that [1].

Why not just call it a "map basis states" operations? That's what the Wikipedia article implies it does.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadamard_transform#Quantum_com...
You don't think some startup will not take fees? Who is paying for infrastructure and salaries?
Jerry also bought the Alibaba shares in 2001 which is the reason why Yahoo is even alive.

After he left, Yahoo made the mistake of selling half of the Alibaba which are worth $36 Billion.
Gunman opens fire on GOP baseball practice injuring Rep. Steve Scalise
Finding Pareto-Optimal Blogs on Hacker News
Something like a Louisiana literacy test!
Five ES6 features to make your life easier
What this article is missing is the word "decouple". Cryptocurrencies decouple the many roles that are involved in maintaining and using a currency. It doesn't "solve" governance issues, it breaks them into smaller issues that can be (and should be) tackled in isolation.

Anyone who doesn't see this and argues "we should just go back to the way we were doing things before" is missing the point.
For what it's worth, I think Mapbox's vector tiles can be stored in around 48GiB of RAM, which is perfectly within reason for a server. It's also the sort of data which is simple to shard. They can have multiple geolocated databases for a local area, and maybe fewer for international queries. This can be done pretty simply at the load balancer level.
I appreciate your response, it helped me understand your prior point a little better.

You seem to be making a pretty large assumption, I have to contest. You're assuming that the end goal is for cryptocurrency to posture as a classical token of exchange of value. This has been put forward before, and continues to be put forward. With Bitcoin alone, I understand that its a valid assumption. Looking at Ethereum I see something different.

It's possible to use ETH as an exchange of value, but that is not the sole limit of its use. It, by the nature of smart contracts, seems to run counter to the basis of classical business: trust. Using the system to validate contracts prevents the inherent need for trust amongst parties because the system will handle the terms regardless of whether or not you care to abide by the terms. In these cases, a programmer will take on a bit of a pseudo-attorney role, having each side reliant on the aptitude of their programmer to be able to determine if the terms will be carried out as described by the originator of the contract. "Will it do what they say it will?" If so, carry on. The other side can represent every inscrutable characteristic in a person, but if the contract is laid out properly you can safely do business with them.

What I described can surely be the basis for a new variety of scandal, but that is the next bridge to cross.

I'm not an economist, but I don't see the need for monetary policy of it isn't supposed to just be money.

I'd like to hear any further thoughts you have, given the alternative context I provided.

I'd also like to recommend having a quick look at the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance. It boasts a large range of members, with some of the founding members including giants of tech as it is: Intel & Microsoft.
A few large financial players have also joined up: JP Morgan, ING, Credit Suisse, BNY Mellon.
I can't speak for the motivations of any of these organizations, but they see enough value to have launched an organization to spur development on and of the technology.

https://entethalliance.org/about/
https://entethalliance.org/members/

edit: Also just came across this in the news, for yet another approach http://www.reuters.com/article/us-thomsonreuters-blockchain-...
> [systemd] easily the most attractive feature in Ubuntu 16.04 LTS.

For me it is as well, I really miss it when working with a Ubuntu 14.04 box.

I have not found a single downside to systemd, really.
Stupid question, but would wearing a baseball cap help?
I think his point is about reinventing the wheel due to insufficient theoretical background.
Thanks, had no idea! Instead I was wondering why HN Special broke for the second time in the past few months without the extension getting an upgrade.
Java XML Parsing, Transforming, Printing, and Validating, 0.19 Released
Which is where we come in the loop, logging for wood instead of burning. It's when we suppress fires and don't thin the forest that there's dangerous fuel accumulation.
Far better to educate the general public so well that such a test becomes redundant, than to live in a society where such a test is necessary.
systemd is not perfect. Debugging systemd is still very hard. There is no way to simulate what actions would be performed to reach a target without actually executing them. There are plenty of issues related to boot and shutdown which are _hard_ to track down because of this.

The journal is nice, especially on desktop systems, but it's way too slow to be used in any moderately busy system. The disk space utilization is also _prohibitive_ for archival.

We still rely on remote syslog because of this, but it's not without issues: the journal->syslog translation is lossy, and it's compounded with some "quirky" upstream decisions (purely cosmetic) to write unit descriptions in the log as opposed to the real unit name which make tracking down units harder if you don't have the actual journal file.

Journal files also get corrupted easily with unclean shutdown. In case of issues (from software to hardware), the local journal quickly becomes completely useless.

All in all, systemd is an improvement, but it lacks the debugging tools, performance and overall polish you would expect from a central piece of software such as init.

The internal APIs are mostly undocumented or self-referential. The DBus interface is opaque. Things gets muddy very fast as soon as you touch non-central components such as systemd-resolved or networkd.

I'm not a detractor, but there are many things systemd can still improve, but it feels we're kind of stuck. I'm quite happy if we have some competition here.
Finally someone is doing this! I've been toying with the idea myself but haven't been able to dedicate time to it, mostly I was deterred by the MS Word format mess. I'm sure it wasn't fun making this work with a 21st century versioning system.

I'm sure lots of people will happily throw money at you for this!
Planning with Purpose: How to Start Your App Process on the Right Foot
> They get amazing pay

Who gets amazing pay? How much are we talking about? I don't know about the USA, but usually public employees don't earn that much (in exchange for high job security).
The problem is that at the point where there is a trusted party to arbitrate disputes why do you need a blockchain? It seems ironic that it seems like we need some trusted governance over a system that is literally built upon the idea of distributed trust.
Imagine if unions were strong and IT were unionized. How would you imagine the progress we've seen in information technology?

The impact on progress should not be discounted as an externality. Imagine if taxicabs or any livery service of any kind had to have a union member associated with it. Would autonomous cars make the same progress (for example, we can have autonomous subways/trains but they have to be "personned" due to pressure from unions). Or, imagine if we had them in research (drugs discovery) --the added bureaucracy researchers would have to manage and devote valuable time to.

I am not saying unionization is absolutely bad --they have brought good things about to workplace improvement, but they also have externalities we need to acknowledge.
So this is the cost, what about the effectiveness? How does it stack up against the millions paid in traditional campaign outreach?
Go to about:config and add the weirdly-named boolean "browser.tabs.remote.force-enable", set to true. Restart FF.

Addons won't be disabled, but they might not work properly. If you see misbehaving extensions, install the Add-on Compatibility Reporter extension, then report by either:

* going to the Addons/Extensions screen and clicking "Report Issue" near the misbehaving extension

* clicking on the green puzzle piece now in your main toolbar, clicking on the X near the extension name, and then hitting the Submit button at the bottom.

The latter will also send a report saying the other extensions are actually good, so I would do it only after making sure you've somewhat tested all of them.

(All this was learnt today by insistent experimentation; the Addon Compat Reporter could do with some extra documentation or hints on what to do.)
16 tips to earn a table featured snippet