skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Aha. I see the crux.

You're right, in a particular way that I hadn't thought of:

Most people don't have a background in programming. They weren't doing it when they were teens, and many people probably started writing code within the last year or so.

In that context, I completely agree. It's absolutely true that at the end of all that chaos, you won't end up a better programmer.

I was speaking as someone who was in the inverse situation: I'd amassed a lot of theoretical knowledge, and spent a lot of time chasing the phantom of "being a good programmer." I researched memory models, read whitepapers, explored how Google implemented bigtable, went through rtm's 6.824 Distributed Systems course just for fun (it's freely available online)... You know, a bunch of hardcore stuff that it seems like "real programmers ought to know."

Yeah... Turns out that doesn't always translate into dollars. It came really close to being a bad situation (explained here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15642428).

Let's put it this way. If I had to do it all over again, it's very possible I would swap skillsets with you. Because you know all of the stuff you rattled off. You are now prepared to avoid it. So yes, it's easy to feel like you've wasted your time. But when it comes to employability, you are far better positioned from a career standpoint.

Stuff like this may feel "out of bounds" of traditional conversation. Normally we're supposed to make up arguments that support our points purely through reason alone, right? Like it would be much more persuasive for me to say "Well, this matters because X" where X is something related to programming. Talking about career stuff and employability may seem like punting. It might also seem like it's something you don't really need to worry too much about.

But when you relax and let yourself stop learning, and stop going through the motions of all that stuff you hated, it's merely 3-5 years before you end up in a similar position. Maybe. Or maybe you'll get lucky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC-V
Ah yes, those were the days. One could open a website and it worked. You could save it, bookmark it, share it and it worked. No invasive ads, no pervasive tracking, accessibility was starting to become an important topic.

JavaScript was used mostly for decorative purposes and AJAX where it improved experience.

As far as benefits to the users are concerned, why is today's web better? It's just a souped up Model T with bilboards on all sides, a 360 degree camera on top and more cameras on the inside.

But I get why it's awesome for front-end developers, they get to rewrite everything in the framework of the day every couple of years and they are handsomely paid. They get to invent new contraptions to keep up in the eternal race with native apps.

It does get a little annoying when someone points out that the emperor is naked, but otherwise life is good.
How would I test this? If I just create two (preemptible) n1-standard-1 VMs with the latest debian image and I use "ping" with the internal IP address then I get on average 0.138 ms

I do get impressive bandwidth (1.95 Gbits/sec) using iperf.
> For someone like me that got out when the pool was small around 2006, there is no incentive to jump back in. I mean yes, if I closed my eyes and jumped I would probably adjust after a while. But why jump in the JS pool when I can swim in the open sea? :)

I think that's actually worrying. While I'm not in the 'JS sucks; avoid at all cost' camp, I do find it a bit worrying that as I'm getting better as a developer, and as I'm getting more experience with non-JS ecosystems, I find myself avoiding it whenever possible. Even to the point of going for old-fashioned server-side apps just so I can use saner language ecosystem <x>.

I'm sure the loss of me will not affect the JS ecosystem much. But I'd be surprised if the same is not the case for many other, better developers. TJ Holowaychuck left for Go? Jose Valim moved on from Rails to Elixir (even to the point of creating it to solve problems he encountered with Rails).

I'm confident JS is important enough to keep a hold on many good devs, but I do hope we keep improving the ecosystem so that the really good developers stay on board to help improving it.
> You seem to be having a problem understanding why people would be motivated to release genuinely free software.

Yes, I do have a problem understanding why people work for free.

I don't see cops working for free, or bankers, or chip designers, or the guy who served my dinner working for free. Even Andrew doesn't work for free.

I can understand licensing software that was built or purchased using [socialist] tax dollars under the GPL for moral reasons, but I don't understand why I have to pay Andrew to help Intel maintain their competitive (size) advantage.
I read Animal Farm twice, once as a child reading a story about animals, once as an adult reading it as allegory. I enjoyed it a lot more the first time.
They've tried, but there's definitely a lot more work to do. If you're interested check out the Open Worm project

http://docs.openworm.org/en/latest/faq/
People keep bringing up nazi propaganda as if it's a serious threat, but is it? The most successful radicalization stories I've heard are about people being recruited into ISIS. The political echochambers that have the most reach are the censors at Google and the campuses they graduated from, stemming from the cult-like application of progressivism. The most pressing issue of science illiteracy is climate change denial, pushed by capitalist interests.

People are worried about the one ideology we are most inoculated against, and for which tens of thousands can be whipped into a frenzy to protest against, _even if no actual nazi event is taking place_. This is not a real issue. Neither is being upset that you're letting your kids be babysat by bots who make Sims machinima. If the author feels there's a flood of dangerous content out there, why is the article full of milquetoast embeds?
Some do, some don't.

The BSD licence that MINIX 3 uses actually requires giving credit:

Copyright (c) 1987, 1997, 2006, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands All rights reserved. Redistribution and use of the MINIX 3 operating system in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

[...]

Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

[...]

Source: https://github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Research-Foundation/minix...
My impression was that Mouse Guard was a lot more Redwall-esque - is that wrong?
It's a terrible language in general, so your analogy doesn't really work. It would be really easy to introducs this in python, for example. If it takes someone an eternity to reverse engineer python then there is a bigger problem here than learning functional programming...
Yeah but it is better as everyone will have a clear direction after it
EFF: Twitter users have a First Amendment right not to be blocked by Trump
You probably weren’t mutating props...

My eyes kinda got wide when I read that part.
> Computer hardware and software people could never figure out a reliable way to communicate the diagonal display size. It was just easier for the hardware and software to communicate the screen resolution and just punt on factoring in how packed the pixels were when rendering computer graphics. There was never commitment by the computer industry to deliver display output that matched real-world measurements.

No, this is a HTML/browser problem.

Since the days of DDC (late 90s) this worked plug-n-play. If, for example, you set a PDF viewer to 100 % then you will practically always get a 1:1 size reproduction that is basically dead nuts on.
It's also a good microcosm to learn about real politics. The facades are much more transparent as it's mostly amateurs.
That's a lot of words intended to obscure a very simple subject.

1. Theoretically, a minimum wage will reduce unemployment, and the higher the minimum wage, the higher the impact. However, even in theory it has to be quite high to get meaningful impacts, given how noisy employment data is.

2. The minimum wage in the US is quite low, and has very rarely been increased sharply. As a result, we've never really seen any large spike in unemployment, but we also have no reason to think we wouldn't if we ever did. Nobody has ever tried a minimum wage of, say, 80% of the median wage to see what it would do.

3. Although not entirely conclusive, the data from the largest increases does seem to show spikes in the minimum wage. For example, the University of Washington released their study on the impact of Seattle raising their minimum wage from $11 to $13 per hour, and found that the reduction in hours was 3 times higher than the increase in wages, meaning minimum wage workers lost $125 per month in earnings[1]. By contrast, the best studies which show no effect covered smaller increases or increases to a lower level (as a % of median wages).

For example, one of the most famous of the "minimum wage has no effect" studies was by Card and Krueger, and covered a rise in the minimum wage in NJ from $4.25 to $5.05 in 1992. Adjusting for inflation, $5.05 is around $8.90 in 2017 dollars. It's entirely plausible that $9 might not cause any measurable impact, but $13 would. In fact, there is some data which suggests that around 50% of median hourly wages is an inflection point at which point you start to see real impacts. And median hourly wages in the US is slightly less than $25/hour, which is slightly less than twice $13, so in fact that's entirely unsurprising.

> When the University of Chicago Booth School of Business asked a panel of prominent economists in 2013 whether increasing the minimum wage to $9 would “make it noticeably harder for low-skilled workers to find employment,” the responses were split down the middle.

$9 is a level at which we'd expect to see a minimal effect. It's plausible to think that there might be SOME effect, or that there might be no measurable effect, and some studies have shown such an effect while others have not. It's not surprising that economists would split. But splitting over $9 would have an impact doesn't mean there's any debate over whether an impact exists at some level, and in fact, there is not. And it seems like $13 does have a measurable impact, and there's really no doubt that $30 or $50/hour would have a very major impact.

> The real impact of the minimum wage, however, is much less clear than these talking points might indicate.

No. There is, at most, a debate over how big an increase it would take for the impact to become clear.

[1]: http://www.nber.org/papers/w23532.pdf
The Definition of Senior Developer
I'm a CS professor, so I've a fair bit of experience publishing research. A few things to think about:

It's easy to publish research, but the first lesson is that the places it's easy to publish in, no-one will read your research. I was one of the authors of DHTs back in 2001. That paper has clocked up nearly 10000 citations over 16 years. That's a 16 year mean of around 2 citations per day, and that's just one paper! It should be clear that the total number of CS papers published is huge. It's likely that many of those papers will almost never be read. If you want your research to have any influence on people you need to publish in places that are not easy to publish in.

The second lesson is that the hardest part of doing good research is coming up with a good problem. There are three parts to a good problem: it must be solvable with the resources you have, it must not have already been solved well enough, and people must care if you succeed in solving it. I see people fail on all these three, but especially the third. "Make something people want" applies to research as much as to startups. Knowing what will be a good problem is hard without people around you to guide your problem taste, and even then it's hard. Rejection letters from conferences and journals rarely say the biggest problem with your work was that it wasn't interesting; you have to read between the lines if this is what the feedback should have been.

Most people think that the hardest part of research is coming up with a good solution, but usually this ends up being the easiest part. If you find a novel question and really understand it well, solutions tend to present themselves.

The third lesson is that evaluation is hard. Usually harder than coming up with a good solution. I've never yet met a new PhD student who could devise a good experiment plan, and properly interpret the results. It's just not something that is taught properly in schools or at the undergrad level. It's all too easy to evaluate what you can evaluate, not what you should evaluate, or to only run experiments to confirm what you think you already know. You should be looking hard to convince yourself that you're wrong (you often will be), and only when you've failed to convince yourself you're wrong, will you have a convincing evaluation. Good PhD students eventually learn how to do this, mostly by osmosis from their advisor. Some fail to learn this even then. As an independent researcher not surrounded by people asking critical questions, you'll likely struggle on this part.
we're currently looking into it to fix it(we're using Github style markdown). meanwhile, we'll edit it to serve as a table of contents with no links.
According to me. Maybe even higher than 90%. There are a few applications where you need a single-page app. Google Docs is an example or websites that integrate a messenger (e.g. Facebook). For the rest, SPA are a waste of resources and work worse with slow internet. Reddit is a prime example. UX has deteriorated since they switched to loading everything dynamically (again, only me as a source) with no good reason to implement it that way.
The good thing about these Bitcoin forks is that you don't really have to do anything if you don't want to. You can just forget about it and hold. You will own the same amount of Bitcoin for every fork out there.
Very interesting. We tell you that google's invasion of privacy is polluting search results, and you keep telling us there are ways around it.

Why should we have to work around it?
Great analogy. Since bitcoin has no true leader it makes it open to people to chose their leader themselves. It makes it open to huge amount of manipulation too like in religious groups :P
Classic example of physical ink bleeding is the Courier New font on Windows. It's so light as to be unusable for a lot of things. Why? Because it was rasterised off an IBM Selectric typeball, and they failed to account for the ink bleed that occurs in actual typewriter use, unlike whoever designed the typeball.
The camera sticking out is not a problem when you use a case.

Which most probably want to? Have to protect the expensive device somehow.
Unless the whole things implodes. Then I would have liked to convert something to fiat before it's all over.
He doesn't know what he means. Linux is deployed on more than 1/cpu through VMs.
Five Features to Make Java Even Better
Not in this particular hard fork. If you spend coins on the other fork, it can get replayed on the original bitcoin chain and you may lose your coins. Read my article about replay protection linked in the article.
I never turn off javascript. It's still unreadable. Are you using a phone? Some posters were saying it made sense there.
The lack of affiliation is less of an obstacle than being an undergrad. I'm 48 with a phd in cs, my advice is spend your energy elsewhere.
What if Al Capone offers you 200m for 10%?
Again, it's not about the number of people, is it? You don't have 1000 top level dependencies, so you're not trusting 1000 entities. If you're really talking about people, companies that produce libraries have hundreds of employees - do you "trust" them all? No, what you're talking about is establishing a web of trust, and you can do that in JS as well. Use a framework, use a library that combines a set of tools together. There's nothing particularly different about JS in this regard - there are plenty of large-scale development shops(Google, Facebook, Mozilla, Yahoo, Netflix..) which offer code, alongside a healthy open source community. You choose what to use.
https://www.blackhat.com/eu-17/briefings/schedule/#how-to-ha...
I agree that many companies have that attitude towards BSD versus GPL, but is there actually a rational basis for it? Given that you've apparently already gone through the legal process and found out that the GPL means what you think it means, why are you holding it to a higher standard than BSD?
Intel contributes to Linux because they have horses in the race, it is not out of charity.
I perused the author's blog and peeked at his LinkedIn profile. It looks like he continues to do Ruby development, and still calls himself a "Ruby on Rails Developer." I wonder what caused him to change his mind?
Ahh the magical reasoning underlying it all laid bare
I couldn't tell you, as I haven't been really involved in Rails for a while. I never used coffeescript for any serious project, even when this change was made back in 3.1, and I can't remember it ever causing trouble. YMMV.
Full ACK. Even without a case it never is or was a problem. It's just a little weird.
However, the notch is indeed problematic when the iPhone X is used in landscape mode (tested on simulator).
> including the freedom to take the software, modify it, gain a competitive advantage and generate economic value

...and create backbox systems with backdoors that no user has the freedom to inspect, change or disable :-)
Not quite: transportation has always been developed with speed in mind. The Benz No.1 was a lightweight phaeton, not a roadgoing tractor.

This is quite the opposite of how medical procedures are developed with regard to cost: there, optimizing for cost is almost considered bad taste, "you can't put a price on a human life" and all that. Of course everybody knows that a less expensive procedure would help more people than a more expensive one, but the whole environment makes it very easy to not think too hard about cost.

High cost of high tech medicine is in no way comparable to the relatively slow beginning of cars.
Page doesn't display in Kindernet Exploder. All you see is a header and a footer and no content inbetween.
Statistically the reward is the same whether you're solo mining or in a pool. Actually less in a pool because they take a cut of the profits. The benefit of being in a pool is that you get the (smaller, since they're shared) rewards more frequently instead of waiting possibly years until you solo mine a block.

But there's really no reason why you have to be in the biggest pool, if you're in a pool with a 1/144 share of the hashrate you'll already be getting daily income, why do you need it to be more frequent?

Note: I think solo miners also get a bit more average latency when receiving bloks, I'm not sure if that offsets the cut the pools take enough to make the expected value of being in a pool higher or not.
It's not my point and that's the type of discussion I explicitly tried to avoid.

BSD is my go-to license for my own code so I have no prejudice against it. That being said if some company contacted me about some of my code, asked me to do some modifications for free then used it to power a module that many people consider user-hostile and probable backdoor while not giving anything back, be it code, money or credit I don't think I'd write a blog post saying how happy I am that my code is so successful and how it proves that BSD is so much better than GPL.

It's one thing to say "the code is BSD, there's nothing wrong about what they did", it's an other thing to say "thank you Mr Intel for using my code without giving anything back, I just wish you had told me earlier so that I could have thanked you before!" which is frankly what this open letter sounds like to me.
With apologies for the aside, pages like that are why people turn to ad blockers. Wow.
It might be worth pointing out that the OpenBSD developers replaced their malloc(3) implementation with one based on mmap(2) ... quite a while ago.

IIRC, it attempts to use end-of-page allocation by default for blocks of a certain size. It is also possible to enable guard pages on a per process basis or globally.

Thanks to this, memory corruption is much easier to detect and debug on OpenBSD.
I completely agree, FWIW. I make a very decent living as a JS front-end dev using framework-du-jour. Thankfully that very often is React/Redux/React-Redux/React-Router, and a smattering of other React/Redux type stuff.

But that doesn't make it less shit. I'm actively re-schooling myself as a more backend-ish, or perhaps full-stack-ish developer that allows me to use more of Elixir, Clojure, or even Ruby/Python, and less of JavaScript.

I'd say there are basically three perspectives on this:

1. development ease/quality, where JavaScript is not the worst, but far from the best.
2. ecosystem health and best practices, where I find that JS is not doing a great job. A lot of churn, a lot of reinventing the wheel, and a lot of stockholm syndrome defending the mess.
3. money, where being a good front-ender is worth most of the effort and frustration.

I'd say 3 is the most contentious. Most people seem to agree on 1 that JS and its ecosystem are not a paragon of good development. It takes work to even just get a good initial setup, which is not a problem in many other ecosystems. Transpiling, to name one example, is just not necessary. I think a sizable portion of multi-lingual devs would agree on 2 as well.

But 3 is difficult to quantify. Is it a good thing that I can me a good chunk of money building React/Redux apps when I could've built a saner, more stable version in Django/Rails/Elixir in a fraction of the time if the only downside is that it requires a full page reload? I'm not so sure anymore. But it's worth a discussion.

Point 1 and 2 strike me as obvious enough that bringing them up ad nauseum on HN is just pointless and frustrating.
> Yes, I do have a problem understanding why people work for free.

And yet, despite your inability to understand it, it continues to happen. A lot.

I suspect part of the challenge is your misuse (or just misapplication) of the word 'work'.
Ask HN: Why aren't Paradise Papers discussed more on HN?
Why are there so few histories related to Paradise Papers on HN? Are people discussing them elsewhere, are they uninteresting, nothing to debate or something forth?
A.I. Researchers Leave Elon Musk Lab to Begin Robotics Startup
Japanese shiping company to test autonomous containership in the Pacific in 2019
Never mind that RMS' intent with GPL is to preserve the initial freedom into the distant future. If you get access to the source, so should everyone that comes after you.

And he formulated this after he had some hard earned experiences with suppliers at MIT.
The notion of the GPL is that end users are poorer if they don't have source available and can't fix bugs in the code they're using. Intel ME, meaning people are running systems with exploitable vulnerabilities that they can't fix, is one of the clearest arguments in favour of it.
In that case, why not Lambda -> Cloudwatch Logs -> Firehose -> S3 ?

No bespoke logging solution is needed.
All Dr. Tanenbaum is saying is that it would have been the classy thing to let him know, nothing more.

Professor Tanenbaum is one of the most respected computer scientists alive, and for Intel to include Minix in their chip and not let him know is kind of unprofessional and not very nice to say the least. That is his only (and quite fair) point.
"It may happen soon" is the mantra of vaporware, QED ;)
I find that strict type systems are good for 'locking down' execution space and sanity checking but they're not effective at cleanly specifying higher level verification even when that's possible.

I'd rather use a combination of tests and stricter type checking. There's no sense in being a fundamentalist about either approach.