skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
". Large programs written in statically typed languages are orders of magnitute more readable, more maintainable, easier to understand, and far less error-prone, than programs written in dynamically typed languages."

That's your belief, not a fact.

> The recent surge in popularity of dynamically typed languages like JavaScript, Python, Ruby, etc, had been a source of horror and frustration to me. It feels like a huge segment industry is throwing away decades of advancement made in programming language research,

It is exactly the opposite. Mainstream programming languages are recently catching up with features that are more advanced but weren't popular before, like functional programming, metaprogramming and dynamic programming.
I think there are a lot of opportunities for indie development. We build a lot of more-story elderly housing and in those you have a doorbell and gate opening system. This used to be pretty costly because you needed a professional system with wiring and what not.

These days we do it with IoT. Basically we run our own private and encrypted internet, LoraWAN, and we setup a small $10 door control in each apartment which connects to the main door via our slow private net.

The components and software was developed by a single student at a hackaton.

Similarly we have a lot of town history on record. We've given people access to this, and a group of student went around town setting up 957 little Bluetooth transmitters which emit these stories to their app all over town.

Another example is a medicine cabin that monitors it patients/elders take their meds and automatically alarms staff if they don't which is something we offer today. The plastic bag and electronics that does it were developed by a small local bakery with two employees.

I do agree with you in that some areas are going to require google sized companies. But things like the raspberry pi and all these small/cheap "standard" components which anyone can build themselves are really shaping up to change a lot of things and it's not big companies who are driving it forward.
The Shuttle was a:

(X) reusable vector

(_) non reusable vector

Technicalities of the hows doesn't change that reusing stuff was already done extensively
Because there's lots of discussion about legally coerced access to data that's managed by tech companies -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14615414 was on the front page yesterday -- and this is an instance where law-enforcement tried to use those legal authorities to try to get FB to cough up data with rather untoward intent.
The apology is well crafted - Pulitzer Prize material but it doesn't seem connected to reality. Maybe it's even a little over the top; it's hard to believe that someone who could behave like this could experience such profound feelings of remorse. It sounds like he is sorry for being caught.
"In a nutshell, the US government claims it should not matter where the data is stored. What matters is whether the company can access that data in the US."

Ugh, not that I like the idea, I kind of think they are correct.
Only in a vague sense. The 256 byte window can't be relocated. Most instructions (boolean and ALU) only leave results in the accumulator, not RAM. (Inc/dec are an exception, but very slow). Internal registers are used to index zero page bc it can't index itself. Direct, arbitrary access to 16 bit address space is also possible without updating a memory pointer via additional write instruction. (The zero page is basically a parallel set of instructions with eight zeros in the upper 8 bits off address).
$1M is nothing for such a huge company...
Agree with you. Too many myths!
That sound like a not very fun game, and I'd try and find other people to hang out with.

Honestly, this is one of the things I didn't realize when I was younger. There are lots of people in the world, the majority of them I probably wouldn't like to hang out with (at least in a social group). It takes time and effort to find people who you like and want to be friends with.
Talking about what you're working on and being a douche are entirely orthogonal.

I feel like you have this whole interaction framework in mind (a certain social context). If you were to explain that you might get more useful answers.

On the other hand perhaps enough people can guess the situation you're in such that you get useful answers.
I understand why you feel that way. I've put together an alternative explanation of monads that I'd love some feedback on: http://www.ahnfelt.net/monads-forget-about-bind/
Unless they are vaguely techy, i generally just say "with computers", or perhaps "safeguarding data for disaster recovery, for a company in Movies/Advertising"
Gosh, thanks.
Clickbait is deceptively framing an piece (article, video, audio) through description and/or graphics to create an anticipation or misunderstanding, deliberately.

Mischaracterising a story about A to be about some topical interest B would fall into that category.

Among the more annoying forms (one I disagreed with dang on a couple of days ago) is using a deliberately vague title (the book by the author in this case was far more clearly described).

One I particularly dislike is using more words to not tell you what something is about than what actually telling you what it was about would have required.

Any title telling me how I should feel or respond also gets an automatic flag: "Shocking..." "You will..." "You won't...", etc. Fuck you and stop telling me what to do.
No-one claimed that.
The only significant shortcoming of the Nix language is the lack of static types. Guix doesn't fix this. In fact there isn't an existing language in common use that offers statically-typed extensible records, which IMHO vindicates the bespoke approach.
One of my favourite sound systems is Room 1 at Fabric in London, they have subs under the floor to help ease the strain on the main rig.
> The only upside... is Facebook refused to hand over the information
From my understanding, the type of parachutes necessary for this, and the associated hardware needed for their safe deployment, are quite heavy and complicated.
It's around my cousins who are engineers or trying to be engineers. They always try to 'compete' with me even though I don't with them, I'm just doing what I love doing.

I just asked here to learn from the community for future reference.
Well with the beeing a dick game I can't help, maybe just stop playing that.

Other than that, for people not in the field:

- keep it short

- if you want to tell more, pick something easy to explain, maybe even relatable (you can build a bridge with some comparison for that) and rather interesting (most things are interesting in some details).
A friend of mine often expresses similar sentiments.

My normal reaction is to ask "what would you have instead of politicians?". He has problems forming a coherent answer.

What would your answer be?
More important than the Internet? More important than computers? More important than electricity? That's ridiculous.
And whenever they launch a NASA payload, they get the extra telemetry and video support which allows videos like this:

https://youtu.be/1sJlFzUQVmY
That's so repulsive I don't think a mere downvote is enough.

That's a horrific character assassination of a man who did nothing wrong. Even if he were a hardened criminal (which he was not), cops are not judge and jury and it is repugnant to suggest they have the right to execute someone for having traffic tickets.
Ponder this: the number 15 exists but isn't material. It is an extrapolated common property of physical systems. The number $2^789 - 53$ exists but isn't material; and you've never seen a physical system which embodies that number, but there could plausibly be one.

Why could your consciousness not similarly be an extrapolated property of a physical system, without being physical itself?
Apparently there's a fork by Orwell (Johan Mes) updated in 2015 which does support C++11. I still wouldn't use it, though.
The important thing here is, that fmt.Printf is just a function which takes a string and a variable amount of interface{} parameters. There is nothing in the language spec which creates a type correlation. the "%s" denotes a string parameter to print is solely some inner working of the Printf function. Yes, you can special case fmt.Printf, as some compilers do, but given the standard go vet tool, I rather think it belongs there than into the compiler, which, following the Go philosophy, exactly understands the Go language and precisely compiles that.
Enterprise customers have support. It's not as feasible in the consumer space, the volume would be overwhelming.
In this case, it's family so I really can't. I get the feeling that they feel intimidated by me by the fact that I am a dropout with better career prospects than them who have degrees and can't get an interview. Life is full of irony.
“Yanez was acquitted and Philando Castile is still dead -- a man who did nothing more than try to comply with an officer's orders.”

That’s a bold claim. If we watch the video, we can see the officer repeatedly saying “stay away from the gun.” It’s not clear what’s happening, but I can at least say I don’t know for sure what did in this tragic case.
While you persist on your belief system, a big, award-winning code controlled the NASA Deep Space One out in space for several days. Done 100% in a dynamic language.

A really big and complex program, is right now doing airline planning for over 800 companies, taking into account 4000 airports. To get an idea of the complexity look at this pdf:

http://www.demarcken.org/carl/papers/ITA-software-travel-com...

Both examples are software programmed in a dynamically typed language, Common Lisp.

And in that highly dynamic language, should any bug appear in production, it can be patched without stopping the system and of course without having to recompile the whole code. This bears repeating:

The system can be patched without stopping it and of course without having to recompile the whole code. That is, patched at runtime by correcting the offending function and re-attaching the new version of that function to the running system.

Try doing that with your favorite statically-typed language.

Your arguments are just common beliefs of the typical developer who is lacking more experience in the field of developing real-world systems. You are just regurgitating common myths, and in the process, calling "fucked up mentally" people probably wiser (more experienced and learned) than you.

And BTW,

If you think all dynamic languages are equal to javascript, which is not only dynamically typed but also weakly typed, then you need to try more dynamic languages. For example strongly typed dynamic languages.

I wish i had $1 everytime a developer mixes up "dynamic typing" with "weak typing"
I don't play, I just stand there.

I've thought about it some and the only real thing to do is 'show HN'...go from something I'm working on to a viable company. Done.
Chutes also have almost zero utility for a vehicle the size of the ITS when landing on Mars.

Every single thing they're doing in this program is prep for Mars.
This is revolting.

Do the police just get to go to a judge and literaly say "blah blah blah we want a warrant" and the judge goes "OK"? Because it sure does feel like it sometimes.

In this case FB seems to have done right by its users (or tried to). However is that always going to be the case? Are they always going to be willing, are they always going to find their rebuttal in the hands of someone who is friendly to their argument?
Be happy disengaging from the game with non-competitive responses like "yeah probably no one will use it, but mostly I just want to have fun" or "Yeah it sounds like a waste, but I get my paycheck".
The concepts of 'qualia' and 'lifeworld' are not directly comparable. Qualia are qualitative aspects of experiences, but lifeworlds are complexes of objects associated to a 'perspective' which operates on them (and possibly constitutes them) - essentially subjective worlds. The point of contact between those ideas is this: different lifeworlds could include the same objects but have a different qualitative character. The trick is that saying that the objects in two different lifeworlds are the same might make the assumption that the objects are 'given' (then, the qualitative aspect would be extrinsic to them). But if the subject of the lifeworld actively constitutes the objects of the world the objects could be different anyway, because those qualitative aspects would be intrinsic.

Imagine a meadow. An insect experiences differently than a girl who is picking flowers, and both experience it differently than a cow who pastures (I think this is Uexkull's [who introduced the notion of Lebenswelt] own example). We might assume that beyond those lifeworlds there is a real world that grounds them and includes the objects that they . But it is not clear that the objects in all those worlds are the same, because the cognition of the insect, the cow and the girl might carve the world in different ways.

Btw, historically, similar ideas where explored by William James around the same time the early phenomenologists and proto-phenomenologists (like Brentano), and James' influence through pragmatism fed back into analytic philosophy. Mainstream analytic philosophers more or less abandoned the idea for a while because of the influence of behaviorism (e.g. Ryle), but I don't think it was ever entirely expurged.
Try to find an angle that the listener might find interesting, rather than trying to puff it up to make it sound as cool as possible.

For instance:
I was working with the development team for Time.com to fix a major security vulnerability. It basically took 3 days of staying up all night debugging and going back and forth with their team, and we finally found it - some dumbass included a javascript library that has a well known bug hidden in a minified mess.

Why is this bad? Namedropping (time.com), puffing it up to sound bigger than it is (debugging something for three days is perfectly normal, if you're staying up all night then it's down to your own poor time management), name calling and blaming others (the dumbass), jargon (javascript library, minified), assuming knowledge that there's no reason for them to have (well-known).

Instead: I got to work with one of our really big clients to figure out a security vulnerability that was really stumping everyone. We spent a couple of days debugging it, so that's probably why I've had my head in a cloud lately because I've just been thinking about it non-stop. In the end, we found a bug hidden in a really big block of third party code that's written in a way that makes it very tough for humans to read it, but luckily it's a known bug that some other company had documented, and someone found a blog post about it that let us connect up the dots. All six of us working on it were really relieved when we figured it out!

Why better - gives credit to others, explains why it was difficult, doesn't use any technical language, leaves openings for more questions (why is the code hard for humans to read? who was the big client?), doesn't try to exaggerate the severity of it.
"Poets, musicians, or artists might arguably be able to get at it, through some indirect means."

It's worth being explicit that poets can only even attempt to communicate these things to other humans, since human consciousnesses share a very large common base of properties. Similarly, affection is something most mammals [seem to] experience, but only because we've had a common number of millions of years of evolution, meaning that our brains are built to follow the same patterns; affection is not logically entailed by consciousness any more than the sensation of "red" is.
the point is, I don't think this shows a problem, and I'm not sure, that even if you do admit a problem that the solution is any closer, potentially it's going to get worse. When we look at the big issues of the day, people see lots of problems and are trying to solve them with bad information often with lots of sound bite statistics. A lot of people here on HN would know the problems of simplified statistics don't really tell the story that it seems to be telling. A far better analysis is needed. But even with the best science, evidence, and analysis, we can still be a long long way from people even starting on working on a solution.
I've spent my first 15 years in video games, then 2.5 years in Google, and I'm moving again to video games.

I'll stick to C++, IDEs and BUILD files.

Before any project, it was Turbo/Borland Pascal and TPU files. No real projects, but it was very easy to use a module, no header files, just "Use Something;" done. C# carried that in there, and Java too.

Then for C++ it was first a simple text files with what to compile, later Makefiles (I still love them), .vcproj, .vcxproj/.sln, scons, cmake, qmake, qbs, custom tailored makefiles, etc. I've never found any of these good, until I used Blaze (Bazel on the outside) at Google (alternatively generate-ninja (gn) for Chromium/Fuchsia, close but not the same).

So what do I like about BUILD files, Bazel and WORKSPACES? It's simply this:

cc_library(
name = "my_lib",
srcs = [ "one.cc", "two.cc" ] # has glob() too
hdrs = [ "one.h", "two.h" ]
deps = [ "//base/something:project" ], # // is like a root for all projects.
)

No transitive dependencies, e.g. if A depends on B, B on C, A can't use "C" just because B did. A also needs to declare it. It takes a while to convince yourself, but then it becomes clear why this is done so.

Bazel (blaze) gets a little bit harder to use if you target different platforms (say ps2, ps3, ps4, xbox, wii, pc, etc.), but there is way to declare that, in this respect GN is much easier, just use "if (is_pc) {}" in the declarations (they are BUILD-like), and you are done.

I just bought the IntelliJ package /yearly, got CLion, also some other things, and started using it for home projects. It comes with bazel support (plugin), so that helps.

--

On the other hand there is QtCreator, Visual Studio (the current free version is almost like professional except CodeLens), then some more experimental ones like the Juce's Projucer, and plenty more.
Seems to be pretty clear that the officer was paranoid and shot him without any real reason other than in the officers imagination.
The Code is the Model
I'm not sure uncanny valley is the right term for this though I see the analogy.

Rather, I think it's yet another case where success (or at least impressive advances) in a narrow domain gets conflated with something much broader. Because if a human can do A they're clearly at least on the cusp of doing B and C too m

In the case of our digital personal assistants they've actually gotten pretty good at voice recognition, at least given certain parameters of accents etc. But what that means is that they're good at recognizing appropriate wizard incantations and taking the corresponding action. Get off script? It's worse than talking to one of those outsourced call centers we all hate.
My ears think so too, but upsampling by just 2 is roughly the same difficulty as upsampling an image by 2. As you probably know, you can't just CIA-like "ENHANCE" an image to double its resolution and expect its noise level to be lower than, I don't know, 10 decibels (of image brightness). Yet our ears can notice noise as low as 40-50 decibels, so it would be nearly impossible to reconstruct higher frequencies so that the result has no noticeable noise.

In this research, the author is attempting to upsample by a bit more than 2.
Having developed and sold virtual agents for Watson, this is one of the major issue I faced. I had to make it clear to our customers (and especially to the sales and marketing teams) that agents only work in a narrow domain, whose boundaries would need to be clear to the user. But often that got lost in translation and expectations were never met (especially in the early days of Watson when our PR was out of control).

This said, it's not as limited as the author makes it. There are classes of open requests that can be handled directly from content (i.e. not like an expert system or IVR but more like a very smart NL search) without having to identify a precise intent. The Jeopardy system was a perfect example of that, and Google is now able to answer many question types (not just factoids but also questions with long answers like how-to) directly from the content.

Dialog is the real limiting factor. Right now most dialog in production is scripted, with some smart feature like slot filling, but still much closer to an expert system than a statistical example based system.
Submission statement: Computational models in science are traditionally created with a clear separation of specification and implementation in mind. In this paper, I challenge this view, at least in the context of agent-based simulations. Inspired by agile software engineering, I claim "the code is the model".
> The 256 byte window can't be relocated.

That's true, but that doesn't change the principle. Other processors (like the 6809 for instance) used the same model and could relocate the 'zero' page.

> Most instructions (boolean and ALU) only leave results in the accumulator, not RAM.

Yes, but that's the way this is supposed to work. A, X and Y are scratch with the real results held in 'quick access' zero page variables.

> (The zero page is basically a parallel set of instructions with eight zeros in the upper 8 bits off address).

Yes, and this was explicitly designed in such a way to offset the rather limited register file of the CPU.

In the 6809 it was called the 'direct' page, and in that form it was a lot more usable since you could do a complete context switch with a single load (which the 6809 operating system OS/9 used to good effect).
Oscilloscope music. The idea is that you display the left and right channels on an oscilloscope in XY mode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XziuEdpVUe0
Yeah, that's usually true. But, initial purchase price dictates rental price in a competitive market, which most of the hubs for filmmaking and TV production are. So, a $10k camera rental will cost an order of magnitude less than a $100k camera rental, all other things being equal (all other things aren't exactly equal, but still, it'll cost a lot less).
That's just impressive for being minimalistic, not for what it does. We had better faxes at least 50 years earlier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fax#Wire_transmission), and (lousy) television using the same principle at about the same time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_television)
Obvious follow up question: soviet tech is easy to come by, at least the kind that's now used in dozens of countries. How is the missile not designed to be effective against the most likely target? Surely Raytheon must have a dozen versions of Russian and European flare dispensers and not just the US kind?
And when they don't shoot them they get fired:

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2016/09/11/Weirton-...
I ask what they're working on first, and then listen.
Anonymous coward indeed. What's in it for you? Why on earth would you want to peddle this crap?
Machat: An open source pure Go TCP chat server, now supports websockets
It helps if you throw around phrases like "based on my training and experience" but yes, there's plenty of judges who act like literal rubber stamps when it comes to warrants. This is why "due process" doesn't necessarily mean too much, because a lot of the time it's just a case of the law-enforcement agent finding the right judge to show the warrant application to.