skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
They're also still used by collectors of vintage camera equipment. I have a fairly large stash of Press 25's for my Speed Graphic, and some M2's and AG1s that I can use with some of my other cameras. My Agfa Clack uses PF1's, but those aren't as easy to come by these days.

It's funny to see the reactions of people who are used to cameras with tiny built-in strobes to the output of a proper flash.
I see, thanks. I think that the type of classification that you are referring to is called Cladistics.
It's a weird situation for a number of reasons. Schmidt is clearly culpable, but it also seems to be the case that New America was existentially dependent on Google-derived funding.
I agree that thinking you can redo a whole OS or a browser from scratch in a weekend is naive (at best), but it's also true that usually you can better understand a problem after you have some experience seeing how the current implementation of its solution works.

That is to say, sometimes a rewrite from scratch is sorely needed. I, for one, would love to see a new operating system rising from the ashes of Unix to make it better without the historical baggage and some of the idiosyncrasies. And I'm not necessarily taking about plan 9.
This is a great link, thanks for sharing.
Sounds plausible.

In rugby a goal is to always keep the ball in possession. When you are tackled, you try and feed the ball back to your own side, who are (ideally) close behind you in support.

So yeah - yardage gain is somewhat meaningless for its own sake in rugby, as long as you maintain possession. If you maintain possession, the other team can never score, and you eventually will.

So the player's thoughts as they are tackled are less about preserving yardage and more about ensuring you'll end up in a position where you can feed the ball back to your teammates to maintain possession. Maybe that means less impact in the tackle.
Metal Implants Improved by Biodegradable Coating in the Future
Ask HN: Recommended (recent) videos for a Lunch and Learn
I'm collecting a list of material to consume with my colleagues for fun, learning and curiosity and amazement. Ideally from a technical angle.

If you have any videos you would recommend for us, we'd appreciate it! :)
Thanks for that additional detail - I hadn't realized the CTE was so heavily concentrated among the linemen, though it does make sense.
Callback hell was real, especially if you worked on projects that decided to join the node.js bandwagon in its early days. Then promises happened.

https://twitter.com/winterbe_/status/541868081308790784
Anybody got a link to a working example?

I mean, this seems straightforward enough

This is sorta my field. My goal is pretty pictures. Would this make pretty pictures? I dunno.

ok, here's a link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DFi4FgzEeQ
I liked this article, but I feel like it's just a bit too. . .matter of fact. "FP _will_ make your linter do your work for you", things like that.

("Even if you haven't already-made a mistake, and are just thinking of making a change to a codebase, the # FP version of the code is a lot easier to think about than the # Imperative version" was particularly bad about this. I have never had a problem paralellizing a procedural program that would have been solved using FP)

It is _much_ better at being inclusive and not preachy than other articles of similar scope. But I would prefer if posts like this tried to explain functional programming without feeling the need to put down other paradigms. And, to be clear, I'm a big fan of FP, and have been using many of its tenants for a long time now.

Functional programming is just a different way to structure a code base. Some people are better able to grasp how data flows through a maze of functions. Some people are better able to grasp how an object interacts with other objects.

In the end, it's all just a sequence of instructions executed, in order, by a machine. The true correct way of writing code is: However you can get that machine to do what you want it to do, while still being able to make changes to its behavior.
I wouldn't say "many" Valley developers make more than $465,000 (rookie minimum) and I definitely wouldn't say that "many" Valley developers make more than $775,000 (a four-year veteran minimum). However, the earning potential certainly is stretched out.

Practice squad, players, however, make about $120,000 per season, which is certainly in the ballpark.
Well, while you're at it, "also" and "too" perform the same role there. So that phrase could be shortened to "but it could also give this answer".
I use multiple monitors at work and a single monitor at home when I work from home. I find myself far more productive at the office. There are just too many instances where I need to code and look at a document at the same time, or code and look at the program output at the same time. Sure, I have to move my eyes from one monitor to the other, but that's far preferable to switching tasks and then switching back, trying to remember what I was looking at.

The other alternative is to have tiny windows of text scattered around my screen. Some people seem to enjoy working like that, but it drives me crazy.
UberEats grosses me out though. I've been in way too many Uberpools where the driver has food on the floor of the front seat and asks the passengers to not step on the food... Just doesn't seem sanitary. At least the other services seem to have insulated bags for transportation.
Light but appreciated release. My team will love the refactoring features.
Adblock and than i need a subscription? no.
You don't need a 2d map. You define the behavior of the cell in terms of the states of its neighbors.
> But I'm sure that if one were to define "understanding" with regard to humans, then what the AI does would be far from it.

We have a bad habit of over-estimating our abilities, so I wouldn't bet too much money on that proposition.
> Big businesses can threaten free speech when they accumulate too much power. For Google, that moment has come.

This feels like a bit of an exaggeration in this situation, no? I mean, some states have at-will employment where they can just fire you for any reason they want. And if you're doing things that are actively working against them, of course they're going to want to part ways with you. And even in states without that, I'm sure there's some clause in their contract that says "if you speak out against us we have the option of terminating you." That's not really a free speech issue at that point, right? Their free speech isn't being hindered or taken away at all. Rather, a business is making business decisions based on your speech, which happen to effect you.

EDIT: to clarify, I'm all for the world getting more ethical. I was just kind of arguing a semantic: free speech is mostly known for being a civil liberty, and Google technically isn't restricting that in this case.
IIRC, most "extreme sports" are less dangerous than, say, horseback riding.
I dunno, I agree that data flow is important and maybe the most important part of functional programming. But the ability to sling program fragments (partial application, pointless functions, etc.) around as if they were data seems pretty important to me. I think of it as Lego-blocks for programs. If the program parts snap together real easy and the data moves seamlessly (or seemlessly-ish) from end-to-end then you're on the right track.

But I suppose there are many paths to functional programming... I have only followed one so far.
Personally, I don't particularly consider schools in the "top 50" to be "top schools." I would consider schools in the top 10, maybe 20 for a particular major to be the colloquial "top schools" in that major.

So for Math and CS, yes, this mostly means mort of the Ivies and 10 or so other schools, including MIT and Stanford.

In general I'm of the opinion that there is a lot of "top school" inflation in the United States. It's better to consider schools on a major by major basis, especially at the graduate level, where your advisor might be more important than the school.

The reason I restrict the top to the top 10 (and top 20 for leniency) is because the admission standards are vastly different the first 10, then the next 10, then the next 10 - 20, and at that point there isn't a significant difference in "attainability" anymore. I term it this way because I think the word "top" is only useful for signaling, not for real qualitative comparison.

As a specific example: NYU is listed as a top 30 school for computer science, but while it's a good program, it seems odd to list it as a "top CS school" - is it really that much better than the next 10 or so, or is the term just diluted? Likewise, NYU is in the top 10 for mathematics, which actually seems sane from my perspective.

And in the top 25 schools for CS is Rice University - you need a new word to call the group that MIT, NYU and Rice are in, because "top" is no longer all that meaningful.
This is no different than criticizing your employer, don't be surprised when they fire you for that.
The interesting generalization of that question is that after > 10 years of an ad fueled boom who else is existentially dependent on Google?
When your code wanders steeply to the right, then it is time to create named functions, variables or otherwise flatten it. Just like when the code nests too much for any other reason.

But I agree that js attracted "Real programmers don't use Pascal" kind of programmers at first. Pascal style programmers perceived js as pure hell and treated it as abomination. Through, I am not sure whether they were swayed or rather moved elsewhere in disgust.
"I bit the hand that fed me. It stopped feeding me. That's how eating out of someone's hand works."
This comment seems to be conflating "morally right" with "legally permitted"
What do you think the solution is? Not being snarky here; I'm genuinely interested in the problem you've described, because this unbounded freedom bothers me too.
Oops, I should've verified, last I remember the league minimum was on the order of $250k. Apologies!
OMG. Hunger. #1 cause of me being ill-tempered. Never be hungry at the office.

(Get fat instead?)
Those are not very typical tackles. Tackling by controlling legs is common but not flashy high impact events and tend to allow the player to pass the ball mid-tackle. Legs generally seemed to sort themselves out in the normal case. Main risks I experienced as a tackler would be getting a boot to the face or shoulder impact. Main risk as a tacklee is what you land on - head, shoulders but you usually have quite a bit of control in the situation so its your responsibility to land safely and ensure you keep possession for the play to keep moving. A tackle is rarely surprising. Outcomes tend to be much worse for collisions with > 2 players when players are more likely to get inverted or things bent out of shape or landed on.
In this thread: people who don't use Node.js making wild presumptions about how it works. Callback hell? Been a few years since that's been a problem.
Rapid release at Facebook scale
You don't know what you are talking about. Code some simple server on c using epoll I think you could learn a lot from that. And JS has async await now, so no callbacks.
On this topic, I really like the Join Order Benchmark paper: http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol9/p204-leis.pdf

It basically shows that most cost-based optimizers are pretty bad at cardinality estimation, which compounds when queries use more joins.
What basis is there for the assumption that private IRBs have a "terrible process" and do a worse job at protecting subject safety?
I think Google Maps is way more advanced when it comes to peripheral information such as business listings.

For example, a small stationery shop near where I live was marked as closed in Apple Maps, when Google Maps (correctly) showed that it was open for a couple more hours. That sort of thing makes Google Maps the winner IMO.
https://mega.nz is a popular online encrypted file sharing website. Maybe you could check if they have an affiliate program?
In rugby there is no blocking. The only time non-ball carriers come into contact with the opposing team is during a scrum or accidental collision (which are quite rare).
It would be the tiling, right?

Am I missing something?
Maybe he can get together with Damore and commiserate.
From the title I had initially assumed it was about the infamous memo. For anybody else who might get the same impression: it's a different story and it's actually worth reading.
> math, not science
While true, it is an artefact of the usage of the term science in English.

For example, theoretical computer science is no science according to that distinction between math and science.
Yeah, I'd leave that out if I were doing it :) otherwise you pretty much have to include an interpreter as well.
I've talked myself into thinking it's actually a pun. Ad astra per aspera is a set phrase in English, so any modification to it is punning the phrase. In this formulation, aquam still carries the original meaning of ardua, hardship. While this wouldn't be a pun to a native Latin speaker, I haven't met too many of them.

I kind of wish my work had mission patches like this, though "Deployed Client X" doesn't sound so dramatic.
> Security Analyzer ... walks the AST and performs the taint
propagation and analysis on the AST. This way it is able to
detect potential vulnerable blocks that allow dangerous tainted inputs from the user into the sensitive sinks.

This is basically the only thing about their detection method, which is pretty disappointing, even more so comparing to exciting things like 'inter- and intra-procedural data flow analysis' in related work section.

> Alternatively, one could use
the parsers from the existing tools, such as LuaCheck [17] or lua-checker [19]. Unfortunately the parsers in those tools are tailored to particular versions of Lua specifications and adapting them to all or latest Lua specifications may be untrivial or may introduce bugs and unnecessary complexity.

Wrong, at least for Luacheck parser: it supports all Lua syntax starting from 5.1.
So if I don't like Java and C, what's your suggestion I should use instead to get the best of both worlds and not the worst?
I wouldn't call myself an adherent. If anything I'm an adherent to the idea that Objects are just another Closure and vice versa. The interesting distinctions are in how they achieve those same goals.

But most working programmers don't care about the debate at all in my experience. When they say they are looking for an object oriented language what they are really saying is:

I am looking for a language that has a syntax where you
can declare an object and call methods on that object
usually with a dot but sometimes with an ->.

They don't actually care about much more than that most of the time.
One argument for a non-limited number of terms is to avoid the 'lame duck president' or a 'hyper-active president' - both acting like being unconstrained from the need to win the next election.
Do they wear less protective gear, or is the gear just less bulky due to improvements in design?
Morality also works both way right? If you bite the feeding hand, how are you morally right?
Criticizing your employer is considered protected speech in the US.

Edit: I stand corrected. "Some" forums of criticizing your employer may be considered protected. You may need a lawsuit to enforce that protection....
If it's a valid criticism of a significant issue, why would it be necessary for the target of a criticism to fund it? Surely there would enough injured parties who have a reason to fund it.
how so? I don't understand where you are drawing the parallels
I am surprised at the number of people who think they can do everything without a framework and that everything would just be better if they weren't weighed down by the horrible affliction of using one. Frameworks provide real value and while not required for many small applications they can be a huge advantage in large enterprise applications.

For example if you are using Ember you gain the advantage of a client-side ORM called Ember Data which handles caching and cache invalidation for your API data. Did you handle that in your non-framework application? If you did, how long did it take you to implement? How well tested is it? How many developers besides yourself have reviewed it? How much documentation did you write and how long does it take to bring new developers up to speed on it? If it breaks, who will fix it?

Multiply that by ten or twenty depending on the framework and you start to see what the benefits are.
My adult league is non-contact from the "never played in my life" level up through the "D-I/Semi-Pro" level.
> Corporations are geared to pursue their interests, and criticism is not in their best interest.

Obviously we should condemn this behavior, but I can't say I'm surprised. It's good to see such a clear example of Google being unable to resist exerting its power to protect itself from criticism, but I can't help but imagine all of the instances of this that will never see the light of day. The reality is that our world is filled with greed and corruption and that's not going to change any time soon.
This is a big leap forward.
I'm curious, how do you propose they pay their costs? If you are unwilling to look at ads why is it unreasonable for them to ask you to pay a subscription?
Millions of web based businesses relying on ads served by Google adwords.
Not who you replied to, but I, personally, think it boils down to trust. Using someone else's code, _especially_ if it's functional, should be the same as using the proverbial black box. You shouldn't need to understand their code in order to use it with your own. The same should be true of your own code, really. You shouldn't need to remember implementation details of a function you wrote in order to use it in elsewhere in your code.

I know there's then the issue of security, freedom, openness. . .whatever. But if you're working on a project with someone else, and you don't trust them, the project's probably doomed to fail to begin with.
There is another factor at play here: Rugby, Australian rules, and Gaelic league wear next to no equipment. The problem with American Football is the players are geared up with heavily padded helmets. This has the effect of turning heads into battering rams. You wouldn't see 2 rugby players run into each other full steam because they don't have gear and would break bones and get cut. The gear lessens brain impact but does not eliminate it. So you then get higher impact forces that appear less brutal due to non visible trauma to the brain that is being rattled the whole time.
The idea that the domain of science is restricted to falsifiable theories, and is therefore fundamentally empirical, dates only to the early part of the twentieth century. Since the Enlightenment, and also in the much older Western classical tradition, the term science (and its closest translations in Greek, Latin, German, French, and many other languages) has referred much more broadly than that restriction permits, to all fields of knowledge established in a rigorous manner, whether deductive or inductive.

It's in that sense that Gauss crowned mathematics the "Königin der Wissenschaften," the Queen of the Sciences. And indeed in German the term Wissenschaft in ordinary usage still includes mathematics, referring to all knowledge amenable to investigation (as opposed to received knoweldge) [0]. The terms for science in many other Western languages also retain this broader meaning to a greater extent that does contemporary English, and the same is true in many non-Western cultures as well.

The problem here is mainly a terminological one: in English we've found it useful to have a word that refers specifically to the Popperian notion of what counts as science (mainly, I think, to gain the power easily to distinguish "scientific" ideas from "non-scientific" bunk), but we haven't come up with a new term for the older, broader meaning of science as rigorously establishable knoweldge.

I should also point out that Popperian science involves plenty of deductive reasoning—we call it theory—so while it is true that Popper's notion of science requires empiricism, it is not correct to identify it with the distinction between empirical and deductive reasoning. At the same time, the practice of mathematics certainly does involve empirical reasoning, often resulting in a conjecture whose truth is subsequently subjected to rigorous deductive arguments.

(There is a section in the English Wikipedia article on mathematics that discusses this a bit more [1].)

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wissenschaft

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Mathematics_as_sci...
Depends on what else the feeding hand does with its time.
"I and the entire Open Markets team were let go because it’s not in Google’s interest to finance criticism of its business model."

Coming soon: Washington Post's scathing takedown of Amazon's business model.
"Once mathematicians became convinced that ZF set theory over first order logic was plausibly consistent and expressive enough, such foundational issues became less important to the typical mathematician."

Was this decision ever explicitly expressed and agreed on by mathematicians at the time, or was it just implicitly adopted?
Attempting to argue about the value of dynamic typing right now is like trying to win the vim/emacs (or is that now just Sublime Text/Atom) editor wars. It's more a recitation of dogma than useful conversations; you can't discuss any type system's pitfalls without "oh, that's just algebraic typing, not static typing".

Fear not, my fellow Ruby/Python/Lisp/Perlers - the pendulum will swing back, and all that will be discussed is how much of a pain the current static typing systems are and how type hinting is the real future.
Everyone knows that morality does not work that way. There is no 1:1 relationship between righteousness and being a provider.
How can Google Play be so inept?
The Google Play store lacks any ability to sort search results on mobile. It can't download in parallel, and waits to start downloading the next app until the former is done installing.

I could go on. How can such a widely used service be designed like some sort of joke? Where is Google's legendary obsession with speed?
Yeah, free speech doesn't mean others have to pay to say something they don't like. It means you can say it. And at your own expense.
Are think tanks legally required to be impartial? Are they generally expected to be impartial?

I was under the impression that funding a "Think Tank" was a way to funnel money into research, paper-writing, policy promulgation, etc. that favored your position. Are they something else?
Think tanks are a little different. It's closer to a professor getting fired for pursuing research that casts a bad light on a corporate donor to the school. What's the most troubling to me is not that this individual was fired, but his entire line of inquiry was ejected by Google.
The guy who made AngelList, which facilitates business networking, hates business networking for himself.
> If you bite the feeding hand, how are you morally right?

Whistleblowing? You could argue you have a moral obligation to your fellow citizens. Not arguing, just offering an example.
What's to connect? I use the bumped hourly.
Only thing a company owes you is what is in your contact and vice versa. I don't understand what people don't get about this. If you criticize the government and get thrown in jail, that's a violation of free speech. But If you complain about your employer then they can fire you. If you don't like your employer, you can leave. That's how it works. End of story.

The guy is publishing an article in a major news publication about his experiences during all of this. His free speech is quite obviously not being suppressed.