skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're confusing "devaluation" with "deflation". It's a "deflationary" proof, meaning the quantity of Bitcoins is formulaically scarce. Meaning their value can't be torpedoed by massive paper infusions from central banks. Value is not intrinsic, it's what someone is willing to pay.
Given free choice I'd use Elixir, but working with Node and Python at work have to say that for async web services to my surprise I prefer Node more and I def. like Yarn more as package manager.
Another important thing is to accept that anger is normal human reaction/emotion and not to feel guilty over being angry. Some responses to anger are bad (when your emotions blow up and you start to insult people just to get back to them or vent), but anger itself is not something shameful or bad.
Cancer Therapy CAR-T Gets FDA Approval
One reason to remember the ethnicity of the people contributing to the war effort is that Nazi propaganda was that the "Jewish race" was inferior, and it was the German destiny to conquer all such "inferior races".

Well, it turns out that many of these supposedly inferior Jews were instrumental in defeating the allegedly superior Nazis, and whose achievements often equaled or exceeded those of the latter.

Elsewhere in this thread someone brought up the Jewish scientists that were key to the Manhattan Project, which helped to defeat another supposedly superior "race": the Japanese. But there were many other brilliant Jewish scientists -- perhaps most famously Albert Einstein -- but the history of science is replete with Jewish contributions.

The Nazis (and, incidentally, the Soviets) scorned what they called "Jewish Science", fired Jewish scientists, exiled them, outright killed them or otherwise made their work impossible, and ignored their contributions. What was the result? Well, it certainly didn't help the Nazis. Those Jews that managed to escape or went in to exile often went on to join the fight against the Nazis, and it was the enemies of the Nazis (who welcomed and embraced the Jews -- though, arguably not nearly enough) benefited from their discoveries and their help.

This might seem not worth mentioning, academic, or of historical interest only. You might think it's obvious that there were brilliant Jewish scientists, as there were brillian scientists of other ethnicities. But in fact if you follow the news today, there are still people who believe very strongly in Nazi propaganda and in racist rhetoric. They do actually believe that it is the "white race" that is superior and others are inferior. White nationalism, white supremacy, and other racist/nationalist ideologies are unfortunately alive and well, and have made a resurgence with the rise of the radical right not only in the United States, but in many other parts of the world.

One of the ways to counter such pernicious ideologies is to point out how they are wrong, and it's hard to imagine how that can be done without talking about the ethnicities which these ideologies claim to be inferior.

That doesn't mean that one must take up the position that it is the Jews that are superior. Every ethnicity has something special and valuable to contribute to humanity. None is superior and none is inferior. Each ethnicity should recognize, respect, and celebrate their own accomplishments as well as those of others. This is the way to counter exclusivism, discrimination, hatred, and bigotry, and is what multiculturalism is about.
I'm not so sure about this. If you look historically, in game deaths seem very common in early football. As the game has gotten better pads, players have also been getting much MUCH bigger, which is increasing risk, but we haven't seen regular documented deaths during games like in the 1890s~1930s every few years. Now we get lots of deaths due to outside issues though (lots of car accidents and shootings on that list in recent years; lots of recent suicides on the NFL list just above too).

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

EDIT: I realize we're talking long term vs short term, but I wasn't able to find pre-compiled data comparing timelines of major advances in football pads and injury rates.
Exactly, i used to be of the same mindset, turns out biology isn't that simple.
A Bourne-style shell built from scratch in 35 minutes [video]
I downvoted because this seems likely to start a tired, ideological digression from the topic. Also, your snarky implication of a dichotomy between "humans are a plague" and "unbounded population growth is favorable" didn't help.

I actually agree that population growth will likely need to be regulated one day, but the wording is unnecessarily inflammatory and it's too far off topic for this thread.
You're right to identify tax revenues as the source of funding for local services but there's a strong case to be made for taxing people and not corporations.

Corporations don't pay taxes, they simply pass the burden on to customers/employees/shareholders. It would be simpler (and arguably it would allow the market to allocation resources more efficiently) if corporations paid 0 tax and people paid taxes. Consider this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/why-we-...

And you're right to point out that companies bid jurisdictions against each other. But many bid winners wouldn't get the facility without a special accommodation. I'm sure Apple chose this town because of the benefits, and this town is better off for it. I'm also sure this town wouldn't have been selected if there weren't any 'wooing' process, so this town is strictly better off.

If the town can serve its citizens with fewer tax revenue, then they're doing something right and hopefully they can expand and more people will choose to live there.

This helps incentivize communities to operate more efficiently and that's a good thing.

IMO the bigger problem is corporate free loaders. All the local walmarts use way more police time than the targets, but Walmart doesn't pay additional fees for the intensive use of police. The simple solution is a corporate tax but that isn't good because it doesn't incentivize more or less use of the police, ideally we'd charge them according to use which is different from a tax and more closely aligned with our preferences (e.g preference for less police work at walmart).
Calling it "contempt" is unsupported. Patronizing, condescending, sermonizing - sure.

If we weren't told by first principles in 2000 that all Internet traffic was being surveilled, then Mark Klein certainly did in 2006. And yet the masses continued blissfully adopting webcrapps and other negligently-designed communications systems... until 2013 when Snowden came along with banal "revelations", that were doled out slowly enough to survive the media's short attention span.

I'd love it if there were enough whistleblowers that we did get a new leak from the surveillance-industrial complex every week. And this news item, in the technical context, is utterly boring. But it's a bit disingenuous to condemn a news organization for behavior that every other news org does, likely because you disagree with their politics.
> I'm not sure what the NFL does that's wrong.

Because they suppressed evidence?
This is correct. In another language we'd refer to the distinction with a different word
Here's a start.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/12/we-should-radically-chan...
Comparing investing to gambling and drugs is misleading. Yes, daytrading feels very much like gambling but long-term investments with a diversified portfolio?

Edit: What is going on here, why the downvote? Downvoters thhink that long-term investing in assets equals gambling and drugs?
I think you might be the author of this article, and if that is the case, for me in the demo it shows the Restart/Run/Step buttons as a code example and not as actual buttons. Not sure if that's intentional, but they do work otherwise.
Another difference on tackling in Rugby: you can only tackle the ball carrier.
> I'm not sure what the NFL does that's wrong.

I don't think that's a particularly strong stance to take. The NFL has been fairly active in trying to dismiss or ignore this evidence. They are not merely standing by the sidelines.

One recent thing the NFL has done is bullied NIH researchers in concussion research in order to divert funding to their own NFL researchers.[0] Serious questions have been raised about the independence of those researchers. It's like Big Tobacco all over again.

There have been a number of other instances where the NFL has tried to discredit or hide concussion research that details how dangerous Football is. [1]

Besides paying their players, the NFL actively targets kids and amateurs through marketing. They buy the merchandise and become long term fans. By hiding and dismissing the concussion research they are choosing profits over safety.

All of this would be okay if the true dangers of football were fully transparent. Adults can consent to risks when they know the risks they are facing. In this case, the NFL has hidden that risk.

[0]: http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/15667689/congression...

[1]: http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/14711203/nfl-donatio...
Rugby has also included head injury assessments (HIA) into its laws. They sports governing body introduced HIAs in 2012 and they have been getting more stringent over the years.

At he elite level a player who is suspected of having taken a significant knock to the head can be substituted off the field for 10 minutes to be assessed by a doctor. The referee, assistant referees, sideline medics or the television match official can make the get the player off the field and to the medic. Players almost always want to play on after a knock so the decision is left to officials who may have seen or heard a head impact. If a player fails the assessment then they do not return to the field and further tests will be performed after the match. If the player passes then the substitution is reversed. If an incident is missed during a game then an assessment can be ordered after reviewing a recording of the game.

The laws of rugby also include clauses about contact with the head, tipping a player onto their head, or knocking a jumping player in such a way as to make them land on their head.

Rugby players are getting bigger and faster and the hits are getting commensurately more energetic. Rugby is trying to keep players safe. Whether these measures help remains to be seen but I think the governing bodies take player safety pretty seriously.

One interesting stat that I heard is that one of the things that seems to be inversely correlated with head injury is neck strength so we may see more players training their already powerful necks.
Changes are made regularly, often to encourage player safety. But I think you can only make a game so safe when it's predicated on tackling people.
Sounds like you know a bit about this - any chance you could weigh in on my question above? Does tackling serve a different strategic purpose in rugby vs American football (ie., not giving up an inch can be a big deal in US football), and could this also be partially responsible for the brain rattling quality of tackling?
> Rust keeps approaching C++'s feature set..

If there's one thing we C++ programmers can agree on, it's that having tons of features makes C++ a pleasure to work with... ?
Yahoo must face litigation by data breach victims: U.S. judge
There has to be a name ("Foobar's Law") for the idea that computers are optimized to developers' needs.

In my open office floor plan the people who have two monitors do heavy spreadsheet work. In some fields of work deeply horizontal sheet designs (long timelines for cashflow models) are common, which makes non-maximized windows impracticable. More generally, most of the common office worker's day is developing spreadsheets and writing reports on them. Not having to alt-tab is invaluable in such situations.

(Myself, I use a laptop with an additional monitor. The laptop screen is smaller and "underprivileged", it runs web research and work chat, the larger screen holds whatever I'm intensively working on.)
This is just rehashing the same tired and fallacious argument that most errors aren't type errors. And it is pure fallacy because different languages have different ideas as to what constitutes a type, and therefore have completely different ideas as to what a type error is. If I write `Object.new.foo` in Ruby, I get a NoMethodError. Not a type error, right? But that's the thing, that would be a type error in almost all statically typed languages.

And it doesn't even come close to stopping there...there are hundreds of examples of errors that are not Type Errors in your dynamic language that are type errors in some other language. NullPointerException? That's a type error that is entirely prevented by many type systems. If you accidentally multiply your time and distance instead of divide to get your velocity, that would be a Type Error in F# using their units of measure types. If you accidentally pop an empty stack, that might be an EmptyStackException even in many statically typed languages, but would absolutely be a Type Error in a language with dependent types like ATS or Idris.

In the end, dynamic typing is just a way to make runtimes slow and building correct programs slower, in exchange for some entirely subjective aesthetic or ergonomic quality. And sure, most type systems in practical languages aren't "complete" enough to eliminate the need for tests. But don't tell me that because you don't eliminate tests that you don't need types. That's bullshit. Statically enforced types eliminate errors, and every check that you defer to runtime is an error waiting to happen. If you're willing to make that tradeoff, by all means do so...but don't lie to me.
AMP content does look different, even across our own brands. I'm talking about the experience of tapping on a link from Google's search results. For non-AMP content some publishers might show you an interstitial ad, or a banner ad that pushes down the content as you start reading it, some publishers don't/can't do caching correctly, can't optimize images cross resolutions, etc. It's a frustrating experience for the web, specially when you compare it to the Apple's News app for example. Let alone if you're trying to search for web content on a 2G connection...

AMP incentivizes publishers to implement behavior and functionality that results in a better and consistent experience for the Google end user, this is a fact. Sure, the incentives for the publisher often boil down to SEO and ensuring their content is discoverable on the Google platform (as mentioned in the post when we talk about visibility and discoverability).

We can discuss how ethical or unethical it is for Google to use SEO incentives in order to push publishers to deliver AMP content, but that's a different conversation. I fully believe in the open web, when compared to Apple News and Facebook Instant Articles, AMP is clearly the more open solution. Even thought AMP is not perfect, I truly believe the benefits for the end users on the Google platform are there.

Condé Nast does have full control over our content and sites. Don't forget, the majority of the traffic to our business is non-amp. Our regular sites perform really well (specially when compared with other players in our space) and we're constantly improving them. We're absolutely doing the hard work there and will continue to do so. We will also continue to distribute content to other platforms besides Google AMP whenever it makes sense.
This phenomenon is known as Risk Compensation[1].

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
Oh dear. That java tutorial just reads wrong to me but that's probably because I've been burned too many times by conflating polymorphism with code reuse in the form of inheritance.

I think the working programmer doesn't know or care though. They care about whether you can reuse code in some way. And whether you can substitute multiple implementations of an object act as one particular type.

The specifics of how you reach either of those goals is all they want to know and the pedantry that us language geeks love to engage in just blows right past them.
> ...Optimizing memory accesses is hard because you don't know who's looking at the memory in a global sense...In a language like C, therefore, there's a tension between generating optimized code and generating predictable code, and that tension comes from the fact the compiler doesn't know which code could have side-effects and, therefore, invoke spooky action-at-a-distance if it's optimized too aggressively.

I get this argument for functional languages and Haoyi's description for functional style, by writing down the expression tree not just one possible serialization the expression tree, was excellent); both the freedom to access memory and the lack of richer information about possible execution orders makes it more difficult for automatic compiler optimizations. I have definitely bought into writing C in a functional way when using local variables.

However, the lack of some compiler optimizations due to memory aliasing guarantees is not always a disadvantage. Like bootstrapping a compiler, taking advantage of new processor features, doing an inherently sequential task like state machine parsing, or even if you just enjoy thinking about data and algorithms at a low level.

What imperative languages need to remain competitive is richer type systems regarding objects with pointers into the heap. And this is no secret; languages have been experimenting with this forever. C++'s attempt with object oriented programming was a good stab in the dark but clearly has limitations, with the explosion of type information regarding things like exceptions and wart covers like move semantics.

What I would like to see is a language with weak typing and free pointers like C, but with a more capable, generic type system with concepts, like that described by Alexander Stepanov in Elements of Programming. Also object orientation as a language feature should be replaced by [some syntactic sugar + generic functions + function overloading + linearish? types] to make OO style easier than it is in C.
Things like memory aliasing optimizations would be managed by generic functions and type concepts provided by STL like libraries.

Perhaps it makes me a slower, less productive programmer but I like imperative programming and access to memory. That is the part I enjoy.
To me, this is the craziest development in our understanding of gestation. We live very close to a hospital with a popular birth center, and someone I know came to our house when they were in labor to see if they'd need to check in. Less than an hour before the kid was born, they were on my couch drinking a beer.

I guess I'm all for it? But compared to when our kids were born, it was jarring.
The distinction is significant, despite their relationship they're from totally different universes. Science is empirical: truth is validated by observation of the real world. Math is logical: truth is validated purely by internal consistency.
I went from a 3x24" 1080p monitor setup to a single 34" Ultrawide recently and really enjoyed the move. I'm just as productive, if not more, and having more horizontal screen space makes up for losing the extra monitors. Overall, I would recommend one larger, higher resolution monitor over multiple smaller ones. There's less context switching because you're looking at the same monitor the entire time.
Rugby and league have no padding and those rules. It doesn't appear to anywhere close to enough.
Well, to me Rust code looks fundamentally like any other OO language e.g.

let mut window: PistonWindow = WindowSettings::new(
"piston: hello_world",
[200, 200]
)
.exit_on_esc(true)
.opengl(OpenGL::V2_1)
.build()
.unwrap();

If you wrote that in C++ or Java or Python or.. it would /could look fundamentally the same. You create a window object and then call a bunch of its methods (mutating its state). That's OOP.

I think the Rust people just desperately try to disassociate themselves from the OOP label because OOP is not hip anymore. "So 90s" and all that.

I think that's childish. If you use a broad definition of OOP according to which C++, Smalltalk, Java, and Python are all OOP languages said definition certainly covers Rust too.

To be fair, even the C++ crowd doesn't like to use the term OOP anymore and instead say things like "generic programming".. but at the end of the day they too are instantiating classes.
> For starters, it's a much cleaner and simpler language. This means that you have a lot less mental overhead working with it.

I haven't seen much code that uses the bad aspects of JS, or at least exposes it in library APIs. You can just stick to the good parts of JS and have the same benefit. Clojure also has its quirks, btw. Every language will.

> It encourages good practices by defaulting to immutability. This naturally leads to code that can be reasoned about in isolation.

The language may encourage it, but given that none of the JS libs I've used mutate anything I give them, it sounds like the benefits of immutability have spread enough that mutation is no longer a problem in practice.

> I find the tooling is superior. Leiningen lets me do the same thing as a grab bag of Js build tools, such as dependency management, building, packaging, and so on.

If you write a good set of config files with something like Webpack, it's fire-and-forget. And in practice, Leiningen isn't all that simpler than JS alternatives. Trying to understand the sample project.clj for a real-world ClojureScript project was kind of a nightmare for me.

> There's still no equivalent to Figwheel in JavaScript workflow. The productivity of being able to see changes as you're working without having to reload the page and rebuild state can't be overstated.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I can make changes to my site and the page reloads live with only 14 lines of vanilla JS code on the front-end[1] and back-end[2] each. If I need to make changes while keeping state instead of reloading (which I haven't really seen a need for) I'm sure I can whip something up using `eval`. Plus even if you follow the Components architecture and avoid global state, there are still situations where you have to reload the page from scratch.

> Reagent/re-frame combination much cleaner than React itself in my opinion. It also avoids much of the complexity in React as described here https://purelyfunctional.tv/article/react-vs-re-frame/

That may be true, but that doesn't prevent equivalent libraries to Reagent/re-frame from being created in JS. And maybe there already is an exact copy of that in JS somewhere. React may be the king in this space for now, but there are lots of alternatives or plugins while sticking to JS.

[1]: https://github.com/sdegutis/sdegutis.com/blob/master/src/tem...

[2]: https://github.com/sdegutis/sdegutis.com/blob/master/index.j...
There's an audio version for the lazy like me (it's a podcast)

https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/340298200/download?client_...
If Yahoo is held liable, this case will mark a turning point in how companies collect and keep customer data. Up until now, all the losses have been socialized and borne by individuals rather than by the companies who were entrusted with their personal information.
Agreed. A bit of silence is fine while you're listening to a response.
Hits are much less frequent in hockey (they happen several times per play in Football) and the players are much smaller, but they are moving really fast and playing on ice. I think the worst hits in Hockey would rival anything in Football, but I don't think the prevalence of CTE will be as high.
US orders Russia to close consulate and two annexes
The problem arguably is with SPA as an architecture.

The problem is not that SPA devs are not implementing these features, it's that the devs are responsible for implementing them in the first place. As other people have noted, even though you have gone through great lengths to make your site work as expected, "open in new tab" does not work.

These are browser features, and devs shouldn't have to worry about implementing them.