skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I was reading a comment on a jazz album and it essentially said "expertly done but doesn't move the genre forward so meh."

I think people forget that sometimes you just want a good, standard jazz album.
> "So the community encouraged polygamy, orgies and generally engaging in as much sexual activity as possible. Needless to say, the Oneida members were a happy bunch, and the commune lasted more than three decades."

Actually, Oneida had a commitmee of elder woman. You applied to the committee to have sex with someone one time, and they could approve or deny you. (This was designed to prevent forming couples, slow down the amount of sex, eugenics to make perfect humans, and make sure the founder got all he wanted). Oneida, while not monogamous, was pretty far from a sex fest (unless you were the cult leader).

Given how wrong the article is on Oneida, and that's the only one I know about, I'm suspicious of the rest of it.

Here's a great (long) article on Oneida:

http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/the-polyamorous-chr...
that steve yegge story is...anti-climatic. you mean bezos pointed out he left off data mining and machine learning in a presentation about generalist engineers? what vast and yet cutting insight! ugh.

that story just reeks of the blind idolization that goes on with these people. you see it in musk devotees as well. yes, these people are smart, successful, and driven. but they aren't literal incarnations of comic-esque super geniuses or intellectual gods. they are people who's primary power is their drive.

how about just respecting their drive and intelligence rather than putting it on a pedestal? think originally and don't be some dumb slave that bows down to supposed super intelligence. question whether those people really have the capability to understand a certain novel idea, because they may not. they got to where they are because they followed a path and followed it HARD, meaning there are maybe paths they didn't have time to consider.
They're all economic entities. They're not all equally important.

What coinbase and other exchanges consider to be the "true" bitcoin matters a whole lot more than what some guy who just installed a bitcoin node on his raspberry pi thinks is the true bitcoin.

In the end bitcoin is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Even if you have the majority of the nodes if nobody accepts your forked bitcoin then it's worthless.
For me, boxes move underneath other boxes due to the lack of friction. It's the exact same movement every time. I wonder why I'm getting downvoted.
Haskell, unless I have a good reason to use something else. An example of a good reason was a recent project which made heavy use of s-expressions, so I learned Racket to do that and it works reasonably well (required quite a lot of optimisation for a particular loop though!).

As for "frameworks", I find JSON over stdin/stdout to do almost everything I need (Haskell's aeson package is good for this; I might try learning lenses too next time). I also make extensive use of env vars to pass options/config into programs, since I find their semantics (key/value pairs, globally readable, inheritable by child processes, overridable for child processes) more friendy than commandline arguments. Their only downside is being mutable, but that's easy enough to avoid in one's own code.

I also use Nix to manage all building, dependencies, etc. since it's trivial to get code written in many languages to play nicely together (my current project uses Haskell, Bash, Racket, Python, ML and Isabelle). Nix's "Hydra" build server is nice enough for continuous integration, although it's admittedly tricky to set up (it doesn't have proper versions; you need to find a git revision which works :( ).
I think RoR was initially a good thing for bootcamp curriculum because:

1) it is a comprehensive and easy to pick up stack, at least for proficiency at a jr. level that a coding school would churn out in 3 months

2) it was hot at the time of the rise of the bootcamps, so from a marketing perspective would attract top students

3) RoR shops would be more amenable than most to taking on bootcamp grads and continue to embrace a mentor/mentee relationship for long-term success

I think largely #3 is the reason for the switch - bootcamps have now been shown to be a valid source for jr. devs and the enterprise is open to it, hence making java curriculum worthwhile - it certainly will scale better. We're still stuck on #1 though...
Frankly, it seems like PWA is a solution for web developers looking to deploy LCD, "unnative" apps more widely, more easily.

That's fine for them, but ultimately, I think we've got far too many apps with crappy UIs.

So what's the the real value to the platform and the people who use it for another source of them?
Effective Microservices in a Data-Centric World(Talk from GOTO 2017)
That's frankly a valid question, since the prior generation of AMD chips was really bad in this area. But the article has a whole page about power consumption. AMDs TDP rating normally can't be trusted, because they compute it in very strange ways, but in this case the full load power usage of the 1500X is only 2W above 65W, so it checks out. The R3 1300X always stays below, and the slower clocked 1200 even uses a lot less.

In general Ryzen's power consumption is not bad.
Next for Vue essentially.
Python + Bottle + SQLite + Vue/Preact

Mostly small side projects.
I think the part of the model it endangers is selling sufficient volume of product to make money. I have been surprised to see it still on the shelf in recent years.
The Monty Python sketch "Bicycle Repair Man" predicts that unusual variations will be highly valued when a particular "ideal" genotype becomes common.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't want my children having access to the internet or apps before the age of 10. The iPad Nano was the perfect device for this. The kids can listen to all the music they want without the baggage that comes with the iPod Touch.
I'm not trying to defend ZFS' lack of the ability to add a vdev to an existing RAIDZ/Z2. That would be extremely nice to have and has tons of legitimate uses, for many of which there is no acceptable substitute as you point out.

That said, even if that function existed, expecting it to magically rebalance the whole pool to take into account the existing data is rather unrealistic (it's basically a full rebuild in that case, the most terrifying operation you can perform on any pool/array already containing data).

While I agree with the performance aspects (your data still comes from either the first volume or the second, so you're only using the performance of half your spindles - unless you simultaneously access files in either half), I wouldn't call it wasteful: You are still losing the same % of your total capacity. e.g.:

6x2TB RaidZ2 = 8TB usable (4TB lost to parity)

let's add a second Z2 6x6TB volume:

6x6TB RaidZ2 = 24TB usable (12 TB lost to parity)

Total: 32 TB usable, 16 lost to parity.

What if we had built it from scratch using 6x8TB drives?

Total: 32 TB usable, 16 lost to parity.

Same.
> I think that's a valid point, but we won't know how it will play out

That sounds like a terrible plan. Let it play out on Litecoin or some other toy blockchain.

The large block crowd wants the easiest most straight forward way of scaling now. Which isn't to say other solutions aren't welcomed. But it's strange that the Core team has made it an either or.

It's weird how in certain forums there seems to be overwhelming support for blockstream - but everyone I meet in real life doesn't have that same enthusiasm.
There are ways around using iTunes (at least for older devices). Google it.
As a counterpoint, I'm reading and commenting in this thread using a dedicated native app for reading HN. I find the whole experience to be better. Loading HN in a mobile browser is just painful by comparison.
Django instead of Rails or Yesod on the latest project. Second iteration will be DjangoREST/VueJS. Third iteration breaking the monolith into smaller services.

I ported Ruby 1.8 to the IBM Blue Gene/L. Nothing out of a dislike for Ruby, it is just that Python libraries far surpass what is available in Ruby land.

Maybe I have low standards, but the benchmark for me is how long to write an app that populates a SELECT form field based on a domain table.
I don't think an extended back and forth will be very fruitful at this time.

You have very large misconceptions about what we know, because you've approached the subject to look at a point of interest without understanding the context of the evidence we have. It's laudable that you're looking into things, but you have clear, demonstrable, gaps in your knowledge. It's as if you're trying arguing against the existence of rocks by pointing at pebbles and erosion while forgetting you're standing on a mountain littered with boulders.

I know this message must come off in an abrasive manner, and I do apologize. That isn't the intent. It is just difficult to show you precisely where you're wrong with the finite time I have available to me. I can't be your personal tutor for the natural sciences, but I feel an obligation to future readers to put your comments in context.

If you're serious about learning about the subject, pick up a molecular biology textbook and start reading, or audit a few 101 level courses at your local university. Molecular biology is great because you will get a huge bang for your buck in terms of understanding the natural world with your very first few classes!
It takes 1 hour to create 10 thousand nodes and it's not particularly expensive.

What can you make against bitcoin with that?
What types of projects are you working on that Haskell + Bash + Racket is the default stack?
The people who complain about heightened security never have a better proposal. This article is pure pandering with no balanced opinion of the fact that there could be credible motivations to ask for this.
There is no friction so far but I will add it whenever I have a chance!
This is really nice!
Run this query on both MySQL and Postgresql, should explain it all: SELECT 0 = 'banana'
Isn't it cheaper to get a locked iphone ? It's more up to date too. Right?
Instead of focusing on growth they should focus on their business model. More users cause more noise first and foremost. How is noise going to help long term sustainability?
YouTube will do the same thing with Ublock Origin. I've had a tab open for a few hours and have blocked 625 requests and counting.
The Next AIDS Pandemic
> I understand the reason for a larger block - it seems like it's pure profit for the miners (should we just refer to it as greed?)

It should mean lower transaction fees for users, but more transactions are possible so the miners make it up on volume. Win-win.

> I am fairly convinced at this point that off-chain transactions as described in the lightning docs [1] is the future. The block chain cannot possibly support all the transactions, there could be millions per second if micropayments do take off, and that will most likely happen via the channels as described in the lightning docs.

If you trust your counterparty you wouldn't be using bitcoin in the first place. SegWit/lightning seems to undermine most of the point of bitcoin; certainly moving to transactions happening off-chain would be a radical change and it's not clear it would preserve bitcoin's positives (e.g. decentralization). Whereas increasing the block size is a simple, well-understood change.
These comments are why I love HNews. Thank you for your reasoned refutation of Noam Chomsky :)

I especially appreciate your example of phase changes in matter which I think perfectly illuminates the limits of Chomsky's logic.
Ask HN: What are some good UI design inspiration blogs/feeds?
I current have the following ones but I'm always keen to add more to my collection:

https://klart.co/pixels

https://pttrns.com (shame it's a paid one)

http://littlebigdetails.com
> This means that now not everyone has the internet connection or the disk space to keep a copy of the block chain, and more control is in the hands of the miners.

Isn't this inevitable? Once demand of anything increases beyond a certain threshold, individuals can no longer supply enough of that thing to satisfy that demand, because they are overwhelmed by the costs of logistics, storage, maintenance and so on.

In the case of bitcoin, I imagine that soon you'll need to have dedicated machines for this task. Not a lot of people can afford to have one - or several, for redundancy - machines to do it.

Hence, the "power" - like in anything else - is in the hands of those that are willing to make a significant investment to keep things running. The payoff for them is that they can profit from providing this service. If I understand correctly, this comes in the form of transaction fees.

Or did you think that bitcoin could rise to the level of, say, Visa or Paypal on the backs of volunteers? Bitcoin isn't even "mainstream" yet, and the network is already buckling.

I think this outcome was more than predictable.
1k is an absurd number of people. Try <100.
Everything old is new again...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-sharing#Time-sharing_busi...
Kind of surprised to see this so upvoted, I was under the impression that "top N richest people" articles only impress kids and the immature. Don't have a source for it but I'm pretty sure people with more than a few hundred million in the bank couldn't care less if they're richer or poorer than someone else, as they haven't made their fortune by worrying about frivolous things. But that's just me.
Free List of 1000 Fastest Growing SaaS: Includes 21+ YC Companies
> So can we please stop with the deification of the default and get on with progress?

Well said! I fear, though, that a problem with this admonition is that some ascribe the default state to a deity.

However, I'm not sure that the characteristics you mentioned are of the same quality.

Hair color, gender, and other traits are neutral in quality - especially if there's risk in the procedure, it would seem wrong to select these superficial changes to fit the parents' preference. And while it would be nice to look into the future and determine what the human being created would prefer, we can't do that.

A propensity towards colon cancer or a propensity towards drug addiction being added or removed would be another class of traits, having a quality based on removing observed defects. I imagine this class is the most likely to be experimented with first.

The third class would be traits which are relative to baseline humans. Increasing intelligence, perhaps, would be the change that could most universally be described as an unalloyed positive change. What hypothetical future human would mourn their unborn mirror self and wish they were less intelligent? Perhaps the acuity of their vision and other senses would also be desirable. You might also consider changing aspects such as their respiratory or cardiovascular capacity - some humans like Chris Froome or Michael Phelps are extraordinary examples of not just training but innate talent, and wouldn't it be nice if we went beyond reducing the risk of heart disease to make everyone innately talented at breathing? And then you get into issues like whether or not to make them stronger (who's healthier, Froome or Phelps?), or taller, or more good looking (who decides what that looks like?).

It would be great if we could help our kids be healthier. And I (and most people) would like it if my parents had made me smarter. But the technology opens the door to dangerous possibilities.
no individual capitalist forces someone to work, no, but the logic of the market necessarily leads to poverty and exploitation.

the market is not democratic, those who control more wealth and capital necessarily have more power.
When I need perfect toast, I use TASS. My usual TASS provider also offers EASS, BASS, and CASS but limits its hours of operation. Fortunately, Waffle House is also available in my market and offers acceptable TASS (even though it is better known for its WASS).
Venice Beach is the toughest place to build in the U.S
Increasing the block size is a fundamental change requiring a hard fork and a chain split. It is not possible to continue on the same chain with a 2mb block. However, they could continue on the same chain with segwit which gives the rough equivalent of a 1.7mb block. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough for the other side (+lots of other reasons, valid or not, I couldn't say).
Highly doubt that's "most" users, considering Coinbase's numbers
"Total dog" for being 7-13% slower-per-thread but offering twice as many cores? This is ridiculous. I am typing this on a i5 Mac with 2C/4T and the difference in using common office applications (browser, Excel, etc) vs 4C/8T i7 is _insane_. Just using newegg.com is borderline impossible with just a few tabs open unless you have 4 non-SMT threads.

Desktop computing is actually pretty good at utilizing many cores these days: the booting process, starting non-trivial applications, using full-disk encryption, running multiple tabs in a browser (or just having a browser open with a few tabs + something else), in all of these conditions 4c/4t CPU will provide tangible, perceivable difference. 2c/4t CPUs are obsolete and I wouldn't recommend one even for an entry-level computer.
Great! I used m.facebook.com before but it doesn't support chat.
Their own separate bin? I'm interpreting this to mean, electronics in their own bin, together, is fine. One bin for each laptop, tablet, phone, etc would be madness.

However, I don't think a laptop and an iPad will fit into one bin without overlapping each other.

So now we are at probably four bins per person including their carry-on bag as a "bin." This is really ridiculous and will lead to even longer, more chaotic lines.
Absolutely not. Keeping coins on coinbase means on the split you have your normal balance, but coinbase keeps your bitcoin cash balance.

Take your money out of an exchange, it should not be kept there in the first place! If you don't own the private keys, you don't own your bitcoin. If it is on coinbase, you don't control it, you are just asking them for permission.
>(is that really how we have to say it?)

I can't imagine why. Most formally it would be "iPod Nano devices", but most people would say "iPod Nanos".

You only pluralize the words that there are actually multiple of. You may talk about a Member of Parliament, but you wouldn't have Member of Parliaments because you're not talking about multiple Parliaments. You're talking about multiple members and a singular Parliament, so it's Members of Parliament. Your city has a Chamber of Commerce, but your state has many Chambers of Commerce.

But with the iPod Nano, it's not multiple iPods and a singular Nano. It's multiple "iPod Nano" devices. So you'd just say "iPod Nanos".
WSJ's paywall sucks. http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/07/27/chinas-next-t...
My docker-compose always has these three containers: Node (for server side rendering), Python (for APIs) and PostgreSQL.

For the frontend, I use React + Redux + React-Router + Redux Sagas (I like starting with a modified version of ReactGo: https://github.com/reactGo/reactGo).

For the API, I use Flask + SQLAlchemy.

I've been thinking about replacing Python with something more strictly typed (Python 3's hint are a good step, but not enough IMO). However, SQLAlchemy is so great I can't imagine developing without it :)
That's specific to western -first world nations in the last 100 years.

In the 1800's in the US, you would need more children to run the farm.

In third world nations, children are still a form of retirement planning.
I run a full bitcoin node on a USB3 HDD formatted in fat32 so I understand where you're coming from but it's really not that bad. Sure, when I boot it up after a few weeks offline it takes a little while to resync but so what? If I want to check something in a hurry I can use electrum or some website.

And once it's actually synchronized HDD or SSD doesn't matter much in my experience.

I don't think it's really a factor in adoption, most users don't feel the need to run a node already. People running nodes are enthusiasts first and foremost.
I haven't read the Tezos paper yet but I will add it to my reading list. Thanks!

I do think there is a lot of potential room for improvement in how blockchain governance works, especially in terms of delegate voting.

Maybe it is more reasonable to expect a majority portion of one chain and a majority portion of another chain to merge, leaving behind two stragglers, and then allow those who continue to hold the old tokens to buy in later at a decreasing discount.
Well I think the results of the CTE study showed him that though no matter how much he wanted both things, only one of those would be consciously choosable while the latter would all he would have left if he continued.
The walled garden is not what prevents having multiple manufacturers of phones. Apple could easily tear down their walled garden and let users install whatever software they want on their own phones - and they'd still be the only one manufacturing iPhones.

Your argument seems to indicate that you just like iPhones better. Otherwise, I think you would have said "I'd prefer that our company either standardize on one model of Android phone or the iPhone." because both would have the same effect - things would be easier to troubleshoot and manage since everyone would be running the same thing.

Anyway, currently as an iPhone user I think Apple comes up massively short on basic features. For instance -
on an $800 phone they're missing a physical message-waiting indicator light! That's completely absurd to me. Some others: You can't have multiple users (and this is big for the Enterprise). You can't put app icons wherever you want, you have to stick them all together in one big pile on the screen. You can't see the time a text message came in until you perform a non-obvious gesture. You can't see anything useful in the call history list until you click an item. You can't even change the default browser!

It's no wonder to me why Enterprise customers don't standardize on the iPhone - they'd be giving up all control to Apple.
I don't agree with the 1st statement really, but if you have seen the movie Baby Driver then I can under the nostalgia you are talking about. There is still a market for old ipods like you are talking about for this reason.
It was a bit tongue in cheek, but I was trying to show that there's two sides to this: developers and consumers.

Developing for a single platform and being able to run everywhere is great. I'm not sure what your "not possible elsewhere" is referring to, though. Java is one example of a language that's possible to deploy pretty much everywhere. Or do you mean natively in a browser?

While it's true that as a developer I'm free to use or not use any newly-introduced features and standards, as a consumer I don't have that choice. I either continue to use the sites and services I did before they changed everything, or I have to find an alternative which may not exist. Remember all the sites that required flash to run? That's what I want to avoid with responsive web apps.
none of this is relevant to the discussion.

anybody can download the two software packages and link them together. As long as you don't redistribute them, then you are completely compliant with both licenses.

as a result, the only discussion here is for distributors of the programs (such as canonical, debian, etc).
One would thought there's already enough reasons to stay out of facebook, but there's another one.
I'm of no opinion here.
Sure it does. That's why people are notoriously bad at timing markets.
Not in this case.

If your wifi chipset is known to be compromised, and there is a remote exploit available, as in this case, then merely connecting with wifi to an evil hotspot is enough to compromise a device.

Once a device's been compromised, crypto signatures on update files won't protect you, as the signature checking itself can no longer be trusted.