skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If you define a function:

defun function-name argument-list declarations/documentation forms

Above is syntax.

An example of a function using a lot of syntax:

(defun foo (n &optional (a 10 a-p))

"This is the function FOO"

(declare (type (integer 0 *) n a))

(declare (ignore a a-p))

(loop for i from 0 below n by 10
sum i into s1
sum (expt i 2) into s2
finally (return (/ s1 s2))))

Lisp has complex argument lists with required, keyword and optional arguments.

It has syntax for a bunch of declarations.

It has macros like the LOOP macro which implement a lot of syntax. Actually the syntax of LOOP is quite long.
> Maybe being a world class communicator could have helped Damore avoid some of the ire...

So, women are a portion of society who've spent hundreds of years fighting for equal treatment, a portion of society who weren't allowed credit cards until the 1970s, who have been told their brains were too small for serious things like voting... a portion of society who still face discrimination today (although today it's usually more nuanced and less overt). Damore said openly that Google were lowering the bar to let them in and amplified ideas that make it harder for the women (and other 'diversity' hires) already in Google, and you're surprised people got cross. Really? That surprises you?

Damore did the equivalent of walking into Jerusalem, picking a side, then immediately spouting policy changes he wanted to see... then acting all hurt when he got punched in the face and kicked out of Israel for causing trouble.

This isn't about being a world-class communicator, this is about an adequate communicator for the problem he was trying to solve.

How would you react if I told you your views were biased and extreme? Even if I think they are, telling you that in the introduction of my memo (like Damore did) is not going to get the reaction I want.

> ...but it's plainly wrong to attribute this drama to him instead of the reactionaries who were so giddy at the opportunity to take offense that they needed to invent content and context to be outraged about.

Not so plain as you think.

A scientific approach to determining the 'natural' gender balance would require a lot more 'biological' data and be able to combine it in a model with cultural factors and understanding of biases. Damore does not have that evidence, and doesn't indicate that he understands it.

A model like that would need to be able to predict why womens participation in computing dropped in the 80s. It would be able to explain why women are only 10% of computer science faculty in the USA, but 40% in China.

Without that model, leaping to conclusions about how many women to expect in a company like Google is bad science, and making HR policy changes on the back of this would be bad management.

No such model exists, but Damore leapt past that stage and in doing so abandoned any hope of scientific support.

He used inflammatory terms like lowering the "bar", accused Google of bias and fostering extreme views, talking about womens biological interests and abilities, and spoke in absolutist language rather than collaborative language.

Damore wanted to effectively reduce the number of women in the workplace, that's a threat. And he used inflammatory language while doing it, so the threat was as clear as day. I find it amazing that you're surprised by the reaction.

> Seems like blaming the woman in the full burqa for being raped--if only she had better covered herself, she might not have caused this response in her rapist.

I'm not going to respond to that, but I consider that comment both inaccurate and inappropriate.
I think the Supreme Court has ruled on similar questions, in that there's a distinction between how the "speech" is intended and how it is construed. For instance, someone waving a nazi flag might feel to me like an incitement to violence, while to them it might feel like an expression of free speech, with no intention to incite violence. In that sense it would be protected speech, despite how I feel.

So the question becomes how do you determine if someone is intending to incite violence? They might say they are only wanting to express their first amendment rights (and perhaps their second amendment rights at the same time), while actually just intending to incite violence. Even pretending that none of the neonazi protesters in Charlottesville threw the first punch, I think a lot of the quotes from Charlottesville indicated that many of them were on the wrong side of that line, and were seeking to incite.
Yes.

Why is it that people feel the need to bring this up? Are you that sensitive towards criticism of Nazis?

You know if you want to stop people associating the right with Nazis you really just have to deal with your damn Nazi problem.
The internet is making me sick
At the risk of being downflamed for not knowing something obvious, I see it as the gap between what standard runtime libraries provide (e.g. nice generic list, stack, and queue classes) and the algorithms devs implement on top of them. A part of me wants to see all of the grotesque implementations of "visit every relationship in this tree" that get invoked when I click the "add comment" button on this.
Which would defeat the point, because then we'd be stuck with arguments over what is and isn't violence.
Tangent - when I was 18, I wanted to be hardcore. I thought I was above Fedora and a (then up and coming) Ubuntu. So I printed out the compile-from-scratch manual for Gentoo. It was a solid 20 pages front and back. I made it four pages in and gave up.

This link gave me flashbacks to that manual.
I'm guessing that if members of those groups are practicing violence, they aren't arguing that their violence is free speech - they are aware they are breaking the law, but believe they are justified (in the context of some higher purpose) in doing so.
Fsq.io: Open Sourcing Foursquare’s Production Codebase
micromanagement
I'd suggest virtually the opposite: a good way to be an outlier is to have reasonably broad knowledge plus being good at learning new stuff, such that when faced with a new problem you can quickly bring the right set of skills/technologies/whatever at it.
Still easier than placing images in Microsoft Word.
Antifa generally doesn't apply for protesting permits as I understand it, so maybe this is a question that ACLU hasn't had to deal with?

edit: Being downvoted by people who might not have read the counter-protesters' permit: https://www.scribd.com/document/356483336/2017-Public-Demons...
I work for an agency. The one I see most often is promising a specific deadline and/or budget at the beginning of the project, before we even know what the MVP is.
The last sentence is the main reason why the world is so fucked up today. "Unless you agree with my radical leftist agenda you are a nazi/racist/<some_imaginary_word>"-mentality and the complete unreasonability of the left is the reason why normal people are fed up with all this crap and are voting for Trump, Brexit etc.

No matter how evil some group is (may they be pedophiles, satan worshippers, nazis, whatever...) silencing them and assaulting them is a crime and is against freedom of expession. The problem with making these exceptions like "Let's have freedom of speech but not for these and these people...yadayadayada" is we can never be sure where to draw the line.

(Neo-)Nazis are sure dumb as hell but as long as they have peaceful protest and they don't harm anybody physically (unlike their counter-protesters) it doesn't matter. And don't even start with the car-thing. An individual psycho does not compare to organized widely accepted violence.

If we were to ban nazis and far-right organizations because they are racist and apparently a "threat" then what about anarchists? They also are extremely violent and want to overthrow the government. (and in the US officially categorized as terrorist threat) What about BLM which is openly racist and violent (July 2016 anti-white/police sniper attack, riots, assaults, highway blockings etc.) If we start going down this slippery slope will have shitloads of organizations and ideas to ban.
ESCORTS MARGO – ESCORTS – ESCORT ATHENS – ESCORTS ATHENS
Communism as an ideology doesn't have racism as a cornerstone. It's just that it's very easy for people who want to do that to sieze power. Karl Marx never wrote in his manifesto that whole ethnic groups should be eliminated because white Germans are superior.

Racism and genocide is at the heart of Nazi ideology. It is steeped in the ideas of racial superiority. This is why their symbols are culturally unacceptable: they literally mean "I am better than the Jews therefore they should die".
This post doesn't blacklist any specific organizations, but rather any case that involve violence. The ACLU will likely continue[1] to defend peaceful white supremacists. The ban will go for any situation or organization that involves violence.

As for Antifa, I've been unable to find any videos/pictures/unbiased reports that Antifa started any of the violence this past weekend. I don't understand the need to equate the two sides. If the KKK didn't exist, Antifa wouldn't exist. If Antifa didn't exist, the KKK still would.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/19/a-...
VCs are, or at least hire, some of the most intelligent people, and the best in the world have a hit rate barely in double percentage digits.

Saying that the poorest billion in the world just need to be more intelligent and suddenly will be crypto-rich is ... well actually quite offensive.

The real and genuine divides between the richest and poorest in the world will not be bridged by coins, no matter their other benefits.
>to explain how we're really not the bad guy even though we're fine with half of us getting a raw deal.

That's how this feels, wheeling and dealing. Jockeying for power.

Show me the outrage over equal representation at the national cemetery.

Show me the outrage over equal representation in the lumber industry.

How about Alaska crab fishing jobs?

How about windmill installation and maintenance?

How about garbage pickup?

Someone has it and you don't. You want it and you will say whatever it takes to get it. It's just mere words. Sexist, misogynist, just air through mouth. Throw it and see if they give you something.

If liberal Google, people educated in best institutions we had to offer throughout the world, is sexist then humanity has no hope.

>Demanding more proof (besides the decades of evidence of women fleeing workplaces because of stress; women getting paid less for the same job; women overlooked for promotion despite reviews etc) is just more excuse-making.

You are not asking to fix any of this. You are asking for hiring bar to be lowered for women so that they make up 50% of the workforce. Those are two different things.

Show me a sexist and his sexist actions and I would gladly fight that person along with you. This collective shaming is as unjust as sexism, and more insulting.

Let's show door to that male college kid, because some bosses at Google had been sexist in their past hiring practices. The bosses, who enjoy full Google employment.

Why are you punishing the kid for crimes of the Google boss who is still gainfully employed?

This is where group think, collectivism, identity politics has gone wrong. This is why people have left the political left.
I agree. As our society moves more to Internet-based communication we must consider how to preserve and apply the principles of free speech when so much of it is governed by private entities. Is free speech not a desirable trait? Is it merely something that racists exploit, and thus the move to autocratic private management is a blessing, a relief from the constitutional shackles that would compel, say, a law enforcement officer to beat back a mob intent on torching a KKK newspaper? Is that a better world?

Remember that these same principles apply to progressive views as well... which have not historically been as popular, and greatly benefited from free speech protections. I would say we would not be where we are now as a society without them.
If Breitbart or /pol/ are hosting discussions in the open between known Nazis or people who are advocating to take terrorist actions and they do not moderate and delete these things then yea they actually should be shut down. We would not tolerate this from Al Qaeda or with child porn so I really don't understand the problem. Nazism has caused orders of magnitude more suffering in the history of man than either of the previous things I mentioned.
I always know when an app is JavaScript. Also .Net apps are native.
They had a permit this past weekend: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/...

I can't speak for other protests.
Now it seems to make everyone stuck with arguments about why violence by some people is ok and violence by others is not.

I think it should simply be that no one has justification for violence or intimidation.
Unreadable. I couldn't avoid the wandering "Related Posts" overlay.
The fact that the media companies aren't involved here should give you a hint. It's incredible how much power we've allowed them over the Internet.
An education in terror
Domain modelling in F# is lightyears beyond C#s. Parallel and concurrent development, not to mention actor systems (F#s built-in or Akka.net), are also leaps and bounds beyond the C# story. These are Enterprise issues. Identity management, default immutability, distate for null, and exhaustive pattern matching are all major Enteprise features that large, complex, and critical systems see measurable benefit from...

There is no barrier to mingling F# and C# libs to focus on specific tasks or parts of the app. Having application libraries in C# and domain code in F# is a common pattern. Particularly at the GUI level, extra-particularly with anything that uses databinding so your domain types can be used directly.

F# does not get the same amount of tooling love as C# for the "latest and greatest" from microsoft. If you look at the Enterprise track record of Microsofts "latest and greatest" since they started pushing ADO.net to present day... well, I would argue that's a huge benefit. Enterprise customers need tooling stability and platform stability, so letting ASPvReplacedInThreeMonths come and go without impacting projects is a big money saver.
1) Still, a lot lower than required. Blocks became full like a year ago (see http://i.imgur.com/d7fwVnd.jpg ) and after that moment fitting transactions within 1MB limit means someone's stopped using bitcoin (me included :( ). +500kB is not gonna change that anyhow ( +1.1MB x 50% adoption). even +1.1MB not nearly enough.

> but one that is sufficient for now

not really - see above.

2)
> The technical, business and wide bitcoin community are all looking forward eagerly

Do they understand segwit activation provides zero benefits at moment of said activation?

3) Overall, we're in the stage of planned bitcoin deconstruction. Gladly, there are no way to kill cryptocurrencies - even if bitcoin going to die, someone else will take it's place (related: see "bitcoin market share" chart)

P.S. We're talking about wrong problem. "How exactly 2MB blocks should be implemented" is surely wrong direction of talks. Yet we're here for like two years and counting. Whole ecosystem could be progressed by a lot during this time
There are more dangerous things in life than nazis, like bad drivers, and well-meaning but ignorant people with power. You are more likely to have been killed by Islamic terrorism than nazism in the US over the last couple decades (going back to OKC at least).

Trump is unscrupulous, he'd defend anyone who would be his friend (and there aren't many of those these days, so he's left with the dregs). He's not a slick political maneuverer who is going to overturn the federal government. He'll be gone in a few years. The displays like this last weekend are hundreds or a couple thousand people. They aren't parades of uniformed militia (like Hitler's rise saw).

These people want attention. They're getting it especially when we exaggerate the threat they pose, which only fuels their grandiosity and recruitment.
Carrying baseball bats and hitting cars or people, as well as throwing water bottles or paint balloons at people, or breaking windows of businesses or houses, is violence, as is using a vehicle as a weapon. It's not too complicated.
Hey - author here. You're completely right, but I hope the basic understanding will whet peoples appetites to try some more exotic stuff! Really I was just trying to lift the veil of what can be a quite intimidating subject if you haven't grazed past it before. Thanks for checking it out!
For an example of an impossible task, try to retrieve request headers using Selenium.

Selenium can't do that itself but Selenium can drive a browser that uses a proxy and you can retrieve everything about the request from that. It's a lot more challenging if you're testing things that use SSL but it's not impossible with a decent proxy app (eg Charles).
Streets are a giant network of mostly private destinations. The streets themselves are public, and the public has a right to access. Cloudflare is operating on the streets level, not the destination level.
Daphne has a PGM course on coursera as well. From the half dozen courses I have done on coursera that was by far the most difficult one, to the point where people were talking about making t-shirts stating "I survived week 5". Personally I found it the most interesting and rewarding as well.
Do you have examples of ACLU defending antifa or black bloc events? They haven't, to my knowledge, but that's not even the most important difference.

Antifa isn't a group or organization that holds rallies, and black bloc isn't a group at all (it's a tactic). Antifa shows up when right wing violence is expected. It is a direct response to white supremacist violence; remove white supremacist violence from the world, and you remove antifa from the world. They cease to show up, or show up in a different capacity, usually as peaceful protestors.

Antifa is a desperate last line of defense against white supremacist violence, and not an organization (or, organizations since it is very loosely affiliated bunch of groups with often wildly different ideas about tactics and practices) that seeks violence.

To compare Neo-Nazis to antifa is an irresponsible false equivalence. You can criticize antifa tactics (and, reasonably so, in many cases) without misleading people. There's enough misinformation coming from Fox News and Breitbart about what antifa is and does and why.
As long as they are not baking cakes they can turn down any customer that they want.
Thanks, I'm referring to events such as the Berkeley Riots [1]
where the violence was at least partly incited by Antifa.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Berkeley_protests
what does humor have to do with it?
Learn some top benefits of Pilates during pregnancy
If they're using violence then they're already breaking the law, so it's not really a free speech question.

This is he ACLU preparing itself not to defend these groups while trying not to loom publically like a hypocrite. Unfortunately free speech and constitutional rights are one of those things where you take the good with the bad.
>I feel this is the worst mistake by management because the technical people are the ones who suffer for it.

How is this a mistake then? It seems As Planned. It'd be a mistake if the management suffered for it.
You may be a "zebra" = Belonging to 1% top IQ but not succeeding to communicate with people who don't notice patterns and second degree concepts that are obvious to you. There are help groups, although they won't help you with the groupthink.
Looking pretty is good for marketing.

Users are showing "a preference for faster smaller software" - the author of that blog is one of them, and I'm another. But even the best software has to be passed to marketers before it can reach your hands. There are some small, efficient programs out there, but they're overlooked because they don't pay.
"There are no 10x developers, only developers who have so much experience with a task that they do it 10x quicker".
What I don't get is that there is nothing that puts me off going to a bar or restaurant more than a long queue. And if I know of a place that systematically has a line in front, that's the one place I won't even consider.
Thank you for illustrating my point.

I'm also not entirely sure how you square this comment with your one above about credulous idiots, but the idea that I'm somehow siding with Nazis is ridiculous.

Anyway, I think we can both agree that there's not much more fruitful discussion to be had between us on this particular topic, so this will be my last reply.
A white supremacist killed someone at the weekend for protesting. If their free speech gives you supreme confidence, then you are simply wrong.

The evidence is fresh. You will have free speech - as long as you only go to the right places, say the right things, wear the right clothes, have the right colour skin.

Over time, supremacist movements reduce that free space in greater and greater amounts. This is what the evidence of history tells us, very clearly. We can see it happening now.

If despite the hard evidence that these groups are opposed to free speech and willing to kill those exercising it, you still defend their right to try and subjugate or kill people merely because of their DNA, you are not defending free speech. What you're really doing is celebrating your own virtue - you're defending their rights because you like yourself. You are taking a calculated risk with other people's lives to do so. Even if they're not even trying to speak at all, but just walking down the street while being the wrong race/gender/religion/etc.

Fundamentalist free speech advocates make an implicit assumption: that a race of billions of social animals can completely avoid situations where one group makes another even feeling uncomfortable. It's purist nonsense. Occasionally feeling you aren't entirely free to speak is part of being a social animal.

Part of living is learning when keeping your trap shut means you're being oppressed or censored, and when you are just being respectful to someone else's house, or a workplace, or suffering beyond your experience.

You can't use a civilised person's inevitable experience of "well, I didn't want to cause offense" to justify Nazis.
To take a serious look at this scenario, being abroad at the moment without a foreign sim makes me really frustrated as to how greedily and wastefully apps on mobile will use mobile data. Google is pretty bad about this with their array of apps, and I must admit I'm surprised that there isn't a function built into Android and iOS that triggers when the phone returns that it's on roaming data - the OS seems to be able to tell at a much deeper level than the apps run at so to me it seems like an easy path to have a true low bandwidth mode kick in, or at least offer to when the phone reports a roaming condition.

I understand this is edge case material though so such ideas need not apply, but it seems like a fairly easy to implement idea that is one of those "oh that's really nice" features customers stumble across.
I don't think that interpreted languages is the problem since people were using Visual Basic since the Windows 3.0 days. There are some collections in archive.org for 16bit Windows shareware programs and games with hundreds of entries and like 2/3 of them are made in some version of VB.

Now, .NET and JVM might be a problem since those VMs tend to be resource hogs (after all both use GC methods that allocates tons of memory whereas something like Python or even classic VB use reference counting - even then there are languages that aren't using reference counting but some other method of GC and still are fast). But i don't think you should put all interpreted languages at the same box.
A slightly bit off topic, but as a European I would love to hear some intelligent, well thought, non provoking theories on why is America going through so much turmoil and polarization the last few years.

Or has it always been like this?