skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> So, for a small development cycle, you add in some new tests that will be this cycle's "wall" of failing tests that you flip to passing.

That's not right either. There is no "wall". Writing tests helps you write the code which helps you write better tests. It's mutual recursion, not a one-way waterfall.
I think you are right. But I want to point out that most college educated people know there is a tianmen incident. They may view it as a unlawful riot, instead of what believed by western people.

My statement "I highly doubt anyone in China now believe that did not happen" seems too rush and was from my own experience only, because I learned Tianmen incident in college.

Or I should say most people eventually will be ignorant about what's tianmen incident. They neither believe it happened or not happened, they simply have no such idea, like in an alternative universe.
Where's the design? (To me TDD was always championed to help specifically with Design as much as the vague Development. When using the vague Development too loosely you run into a recursive problem because writing tests is itself development so do you use TDD for your tests?)

Depending on how seriously you take the step of writing a unit test that reproduces the bug, you may be forced to refactor quite a lot of code to get that buggy section under test. Writing the test first can help guide your refactoring to avoid mocking the runtime world. But you're not designing anything, and it was all driven by the bug report.
I left a previous position largely because my boss was a psychopath.

It's one thing to "simplify", and gloss over the details of what other people did.

It's quite another to invert the basic nature of something that you did.
The SR-71 definitely did produce sonic booms, there is a Stackexchange thread about it here: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/17661/can-a-son...

They also point out that the space shuttle flew even higher and still made booms.

I think the lack of complaints for the SR-71 may be more due to the fact that it didn't fly very often, and that people had more understanding for the need for military aviation to be supersonic.
They don't have property taxes, vehicle licensing fees, or gasoline taxes?
Show HN: An easy way to convert time
It's been a while since I read the series, but it was one of my favorites. Every time a read a story about using ML to predict human behavior I think about Foundation and psychohistory. I don't know how you could put this kind of story on screen though. Maybe it would work in an anthology style with each season having a new cast.
The readme file actually contains a fairly thorough description of how it differs from quicksort. Start with the section titled "the best case".
This is a really good point. I was thinking a while ago about the role of teachers in this context and why they're so necessary, especially in this day and age where there are online tutorials for everything.

I was taught how to code from early on (6th grade), and most of my learning of programming (which I would distinguish from computer science) happened as we worked on projects/built things.

I can't tell you how many times I saw other students get stuck on bugs along the way during development and get really frustrated with programming (I saw this when I was a student, and later when I taught others how to code).

What always helped was having teachers/instructors who could easily help students work through those roadblocks so they didn't get stuck and holed up on one thing. Not really the traditional teacher that just stays up and lectures at students but rather one that also spends time getting in there and working alongside them to some extent.

Traditional classrooms/lectures are structured from the ancient days where students went to listen to a professor speak and jot down whatever the lecturer orated. But now, especially with programming, the emphasis is more on building, and so that changes what the instructor really does in the classroom (just "lecturing" vs "facilitating" and "supporting").

Probably a long-winded way of the same point you just made, but I just thought I'd elaborate since it's interesting to me. Some of my friends say that these online courses are 100% independently viable but I am not convinced that they are a suitable replacement for teachers (though I recognize it really depends on the students and how independently motivated or how prone to getting burned out they are...).

Just my 2cents...
Reading between the lines it would appear that they are so far from having anything that flies that they're still willing to redesign their engine and presumably plane as a result.

(And yet they have the hubris to talk about how much a ticket will cost)
Ask HN: Why do companies not run internal accelerators?
Since ycombinator model is fairly successful, why do companies like Google, Apple, Yahoo not run same programs internally? I mean, instead of letting employees with ideas leave, they could vet the ideas, give them salary for 3-6 months and then see what products one can build. Are there any barriers to this kind of innovation?
What I took away is that while plenty of poor people might believe/agree with thought leaders, it's the rich who enable them, by giving them a platform. I'd say the article is not so much academics vs. "thought leaders" as it is intellectuals (i.e. people who apply a critical lens to their chosen objects of study) vs. eloquent bullshitters (i.e. people who have one idea and dogmatically try to fit it to everything, and evangelically try to convince people that they're right. There are plenty of both inside and outside academia.
* Friends / Family

* Divorce support groups

* Church (you don't really have to believe)

I imagine it's something I can't truly understand from the outside.

Probably an oversimplified article for a man/woman but it has some good points: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-patton/what-smart-women...
This is also why carriers like agents so much. Agents effectively act as a first screen for carriers that allows carriers to turn away customers in a way that they can't legally do through their policies. Ie "encouraging" agents to send business from certain neighborhoods to other carriers or agents.

This is a discriminatory practice but every carrier does it because it's a way to circumvent the public nature of their filings, and it's another hurdle that startups will need to overcome, particularly if they're doing online distribution where adverse selection is a more pronounced risk.
These problems are effectively solved from a grassy knoll or book depository window. Not so effectively solved by "legal process" it seems.

tldr; new judge!
> they're going to bother with doing it multiple times, for free

You are aware you are talking about the cost of a single HTTP GET?
If you just now discovered market segmentation,you should probably start with a business class before jumping into payday loans.
Yeah, in that context startups aren't really companies. They're proofs of executive competence. As a side benefit, if they are successful it enables the executives to self-capitalize.
Didn't know about this. Landing page says

> Good Credit Not Required.

> Instant decision.

Wow.
Too much to learn for too little benefit.

It all depends on what you want out of life.
> UDP does not have connections, but the OS does have a concept of UDP connections to a degree in the form of packet filtering/routing.

The filtering is completely optional to use.

> Point being, if you send a DNS request (for example), the source IP/port and dest IP/port is how the OS will decide which packets to route back to you when the DNS server responds.

That depends on how the requesting resolver has configured the socket.

> If the responding DNS server changes the source port, the OS will not route that packet to the original socket because the source port does not match.

That depends on how the requesting resolver has configured the socket.

> You can still make it work, but you would have to be already listening for packets from that port (one way or another), so you would have to know beforehand they are going to be using a different port.

Yes, obviously you have to know the application protocol you are trying to speak and how it uses UDP before you try to speak it.

> You still have to get the packets though, and the OS had no idea about any application layer routing.

Which is why application layer routing is called application layer routing.

> If you want to get UDP packets from a bunch of different ports, you have to be listening on those ports.

No, you listen on local ports, not on remote ports.

> If you want to be more correct, replace "connection" with "socket" in my original comment.

Well, technically, some minor details would be more correct - but the fundamental assumption that you can only receive datagrams from one remote address/port with a given socket is just completely and utterly wrong, and not just in the sense that it's a theoretical possibility, but it's a perfectly normal use case. To take an obvious example, a common configuration for an OpenVPN server is to accept authenticated packets from any remote address and automatically switch to changing remote addresses for the sending direction, so when the client changes addresses, the OpenVPN session just keeps going.

As long as you don't connect() a datagram socket in the BSD sockets API, you will receive datagrams from any remote address (and you'll have to specify remote addresses using sendto() when transmitting).
What if a thousand people get together and put $100 each in the blockchain in order to cover emergencies for the unlucky 10% that may need aid in times of distress?

A society can't function if more than 10% of the population is in distress and that's exactly the purpose of insurance, the many helping the few, not the other way around.

But since insurance moves a lot of money (just like banking) and there is propensity to fraud and corruption, then it is highly regulated making it hard for newcomers to disrupt the market.

Start from the beginning again using technology, allow tech insurers to take from 100 and serve 10, that's it. Who to serve? That's the easy part, those in need.
The DRM-free "Masters of Doom" audiobook is currently (expires July 10-ish) included in the "Hackers, Gamers & Geeks" Humble Books Bundle for $15, along with a bunch of other video game history audiobooks, including "Prepare to Meet Thy Doom: And More True Gaming Stories" also by by David Kushner at the $8 level.

https://www.humblebundle.com/books/hackers-gamers-geeks-audi...
OK, I'll try. :-)

Are there good reasons to believe that obscurity (ie, keeping secret the means and methods of attack) is likely to be a viable defense in favor of civility and justice in the age to come?
While some may shun Ayn Rand for her raw view of capitalism, if you read Atlas Shrugged, she does do a good job of calling out this "arcane unintelligibility"
this comment, for a start.
Show HN: FullContact Dossier – Know who are you meeting
>Sure, but it requires some fairly complex software to do so and manual input of tons of different data specific to your insurance contract that almost nobody wants to do it

Can someone quantify the value added by having this complexity baked into the system? Is there any advantage besides the "confusopoly" aspect?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusopoly

Who is the main benefactor (in $$$) behind the drive for complication of medical billing? Doctors? Medical Office Receptionists? Insurance companies? Other third parties that doctors hire to handle paperwork?

What are the benefits supposed to be over whatever we were using in 1975? If you were founding a clinic on Mars for the first colony, would anyone duplicate our current system of medical billing?
> Someone could still create a single app that plugs into many cities' existing ride services

Probably called "Google".
I try to run or bike several times per week. Will be adding tennis soon if I can. What seems to affect my sleep is occasional restless leg. I have to get up and do stretches or use something like the TigerTail to be able to stop the nerves from firing off. I'll toss and turn if I don't address it.
> The air travel industry is a _great_ example of what happens when you don't simply blame the human, but look to fix the true problems that caused the human to make a mistake.

Contrast to my company:

Our phones require you to dial "9" to get out of the building, and then "1" to dial long distance. A lot of my coworkers are foreign and in the process of trying to dial a cell phone number (international or otherwise) accidentally dial "911". When they realize their mistake, they hang up, not having grown up in America and learning to stay on the line and tell the operator that you made a mistake.

Company response? Threatening emails, verbal and written company-wide wrist slaps, and stickers on every phone that say not to hang up if you dial 911 or you'll get in trouble.

As a result people are now afraid of dialing long-distance numbers and so they simply avoid it.

Imagine if the company had instead tried to correct the true issue causing the errors (poor phone routing numbers)?
The real problem is that Hong Kong is a finance and trading hub. And it became so because it was the easiest way to do business with China.

But business likes stability. The democracy protests have done nothing for Hong Kong, and now that China's eased access to their market through Shanghai, Hong Kong's entire raison d'être is at risk.

Also, the article is pretty spot on in other ways. Once upon a time, Hong Kong students were guaranteed success by virtue of being born there. Now, they need to compete with mainlanders, which of course is a much larger pool.

And finally, 20 years ago China wanted to build up Hong Kong as a model for it's 2 systems 1 country philosophy. However the democracy protests have all but killed that, so the Chinese will gladly simply build up Shanghai to Hong Kong's detriment, and no amount of democracy or separatism will fix it.
As I understand the GPL, they would need to provide source code to people they distribute binaries to...

So in practice, they are probably complying with the GPL.
its not so much that they are serializing all messages through a single thread, but that they are consistently routing messages (duplicates and all) into separate shards that are processed by a single thread.
Women in 1940-1950s in Black and White Photos by Nina Leen
We're doing much that at Neos at the moment. We've taken a series A mostly funded by a couple of big insurance companies who are interested in what we can introduce to the market.
California lawmakers have tried for 50 years to fix the state’s housing crisis
Successful attempt at engineering cringe.
There are multiple reasons I don't include Timsort in my README benchmark graph:

1. There is no authoritative implementation of Timsort in C++. In the bench directory I included https://github.com/gfx/cpp-TimSort, but I don't know the quality of that implementation.

2. pdqsort intends to be the algorithm of choice of a system unstable sort. In other words, a direct replacement for introsort for std::sort. So std::sort is my main comparison vehicle, and anything else is more or less a distraction. The only reason I included std::stable_sort in the benchmark is to show that unstable sorting is an advantage for speed for those unaware.

But, since you're curious, here's the benchmark result with Timsort included on my machine: http://i.imgur.com/tSdS3Y0.png

This is for sorting integers however, I expect Timsort to become substantially better as the cost of a comparison increases.
In my experience anyone who wants to be politically enlightened in China can be. There's simply no plugging every single hole in the great firewall, or stopping verbal exchange of knowledge. The june fourth incident, as they call it, is very well known and every year on that day there's a flurry of awareness activism, swiftly (but not really punitively) repressed.

In my opinion it will actually get better in time. The country is not in as precarious a position as it was back then, and with the progression of stabilisation, the need to suppress embarrassing parts of history will hopefully diminish. I certainly doubt something like that could happen again.

And you might know that censorship can take different forms. The CCP has historically taken a heavy-handed approach; other countries are more subtle, but they de-emphasize and bury. I personally think that Japan's systematic memory-hole-ing of its WWII exploits is far worse than the Tiananmen suppression. And what percentage of Americans do you think know about Kent State? Dresden? Hell, dronings?

Not really defending China here, or trying to start a game of whataboutism. I'm just pointing out that they're not North Korea, their citizens are not stupid, governments will always protect themselves, and history is written by the winners everywhere.
Blue Shield of California lost their tax-exempt status in California a few years back.
The biggest problem I have with insurance is the inherent disproportionate power relationship between the company and their customer.

Essentially, the moment a customer becomes more trouble than they are worth, they are dropped. This is true with other types of industries, but if your health insurance drops you when you get cancer, you can't get more health insurance, and you die.

Same with house insurance, car insurance, ect...

And it causes death or financial disaster all too often.

Some would argue that "this doesn't happen" or "it's illegal".

1) It happens ALL THE TIME.

2) It's illegal, but if you don't have the means or education to fight it. You are pretty much done.

It's the fundamental nature of insurance companies to milk healthy customers while dropping unhealthy customers. It's just too tempting and they are too protected by our legal system for them to not do it.

I know this is pessimistic, but as long as you realize this fundamental imbalance in the relationship with you and your insurance companies, you can mitigate it to a certain extent.

But, really, the only way to completely mitigate it is to be so rich that you don't even need insurance.
It uses WebRTC (a cool tech that most modern browsers have) to make the phone call.

Yes there is a cost associated in making the actual call to the phone. I am currently absorbing this cost to get initial users. The things we have to do to validate an idea :)
In my opinion going on a date is also too big of an investment to find out whether or not you 'match' with somebody. When you are at a party you can potentially speak to 10 (20 maybe even 30) women/men in one night, and probably find out that you do not match with 90% of them. If you are using apps like Tinder it will take you 10 nights to date 10 women/men, which is a significantly bigger time investment. Recently I was thinking about this figured out that this is probably the reason none of my friends, who actively use dating apps, have gained any significant relationships using them. This doesn't mean they are not good for anything. However people should be more aware of this and realise that though it seems easier to find meaningful relationships using these apps, it can also make it significantly harder.
The Gang of Four book is terrible. The explanation are very unclear (often because of excessive abstraction, even in the description and discussion).

It's been a long time so my memory is hazy on its particular sins, but I've vowed never to touch it again. I never understood what anyone saw in that book (except that it was one of the first book on the topic of design patterns).
> nonzero

If you send the message with a hash of the previous state on the server, (like with proof-of-work in Bitcoin), since it is so unlikely that it will hash will be the same with and without the message appended, it doesn't really matter if it is strictly nonzero, if it is just small enough.
It's an encryption algorithm... And a proper name, not an acronym¹, detracting from the GP's point.

1 - Ok, it's technically an acronym, with a meaning different from the thing it names.
Interesting idea. But wouldn't the value of the coin just drop when a disaster occurred, so those who need the money wouldn't have nearly as much as they expected?

EDIT: Realized you never said coin. I just assumed blockchain + money = coin.
It's surprising to see an article about insurance without references to black swan risks.
Blogger facing jail time says he is ‘honor bound’ not to identify sources
And better than a cell phone, where dialing 911 results in the phone locking, then crashing.

I've actually had this happen in an emergency. I can't tell you how dismayed I was that my phone crashed when I called 911.
title says it all:

http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/20/ayn-rand-was-a-secret-we...
The iPhone is the crack cocaine of technology. Don’t celebrate its birthday
Agreed - scrapping furniture just because you're moving is not a great idea. This will, however, occur often when we buy IKEA furniture (or items of that quality level) that we often have to trash items, or are actually trashed accidentally during a move (think one of their flimsy dressers or wardrobes).

It's a wasteful practice, and an important part of our mission is to keep furniture out of the landfills. That starts by getting as many uses out of the furniture that we can, before it stops working for us, either visually or functionally.
Sounds like you're doing the right thing. Note that not every one would agree that you are doing "true TDD" (due to your lack of "unit" tests) but that doesn't matter. What matters is that:

a) you are disciplined in your commitment to quality

b) you offload as much of the tedious, repetitive work to the computer as possible.

Regarding unit tests and mocking, I have a similar opinion. I tend to test at the larger component/package level rather than the smaller class/module level. Furthermore, I avoid mocking as much as possible. Object-Oriented decoupling through dependency injection makes mocking a lot easier (and removes the need for mocking frameworks) and Functional decoupling[0] makes mocking largely unnecessary.

[0]http://prog21.dadgum.com/131.html
If you define EOM as magic, or as a solution to the Two Generals problem, EOM is certainly impossible.

If EOM means "the programmer doesn't have to think about idempotency," EOM is what I want. Happy to call this "EOM asterisk" if you and/or the OP like.

At any point in the conversation, you don't know whether your interlocutor has yet received the last message you sent. This is because you are talking over a network, rather than over a magic bus.

However, you know that before the endpoint processes each message, it has processed each previous message once and exactly once. I think this is what the programmer wants -- asterisk or no.

Network connectivity failure is best modeled as the limit case of network latency. Of course, when you send a message over a network in the real world, you can't know whether it has been received or not until you get an acknowledgment.

(Edit: asterisks.)