skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think my elementary school years (early/mid 2000s) were some of the last years that cursive was taught in NYC. It looks like they're bringing it back this year[1].

I hated it at the time and switched to block lettering as soon as I was allowed, but I've noticed that my style has become increasingly (and organically) cursive ever since I began college and really needed to take notes quickly.

Cursive may still be slower than typing, but there's a reasonable evidence that screens diminish in-class comprehension and that writing notes requires more digestion of the material than typing. Anecdotally, that's certainly been the case for me.

[1]: https://twitter.com/NYCSchools/status/832275877924831233
Some questions:

* I see many claims of "cross-platform", but not a lot of substance to back it up. The FAQ is odd as well - it makes many claims that are simply not true.

* Given that you chose to keep the source closed, what guarantees will I have that your language will continue to be supported if the company collapses?

* What are you offering in a paid language that isn't already provided by an open alternative?

* What is the state of the standard library or library ecosystem? Will I end up writing my own dependencies?

Edit: Prior discussions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10344891

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3nthud/the_8th...
I am saying that the purpose of good UX is to lead to some sort of conversion whatever that might be. Whether that's buying, using, submitting etc doesn't matter but you can't measure something you don't put measurable metrics around.

I discuss UX all day long and have all sorts of discussion around various approaches, have principles and strong opinions on various UX related issues, but I would never claim it's a framework that can be used to judge the UX in itself unless I am willing to put it to the test of something externally and quantifiable.
Yeah, if you have a 5000-qubit computer and two people want to run 2000-qubit jobs, I can see them being able to run simultaneously.

There will always need to be a classical computer running the quantum computer.
I might use the product once a month. So, 1000/30 = 33 users per day based on likes.

add a login so I can view saved words on different computers(optional) and you have a way to email users on updates.
Just give them the corporate death penalty all ready.
It's definitely a must after a certain codebase size. 20k LoC maybe? But for personal projects, no way.
While I largely agree, that's not really true...

React for example wrecks your HTML with react related attributes on every DOM element.

There is nothing wrong with storing some information in the DOM.
I've been following quantum computing since D-Wave made its press release some years back. Now I'm a complete skeptic.

The huge red flag I can't get over is if it is as so, why can no one validate it after all this time?

Why is there the proverbial "it works but not in the way you think it works" (i.e., quantum annealing) or "it works but we can use non-QM systems to simulate it faster, better, cheaper by a factor of a trillion"?

If QM computing was truly feasible (assuming that QM does have an underlining phenomena that is physically real), why are the results after all this time so fuzzy?
Yeah, I don't have a problem with women in tech at all. They shouldn't have to sexualize themselves for success. Plenty of smart women (including likely the subject of the article) where their work is more than enough to compete with any man's work.
Portmanteau of developer + operations, where infrastructure and application life cycle are coded using engineering best practices in a way that is repeatable and debuggable. Someone in devops will know tools such as Chef, Puppet, Virtualization, Containerization, Load Balancers, Network and Application Firewalls, IAM. Basically all the stuff that supports running an application. Application and System level cross cutting concerns.

Dont pretend you couldn't give the same answer, imposter.
Your definition of "traditional" TV is extremely traditional. A majority of US households had subscribed to cable TV as far back as 1990 (see https://www.ncta.com/cables-story).

Cable penetration has fallen off in recent years as additional options (satellite, phone-company fiber, streaming) have proliferated, but it's been a long, long time since most Americans' universe of TV options were limited to the original "big three" broadcast networks.
Been said on other HN-announced languages.. but good luck having a search engine find relevant results for that language name.
Cisco Cuts More Jobs–This Time in the Cloud
Yes, this is an unfortunate situation. Basically before the ICO happened a Swiss non-profit was formed called the Tezos foundation. The foundation would receive the ICO "donations" and then the foundation "may" provide the donors with Tezos coins when Tezos launches. I think this whole setting up a Swiss non-profit is just to get around the know-your-customer laws in the USA and also to avoid the SEC's rules about selling securities to unaccredited investors.

So now the Tezos foundation controls the ICO funds, which are now valued somewhere around $500 million, and according the Tezos founders one of the board members (Gevers [3]) has gone rogue and tried to grant himself a bonus that the founders say is not warranted.

What I've always found strange is that the other two board members of the Tezos foundation have never really been discussed publicly in any way. One of them is Diego Olivier Fernandez Pons [1] and the other appears to be a company formation agent, Mr. Schmitz-Krummacher [2]. I've been unable to find out how these other two board members were selected, which is a bit odd considering the fate of about $500 million and perhaps Tezos in general hangs in the balance of how these two people vote. Gevers formed the "crypto valley" in Switzerland, so I can understand he would be on the board, but I'm still not clear on how the non-profit was formed and the first place and how the board members were selected.

Here's a thread asking who is running the Tezos Foundation.
https://forums.tezos.community/t/who-is-running-the-tezos-fo...

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/diego-olivier-fernandez-pons/
[2] https://www.linkedin.com/in/guidos1/
[3] https://www.linkedin.com/in/johanngevers/

Edit: This whole situation actually proves Tezos' point to me: that a cryptocurrency should not be controlled by a small group of individuals. In this case, the small group (the foundation) doesn't control the cryptocurrency, _just_ the ICO funds.
It looks like VueX supports async out of the box. That's a huge win IMO.
I was responsible for a couple of those parents and I can tell you that's all nonsense. IBM employees are encouraged to patent _anything_, regardless of how useless or silly it may be.
From your link: "A small 16-qubit quantum computer exists and is available for hobbyists to experiment with via the IBM quantum experience project."
Hanson Robotics Software Stack
It did seem a little atypical to see your blog struggling under HN traffic. Now I guess I know why!
Glacier or similar service.
I wished more academic papers would have a "Limitations" section. Often it is so hard to tell what these are, e.g.: Does it scale well? How much faster/slower is it than other methods? Does it converge reliably?
How do you practically limit data collection without becoming a digital hermit?
In the face of frequent data breaches and widespread data collection by aggregators like Google, FB, Amazon, etc. how do you protect against companies building a thorough profile of your life against your will?
I'm not talking about extreme anonymity here. I'd still like the ability to use social tools, Google services, etc. to the extent practical. Are there any straightforward steps that can be taken to fragment the data that is collected about me? Some examples:

Can I use Google Maps on my phone without it logging my location to Google servers?

Can I use Instagram, Facebook, and Whatsapp independently so that my usage and connections aren't shared between the co-owned services?

Is it safe or reasonable to allow a service like Mint or Personal Capital aggregate my financial information?

Are there services that I should just avoid entirely due to breaches of trust or too much data aggregation?

How do you manage your digital identities?
Yes! You're absolutely right. Probably my biggest mistake was not thinking about retention before launching on Product Hunt. I suspect that your experience matches that of most visitors through Product Hunt. Your suggestion about query updates may be a good one to try, and I will brainstorm other ways to make the product give more long-term value.

And yes, it is .com only for now (plans to add other TLDs soon). Thanks for the feedback that this could be clearer.
Looks like the article was taken down. Here is an archive.org link to it. https://web.archive.org/web/20171110080004/http://www.bennjo...
From my experience telling people this doesn't work as everyone thinks they are smart enough to avoid the trap. Like many companies going into China assuming things will be easy. Code ends up complex yet works because the complexity was successfully wrangled, missing the point of complexity reduction rather than wrangling.

Thematically, it may be a result of obsession over tools instead of product which occurs in other areas like photography, writing(hipster typewriters), and others. In tech, technology as lever supports a "hacker" mindset of getting 10 for 1. However this misses the point of hacking to get around your weaknesses in order to focus on your core competency which MUST intrinsically have value instead of being an empty shell.

The core competency for many client side developers is probably more rooted in a form of design than pure technical ability. Design, like music, writing, speaking, and art have incredibly low barriers to entry. This can create an arrogant mindset from people coming from more rigorous disciplines. Instead of focusing on the thing that must be done, they try to take shortcuts that only have the appearance of reaching the goal.
I don't have a source, but you are the subject of Equifax's business, not a participant, so you have very little say. They scrape public data, and buy data from credit card issuers, store "loyalty" programs, etc. For the little you can do, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_reporting_agency#United...

Note that there are all sorts of unregulated ways in which companies (e.g. Facebook) use CRA data.
I can see both sides of that argument, and I'd be lying to say I didn't consider Unsong rationalist fiction at least partly as an attempt to redeem the genre in my own estimation.
> When I was younger, I was told by a veteran sysadmin that only 5 persons in the world knew how to configure Sendmail directly, everyone else was relying on preprocessing scripts written by the aforementioned wizards).

Ha! When I jumped into Linux during the summer of 95, I spent many many days and nights writing directly sendmail.cf rules, because I could not understand and use any of those damn M4 scripts... Handwriting sendmail.cf parts was more straightforward for me (for some value of 'straightforward').

20 years later, I have yet to get around to grasping M4.
Take a look at Lyrebird as well https://lyrebird.ai/ ;)
It's not your information in the sense of you having any ownership or control over it. It's just information about you. I got information about you by looking through your comment history. You cannot make me forget it. Lucky for you, I will anyway in a few minutes, since I am not in the business of selling that kind of information and thus don't really care.
Without speaking to this particular grandfather clause, I think in general these kinds of clauses deal with the fact that a new policy, good or bad, might cause people to design their incentive structures differently, and they want to avoid screwing over people who in good faith designed their structures to work best under the old system, and instead give them time to make adjustments.
I had to look it up in a dictionary:

1. (intransitive) To bend the knee, as in servitude or worship

2. (intransitive, figuratively) To behave in a servile manner; to grovel.

Source: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genuflect
Yeah, none. I wrote this while still in bed. No idea what I was thinking at the time :D
I don't know GitLab's exact motivations although I noticed the same thing. I suspect it might be because they're using Vue components on already existing Server Rendered pages as opposed to a full SPA, so by passing the endpoint in the template they can allow the actual URL for that page to be set in the controller, maintaining cohesiveness.

E.g. on the server-side .html.erb they'd have something like

`<div... data-endpoint="@controller.url">...</div>`
There's a reason bioterrorism isn't a thing, even though terrorism-minded people could get access to dangerous pathogens like Y. pestis or EBV if they wanted to.

At least in my opinion, it's just too damn hard for them to merit the effort, even compared to a sophisticated bomb. Trying to engineer (and test) a strain, "weaponize" it, takes a lot of space, time and resources.

And then the delivery is also very difficult.. So hard, that even militaries haven't totally figured it out.
Which studies? "Fine motor" appears exactly once in the article:

> And every time I hear of a young child turned off writing because he lacks the fine motor skills needed to master cursive [...] I see [confirmation bias].
I've always found this experiment to be revealing:

>Specifically, after explaining briefly that I was the editor of a tech news site, I would ask iPhone users “why do you use an iPhone?” and Android phone users “why do you use an Android phone?” My phone was always in my pocket when I asked, and I made sure to never mention a rival platform at all.

In about three months I ended up asking 219 different people this question, including 112 iPhone users and 107 Android users. I wasn’t terribly concerned with the features of each platform that people liked most. I just wanted to see how many people, unprovoked, would mention a rival platform in a negative way when offering their responses to a complete stranger.

http://bgr.com/2016/10/25/iphone-vs-android-survey-takeaways...
Quantum computing reminds me of time travel for all the same reasons. This is not a quick win.

How would you even validate you built a quantum computer?
This is silly.
You’re the one being evaluated here. Can you code, or are you just a “sophisticated” smartass?

The trick is to find out all these answers WITHOUT asking the interviewer.
Yes you could, but then you'd have to have both the declaration and the implementation of the interface in the same package. That would mean that if either of them is in a separate file, you'd have to import it. That in return, could easily call hellish compiler errors due to circular dependencies. In Go any circular dependency is an immediate compile error.

Looking at the link, the second advice is that you could require users to implement special functions such as ImplementsFooer() to explicitly declare which interface they're implementing. This could help, but this practice is not present in the codebases I've seen including the Go standard library (to the best of my knowledge).
Right, but only ingress landmarks are in pokemon go and I saw no pokemon go landmarks not in ingress. So i'ts not just picking gMaps, it's picking directly from Ingress.
>most systems today, if not all, are insecure

I'd say that's a fair assessment.
I remember learning how to write official letters at school.

Dear Sir. Dear Madam. Yours faithfully. Yours sincerely. Your obedient servant.

In the classroom, we were told it was so very important to get the language right.

In fact it was a complete waste of time.

I used the language a handful of times - the stylings were already becoming archaic - then email conventions took over.

Now we have "Hi", or maybe "Hello", and "Kind regards" - if email occurs at all, and the entire exchange isn't an informal collection of short text messages.

The Guardians of Culture in schools seem reliably clueless. I suspect their opinions are so definite because they have so little else to offer, and appearing to be right about something is better than admitting the truth about that.

Likewise with cursive. Kids today benefit more from YouTube editing and social media skills - and by the time they start getting jobs, those will probably be archaic skills too.
A DAO on the blockchain can be indistinguishable from a platform run by a company from the point of view of the driver.

>>This is nonsensical. If I offer to pay you to work in conditions that are guaranteed to be lethal, according to your arguments it can't possibly be to their advantage, because I'm reducing the avenues through which they can sell their labour.

There are no jobs that are guaranteed to be lethal. If there were, there are only two conditions under which someone would work them:

1. They are mentally incapable of making decisions for their own life, and thus should be placed under conservatorship where they are not free to make their own decisions.

2. The jobs is fraudulently advertised.

In either case you don't need to resort to creating mandatory minimum employment standards like minimum wage. What you're effectively endorsing is conservatorship for the entire population.

>>And through most of the period, worker activism grew rapidly as well. In a great many cases, workers died during actions taken to improve working conditions and salaries.

I'm dubious about this claim. It sounds like another pop-history claim that is baseless. Do you have a source?

I remember reading that workplace injuries were decreasing throughout the industrial revolution era. From what I understand regulations had no positive impact on this upward trajectory in safety.

What did definitely happen during the industrial revolution is that life expectancy rapidly rose. The famines and starvation that frequently occurred prior to to the 16th century became increasingly uncommon as the economy of the West industrialized.

>>If there is any takeaway from the growth in wages during the industrial revolution, it is that aggressive direct action by workers provides results.

The opposite is true. There were very few labour regulations and no minimum wages instituted during the Industrial Revolution (thanks largely to legal doctrines of substantive due process guaranteeing the freedom to contract in place since the Supreme Court Lochner ruling). After the propaganda victory of the socialist parties and labour unions, extensive labour regulations were introduced.

This has accelerated since the creation of the OSHA in 1970. The last 40 years have seen wage growth stagnate and life expectancy to even decline for some demographics.

The Nirvana fallacy has cost generations improvements in their quality of life.
As a developer, I care a lot more about getting improvements back. GPL is massively beneficial from that orientation. That's why some commercial companies prefer GPL, because the developer of code gets stuff back.

As a user, I care a lot less for GPL, because now I have to publish my changes if I choose to distribute binaries. If I'm a user and I have MIT or BSD code, as a user I have a lot more freedom to do what I want with MIT code.
Not at all. It's a recognition that the people who made long-term arrangements under the old law shouldn't be punished for that. The safer people feel making commitments, the more we can pursue things that take time to pay off, which has broad societal benefits. And in practice, laws are much harder to change if you piss off a lot of people who didn't do anything wrong but now suddenly stand to lose big.

As an example, take the mortgage interest tax credit. Personally, I strongly believe it should go away; if the government is going to subsidize housing, it shouldn't spend most of that money on the already well off. But I think it would be wrong to screw all the homeowners who bought a house expecting the credit. We'd see a wave of disruption (short sales, foreclosures, people suddenly barely scraping by) that benefits nobody. So I'm fine with grandfathering existing mortgages and gradually phasing out the credit.
These DIY Crispr kits aren't even remotely close to mail order computer kits.

At the moment, they are about as sophisticated as sea monkey kits, and less reliable at that.
There is no such thing as a quantum computer in 2017. It is fantasy.
Well thanks a lot:) I'd love to support Python, but for now there's not enough manpower to go into it. Glad you like the docs and videos!
Because you have to build the quantum computer in a world that is overwhelmingly classical.

There are no qualifiers along the lines of "underlying phenomena". It's simply difficult to get a stable enough interface between the classical and the quantum, so you can control it, while at the same time isolating it enough that it doesn't decohere to classicality.

Who knows, maybe reliable scalable quantum computation truly isn't feasible for some reason, but if you study the physics, the fact that this is so hard is not really a surprise.
Is it? I thought Redux abstracting out the thunk layer was silly until that line of thinking lead to Redux-Saga. It actually seems to have been a pretty smart move.
I'm honestly curious if Equifax would fall under GDPR regulations? I'm sure there's some overlap of EU citizens who have lines of credit in the US.

We're having to prep for that at my corp currently, and it's VERY explicit about being able to pull up and remove all personal data, with some very hefty fines if you don't.

EDIT: thought about this further and peeked at our guidelines, they may be able to get around this by the "data is integral to the function of the business" exemption, but I'd still wonder if someone could speak with authority on this.
New laws shouldn't, in general, be retroactive. The fact that a grandfather clause is necessary to specify that a law isn't intended to be retroactive is bothersome.
Tupper’s Self-Referential Equation
>”The direct result of this is that we now have an Objective C front
end. They had wanted to distribute the Objective C parser as a
separate proprietary package to link with the GCC back end, but since
I didn't agree this was allowed, they made it free.”

The direct result of this is half-a-trillion dollar company that wrote its own toolchain from scratch and released it to the public for free, giving birth to thousands of modern language projects, while GNU Objective-C is still a dead crap with no demand.
Can anyone give a summary or point me to another article (not paywalled) with similar information? I'm very interested, but don't have a WSJ subscription.
no, it's actually quite the opposite. vue took all the complexities out of react/redux it's not even funny.
Tricky. Sending them all of your potentially leaked embarrassing photos so that they can store them and prevent them from leaking out. If they get hacked now someone has a lifetime supply of blackmail material. Not clear if the cure is better than the ailment.
I am not doing a strong job explaining this subject, but you are dismissing it out of hand without an understanding of it. I recommend taking codemac's advice and reading some of Marx's work. Even if you disagree with him it provides a greater understanding of how the economy works.
From the fine article:

"We store the photo hash—not the photo—to prevent someone from uploading the photo in the future. If someone tries to upload the image to our platform, like all photos on Facebook, it is run through a database of these hashes and if it matches we do not allow it to be posted or shared."
From the link in that sentence: "The IBM Quantum Experience (QX) enables anyone to ... ... explore tutorials and simulations around what might be possible with quantum computing."