skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As I understand it, the problem GraphQL and related query languages are trying to solve is that in single page web apps and native apps, there's a trade-off between long round trip time on one hand and creating one-off RESTless endpoints that mirror the visual structure of your app on the other. GraphQL allows you to put work into defining resolvers for everything in the hope that it eliminates maybe 90% of your RESTless routes. Instead of complicating the server to make things a little easier for the client, it simplifies the server by removing knowledge of the client's ui. I'm not sure what you mean by every api endpoint, because graphql should pretty much only have one.

Regarding nodejs and overfetching, the canonical solution is Facebook's DataLoader library. I think it might even be in the docs somewhere.

Regarding jrGQL, I'm not sure the use case is the same. They look like different tools for different problems, but I'd be interested in hearing more about what problem it solves.
Congrats to Dmitri and all the folks who have been working on this for a long time. Also kudos to the Open Tech Fund for getting behind it.
And Netlify also offers Netlify CMS, which can accomplish the web-based composing urge.
That doesn't really answer the question - no static site generator {that I know of} is WYSIWYG in the same way as Wordpress. Yes, you can train people how to use a generator, but compared to a dynamic CMS they have a _much_ steeper learning curve {based on my experience training people about web publishing}.

The closest I've seen is using Sandstorm with their static Wordpress site publishing but it's still nowhere near as smooth as plain Wordpress.

(Edit: let's add some qualification because downvoting)
So let's take the most trivial case. Pretend you can query a Person object with both familyName and personalName.

A single GQL query resolver must be able to recognize which field you want and ideally construct the minimum query that meets the requirements. This is much harder than simply recognizing the correct parameters out of the URL, body and queryParams and execute it.

While the stakes are low for overfetching in this case (odds are the DB doesn't notice and maybe it's not a problem for your network link), as a general problem (in particular when fields have subfields) this gets frustrating very quickly.

My concern is not that this is bad for clients. It makes a ton of sense for clients. It's just much harder for servers to schedule optimal queries. Suddenly you're not only managing unreliable resources and minimizing latencies you don't own, you're also a compiler or interpreter for a language with more than one valid query.

For some types of backing stores it may not matter (ECKRV's such as Dynamo, for example). For others it may matter a lot (Postgres). And I think a lot of server owners ship backends that maybe do 2x more querying than they have to, given the "best practices" and examples I see online for the NodeJs bindings.

I've heard the Erlang bindings are very good. I haven't tried them yet, as Erlang isn't very high on my list of tools to use these days (not because it's bad). Maybe they have a silver bullet.
What you quote in 3) is a quote from a different project, an example what they don't want
http://blog.flowblok.id.au/static/images/shell-startup-actua...

"To read it, pick your shell, whether it's a login shell, whether it's interactive, and follow the same colour through the diagram. When the arrows split out to multiple files, it means that the shell will try to read each one in turn (working left to right), and will use the first one it can read."

Note that what the man pages say happens (as of 2013) is in this diagram:

http://blog.flowblok.id.au/static/images/shell-startup.png
I thought the author's main point was that the tools seemed to be getting in the way of the student's learning and that OS in general seems to be great _after_ you have your comp sci degree and 1000 hours of RCS to draw on.

For people who wish to drive computers as opposed to building them, this seems an unreasonable hurdle and makes paid-for alternatives a rational choice. FWIW I agree.
Not a typical Japanese pun, I suppose, but a pun story I heard:

There was a Korean guy working in a Japanese company.

One day, his coworker went out to the roof for a quick cigarette break. Another person came in and asked where he was, so the Korean guy would reply (in Japanese), "Oh, Mr. Tanaka is taking a break, on top of the roof."

The person blushes, and leaves wordlessly. The Korean guy is confused, and then realizes he used the Korean word for the roof: "oksang".

(Japanese okusan = wife)
BTW: I was born in Japan.

> Yes torturing is really bad. But isn't US better at this? Both Japan and the US did bad things in the past. One thing to notice is that the US is still bombing and killing not just terrorists but innocent people including kids.

Nice try to completely avoided the actual facts of the rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March and Unit 731. Regardless of what the U.S. does now ( and I agree some of it is awful), Japan's armies raped, tortured and murdered enormous numbers of POWs and civilians during WWII. You can't deny it any more than I can deny that the U.S. currently kills terrorism suspects with drones.

> Yes the Emperor and the Japanese military could have done a better job to surrender earlier. But did the US tell Japan that they will drop atomic bombs to make them surrender? The answer is no. The Japanese government did not even notice that it was an atomic bomb in the first place. US is the one who dropped atomic bombs and killed non-combatants, and no matter what you think it is considered one of the most inhuman actions in human history and this fact will never change.

The dropping of the bombs was clearly humane. The Emperor and military were going to use millions of civilians as human shields and weapons during the invasion. They refused to surrender unconditionally until the bombs were dropped. They intended to duplicate the results of the "Divine Wind" yielded against the Mongols, only using human lives instead of a hurricane. All so they could retain their "empire" and their ability to subject Chinese, Koreans, and peoples across the NW pacific.
Sandstorm also has a static producing Ghost instance, which is pretty decent, yet very dated in it's version.
Everyone:

1. First amendment only applies to government actions.

2. Established case law that businesses offering a public service are not allowed to discriminate based on a protected class. (Hate groups are NOT protected).

3. Businesses are allowed to refuse service if it impacts their ability to serve all their customers (for example, you show up at the coffee house without clothes)

4. AirBnB has entered into consent agreements with California Fair Housing and Employment Department with regards to the landlords discriminating against guests.

5. AirBnB has a ToS that specifies the conditions imposed on guests.

AirBnB is quite correct from a business perspective to cancel the reservations.

Thought experiment if they didn't:

A landlord renting a house is Jewish or any other group that is hated by the "Unite the Right" and gets their house trashed.

... this puts AirBnB in what kind of legal situation.

I don't like speculation based on hypotheticals. Unfortunately, the car attack in Charlotte proves my point.
Because the threat model is different. Why would your friends and colleagues in a group chat want to tinker with the order of messages? Just trust a sender's timestamp, provided it's within X minutes.
And how is this a bad thing? Allowing hate groups "above ground" normalizes their behavior. They should be underground.
I can't of any one single business where the day-to-day news fluctuates between "Oh no! It's worth nothing!" and "NEW RECORD HIGH". Basically, BTC fluctuating wildly because of [current event] is not new s it's just a normal and expected function of the "currency".

If Google went from being worth nothing to being worth double it's current value every 48 hours then I'd probably get sick of hearing about that too.
2017: the year when "I don't support Nazis" became a controversial political statement in the United States of America.
That video is as he's driving by, doing the ramming.
Hugo!
> It's perfectly fine to criminalize dangerous thoughts. We criminalize many forms of speech already.

We criminalize exactly one form of speech: speech that creates exigent danger. What are these 'many' forms that you speak of?

> You live in the real world, not a theoretical world. The problem with libertarians and other freedom-lovers is they have a simplistic model of the world that doesn't account for all the variables - they don't think their cunning plan through. Probably because they don't experience the world and have a limited understanding of people due to their lack of socialization.

Let's ask a simple question: At which point in US (or whichever country)'s history more than 70 years prior to today would you like to implement censorship laws? Maybe in the 1950s, before that pesky civil rights era? How about in the 1800s, before those slaves got themselves freed? Certainly, at those times, civil rights and abolitionism were dangerous, pernicious ideas worthy of censorship. But, surely, you have it all figured out today. You're smarter than them, right? You know what's right and wrong, so much so that you don't even need to hear the other side. This time it's different. /s
Then maybe we shouldn't accept unaccountable entities having the power of extradjudicial punishment.
I'm about halfway through "The Miracle of Dunkirk: The True Story of Operation Dynamo" by Walter Lord. Finding it to be a good read and it looks like it's still only $2.99 on Kindle if that sways it for anyone.
It is different, all of the differences between Python 2 & 3 seem like the difference from one version of Perl 5 to another as far as I can tell. The main thing is Perl 5 tries to remain mostly backward compatible. I have heard of one company switching back to Perl 5 after switching to various “fad” languages for this very reason. (I wasn't told which company it was, likely because of an NDA) There have occasionally been bugs that P5P were hesitant to remove because someone might be relying on them.

One of the things I've heard is that `print` went from a keyword to a subroutine in Python, or something to that effect. In Perl 5 for most of them there is not really a difference, and what difference there is gets smaller every year.

Another is Unicode, which Perl 5 managed to improve without breaking most existing code. (some of it has to be enabled with a pragma statement)

Usually the only code that gets broken, is code that digs into the internals in some fashion, or use an unintended “feature”. (or occasionally even a feature that should have never been added in the first place)

One such unintended feature which relied on the compiler generating incorrect code was:

sub foo {
my $bar = 10 if 0;
say $bar++;
}
foo; # 10
foo; # 11
foo; # 12

Which was superseded by the `state` declaration.

sub foo {
state $bar = 10;
say $bar++;
}

As far as Perl 5 vs Perl 6, it is more like C++ vs C# + Haskell + various other languages

Perl 6 breaks backwards compatibility in all the ways that needed to be broken to modernize the syntax, and reduce special cases. Even infix operators are no longer special.

From what I can see Python 3 breaks backward compatibility for things it didn't really need to if they tried harder. (It would have made the implementation more difficult to work on.)
I just write in emacs org mode and call latex (or any other language) when needed. Then I often export to latex+pdf for that nice latex look.
Fair points, I agree with them.
Ok so walk me through this in practice..

The way I see it, you need to prove that A is better than B by a sufficient margin to be distinguishable from pure noise.

So, imagine you put up a landing page with 2 variants. Each one gets 500 visitors. You have a conversion on one, but not the other. It's your suggestion here that there is some significance to that single conversion?

I think the problem is, you have no idea if that user would've converted had she landed on the opposite variant. That is, you can't disprove the idea that your test makes no impact at all.
I am currently writing my first print book, and honestly feel that LaTeX is the best solution. I want precise control over a 250+ page book. I have never seen a WYSIWYG editor that doesn't make that a royal PITA.

Different gutters on left and right pages, chapters always starting on a right hand page, consistent and great justification, fine control over how chapter headings appear (and quick to update) etc. etc.

On a side note, is anyone aware of a good way to convert LaTeX (or the produced pdf) into an ePub?
There's something deeply wrong with the people in this comment section if they can not recognize and admit that wasn't a neo-nazi rally.
Yeah my impression was here's a guy using a free tool that is the product of a lot of work by a lot of people and now is whining that their vision for the product isn't exactly the same as his.
The idea is that you never trust input from other clients.

If I am playing my friends in video games then what guarantee do I have someone isn't cheating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

Per this 2.2% of GDP in 2016 - after iraq with no 'hot' conflict. Google says 5.66% in iraq peak.

Percentages of estimated net world defense spending in 2016:

* US: ~36.2% of total world defense spending

* China: ~12.7%

* EU Countries listed: ~12.2%

* Russia: ~4.5%
As they should. It's important in Trump's America to demonstrate that this kind of open bigotry still isn't acceptable and that a civilized society will not provide a platform for literal Nazis and their hateful rhetoric.
Not knowing everything there is to know about Bitcoin is verbotten on HN. So is having a differing opinion apparently, as I re-discover every few weeks.
This is an important point IMO. Consider the Bystander Effect. Most people will act decisively, even heroically, when they're confronted one-to-one with an individual in dire need. If, however, you put these people in a large group all witnessing the same pressing need, they will all stand by doing nothing.

There are a few significant psychological processes at work here, but the point is that groups of people behave in non-intuitive ways that don't necessarily reflect the sentiment or intention of the individual members.

We also see this in physical crowds; get enough people smashed into a small enough space and they lose individual agency and function as a fluid, with each individual carried by the wave and unable to control where they go. This results in stampedes and crowd crushes.
All sides of it too!
Despite the existence of laws criminalizing holocaust denial and displaying Nazi symbols, Germany still has holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis. Criminalizing speech isn't a very effective way of diminishing it.
Maybe that person is actually asking an honest question, as their comment alludes to?
Don't you know? If you don't give a platform to people calling for genocide, you're the intolerant one.
Fascinating! Despite knowing what my inner monologue has to say before it's said, I can't stop it from being internally verbalized.

I'm definitely one to "think before speaking", often to the degree where I'm unable (or maybe just unwilling) to contribute to fast-paced group conversations since I feel like I need to think about what I'll say first.

Once I start speaking my "milk voice" can continue ahead of my speech but it usually doesn't. When it does, it can sometimes feel like what I can only describe as an out-of-body experience... where I'll be speaking, but my milk voice will just be making an observation about what I'm saying and the reactions of those I'm speaking to, all while I'm fully aware this is happening.

Recently, I was in a meeting and was speaking, while internally I was making "milk voice" observations of others' attention and posture, and then observed my own crossed arms (which to many business execs communicates a lack of confidence), so I then uncrossed them and sat up taller.

Not sure if I'm an outlier here or not, though.
Sorry, Nazi isn't a protected class.
I don't want to get into any arguments about "best", but what works best for me is to write the pages in Markdown and use a Makefile to convert them all to html. There's always overhead with projects like Hugo, concerns about upgrading, and rough edges with respect to customization. If you just want to create standalone pages, a Makefile and Pandoc is about as simple and flexible as you can get.

Edit: Here's the full code from one of my Makefiles:

files := $(patsubst %.md,%,$(wildcard *.md))

all:
for f in $(files); do \
pandoc -s -o $$f.html --template=template.html $$f.md; \
done
Nothing with BTC ever makes sense. If you've ever seen American Beauty, just think of BTC like that plastic bag caught in the wind - of little real value, and flying around all over the place in an uncontrolled and unpredictable manner.
> We criminalize exactly one form of speech: speech that creates exigent danger. What are these 'many' forms that you speak of?

We criminalize all sorts of speech, everything from libel to copyrighted works.

You live in a country under the permission of government. Never forget that.

> Let's ask a simple question:

Don't ever ask simple questions. It shows lack of thought.
The point is that we fell for all of that.
Giving a centralized authority the power to censor whatever someone deems offensive sounds like such a wonderful idea. I especially love the idea of "criminalizing dangerous thoughts". Inside every room we should put a telescreen broadcasting "true-think" and listening on people to prevent "wrong-think".
This is NCC Cryptography Practice, so "significantly more expensive than a normal NCC audit".
This. People act like we've reached the end of all ethical discourse.
Good they should hide. We don't want these people preaching radicalism in our public spaces, where they can start recruiting more people. They should be banned from the mainstream internet and go back to the crappy little geosites they were stuck in until 2014.

All I see on facebook these days are apologists and racists as the top comment on any news site. I see them on my twitter feed. I even see them in dating apps. Nobody wants them there, as they usually encourage a long chain of comments expressing the fact that they're unwelcome. Sometimes one or two are flagged and banned. A week later, another little network is built up again and the loud and extreme few are handed a megaphone. We need better filtering algorithms for this nonsense that operate on a macro level. You can call it censorship if you want. I'm not saying to make it impossible for them to communicate their message, they just should be relegated to doing so from one account at a time.

This didn't work out so well, http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/11/17/twitter_i...

This effort is half hearted at best, disorganized in practice
https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-safety/controversial...

It's been vigilantes doxxing that have had the largest impact, however what they do is illegal and against the terms of service of the apps they're trying to rid of hateful speech.
http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.806719

I would love to see more tech leaders actually build intelligent solutions to weeding out hatespeech on the internet.

Let them go underground, that's where they belong.
Ah good catch. The google link and google stuff all over the page defeated my ability to read the full patent application.
Actually that's trivial in Word, and possibly other WYSYWIG processors too.
It's not about the fact that something changed, but what changed. Full text to summary is quite the change to do based on -- who knows what? What progress, what advancement do you see here? And changing the default number of items from 15 to unlimited? I mean, not 50, not 100, not 500, but infinite? I see no purpose, just pitfalls.

> even more interesting to me is how it condemns projects to never moving

Oh yeah. Criticize any random silly move and you're against any and all progress, ever.
So like, the same thing that happened between various perl versions (inc 4x -> 5x) and python? Or C++ versions? or even c-library or executable format changes?

Things break sometimes.
A few years ago, some colleagues and I wrote a NES "demake" of Splatoon, in C, over the course of ~2 days. https://github.com/SplatooD/splatood

I definitely think our ability to do interesting things quickly (in terms of runtime) was hampered by the use of C over assembly, but it did allow us to get a functioning game done in a very short period of time.
Yes, Word has that (had it for decades).
That sort of intolerance is a badge I will wear with unalloyed pride.
If Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Google banned you, what recourse?
Should these things be regulated as utilities?
I too am interested in this hinge of the issue, but I don't see any compelling argument (in the link or anywhere else) that Airbnb rentals are unique from motels. For one, the renter's end of the transaction is basically the same. For another, it seems clear that the law is meant to ensure equal access to move about the country. Regulating the market means being skeptical of distinctions without a difference.
So? It's 2017, and it's not like what it discusses has changed, or wouldn't be applicable to 2007 or 1997.
It's a response to this story (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14987460), where a contributor has been going to many different projects and attempting to remove language support for the 418 error code.

EDIT: Ah, so it's the same person. In which case it's more of a continuation, and I anticipate that the intention is to make implementations that allow 418 non-compliant.
Paywall free version: http://archive.is/r7GhC
The problem with static sites is that you have to regenerate the site each time you make an update or new post...
Wordpress just allows you to update it from the admin panel.
thanks - I loved these games as a kid - havent been following Ron in a long time - but will now have my next weekend's entertainment lined up!
1. If anything, smaller electric motors have an even larger advantage. Smallest ICE v. smallest electrical motor? Small ICEs have a problem with being too cold.

2. "Would you buy a Prius with 300,000 miles on it today?" - sure if its body/frame is good shape. There is no inherit life span to a machine when its parts can be replaced.

3. "still be demand for fossil fuelled vehicles" - The doubt is about "big oil" to survive with the current cost structure. Yes I bet "little oil" will have a role as a specialized fuel. In Manhattan and San Francisco, it is harder and harder to find a gas station - the land is too valuable to waste on a toxic/dangerous land use. Electric charging stations don't have the same problem that gas stations have.

I can easily see a situation where owning a ICS vehicle in major cities means having to get personal fuel deliveries (if you are rich) or having to drive outside of the town to refuel (time consuming)
Seems Fowler may be missing the point. Many derisive comments are in fact statements of relative approbation. As in: "that pun was not just bad (good), it was awful (great)"

For every foul pun, there is another still Fowler.
This is exactly what I'm asking though; if they decided to treat some bespoke combinations of combining characters as though they were precomposed, then I'm curious how they generated that list, and I'm curious what fallback behavior it has for grapheme clusters that aren't specifically accounted for in this way. I'm also sort of curious what their rationale is for doing any of this in the first place, since it seems like the benefit of constant-time indexing isn't especially useful given the memory tradeoffs.
Not that I think this would be abused or anything, but I remember when technology seemed sweet and innocent just a couple of years ago