skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Take care with this technique. We know that `Array.prototype.map` passes not one but three parameters to the callback function: the array element, the array index and the array itself. As a result of this,

addressParts.map(Function.prototype.call, String.prototype.trim)

is roughly equivalent to

addressParts.map((str, i, arr) => str.trim(i, arr))

Fortunately for us, `String.prototype.trim` ignores those additional parameters and only uses `this`. But if it didn't, you could end up with some head-scratching behaviour.
Was he trying to be funny after he did c++?!
Thanks and yes it does make more sense when posed like that. I still (as something I consider a personal failing) end up intuiting a probability of 50%. It remains fascinating to me how different people’s brains perceive the world differently. At least I tell myself that when struggling through subjects I find tougher :)
The Largest Slack Community for Product Managers
US politics is broken because the majority is being under represented both in Congress and in presidential election.

We should work together on getting rid of the ancient and manipulated election system and revamp it with a modern proportional representative system.
That is exactly what I meant
Was there an attempt in the article to link this subculture to modern society?
With uptown rats or downtown rats?
I've seen this explanation a million times, and I don't think it's very good. Here is one that sounds almost as plausible yet yields the opposite result:

Divide the doors into two sets. The first set is the door you chose and the door that was opened; the second set is the remaining door. There is a 2/3 chance the correct door is in the first set and a 1/3 chance the correct door is in the second set. You are then told that one of the doors in the first set is not the correct door ...

I find this line of thought much more intuitive: there is a 2/3 chance your original guess was wrong. If your original guess was wrong, the other door (the one that is not the one you chose and is not the one that was opened) is the right door. So there is a 2/3 chance the other door is the right door.
Inclined to agree. The first significant feeling I had their QA wasn’t as good as it should’ve been was Ive showed off the (unready) post-skeuomorphic UI.

I’m still not a fan of buttons being text with invisible edges, not even as a default I can override.
Not a single one? I guess you can survive a few generations on fertility of 1.4.
Which is really not a bad vulnerability as the data is still encrypted. Physical access means root anyway.
I don't think you're calm enough to have a rational discussion about all the untruths you just stated.
All these disposable temporary email providers don't support IMAP and are temporary. I need aa hassle free solution (also on smartphone - IMAP).

Can someone suggest more free traditional email providers (beside GMail, Outlook.com, Yahoo) that are free forever, require no phone number to register, support IMAP.
I agree that the wording of the problem is important, but I'm not sure if that's what was causing the mathematicians to get the wrong answer. I think I would have naturally assumed that the host was opening a door without the car in order to raise tension, and that he would therefore never open the door with the car.

It would be interesting to survey mathematicians, but I don't think there's enough of them who haven't already heard the problem.
Is that before or after they figure out how to do more than 7 BTC transactions a second?
I currently work for a UK based particle physics facility and a lot of what you say is still true, it is an awesome place to work.

The tension between "get it to work" and "do it properly" is still there, particularly when there is pressure for results for conference papers. We try to do things properly though, simply due to the more onerous safety regulations now.
It is interesting coming across various historical bodges that lurk in dark corners, sort of little engineering time capsules.
Without immigration US is in the same boat as Japan with a falling population. Long term I suspect cultures with positive population growth to beat the competition, but that may take a long time.
In agreement, this pretty much sums it up - it really isn't hard if you already have something to say. The hard part is building internally so you actually have something to say. Related poem. [1]

[1] https://allpoetry.com/So-You-Want-To-Be-A-Writer
Did they have digital light detectors in the 70s? I mean, it’s trivial now to aim something at the sun now, but they didn’t have image recognition then. A primitive heat sensor perhaps?
I'm not sure I agree. In particular:

> If it was reworded as "the host who knows what's behind the doors and _always_ opens the door with a goat and _never_ opens the door with the car", the mathematicians would have seen the 2/3rds probability.

There seems to be extensive examples of mathematicians encountering very clearly worded descriptions of the problem, but still failing to jump to the right answer.

> The original wording with the nonchalant "say" in the middle of ", opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat." makes it seems like there was no link between the host's knowledge of what's behind the door and the opening of door #3 and therefore random. Therefore the 50/50 probability seemed to be the correct answer.

Yeah, but it's not 50/50. I think you're focusing on the wrong part there. The issue isn't the host's knowledge, it's the question of whether he always opens a door. If he always opens a door at random, and if in this particular run through he happens to open a door with a goat, then you will still double your odds if you switch. The host doesn't need to know what's behind the door for this to work!

What does need to be the case is that the host always opens a door (or chooses whether or not to open a door for reasons other than his knowledge of what's behind them). In a hypothetical variant where Monty only opens a door and offers you the chance to switch if he knows you picked a car, you should never switch. In a variant where he only does so if he knows you didn't, you always should. :)
It's not so clear. For Ethereum, it worked well. The foundation is non-profit, financing the creation of an open-source system. And those who donated get to use one instance that system. The rights to use the system come in the firm of transferrable coins, and can turn out to be valuable.

It is not an ideal construction, but can make sense. The foundation is used as a funding vehicle for a common prpject, but it is still non-profit.
Please don't do this.

It might be clever, and it's the sort of thing that would be pretty cool to include in a CS lecture about higher-order functions, but it won't earn you the gratitude of fellow team members who have to maintain your code after you leave.
We can go one cleverer[1]:

functions.forEach(Function.prototype.call, Function.prototype.call)

this is approximately equivalent to

functions.forEach(f => f())

although in practice it's actually more like

functions.forEach((f, i, arr) => f.bind(i)(arr))

so let's hope `f` isn't too sensitive to the value of `this` or that `arr` parameter...

[1] https://zpao.com/posts/calling-an-array-of-functions-in-java...
Cynical! :)

But it is a fun read regardless, imo. I like technical challenges involving a lot of weirdness and most of all (arbitrary / unusual) restrictions.
Shoot, I have an app on the App Store with a user count in the hundreds of thousands, and local notifications are one of the main features. Can't say I'm looking forward to responding to App Store reviews tomorrow (although I guess just for users that figure out it's the notifications causing the restarts?).

I understand why Apple software has bugs - it's practically impossible to write perfect software. However, it does seem like in the last year, the quality bar has dropped significantly. The number of iOS 11 bugs I've had to work around during development is crazy.
How about saying replacing the current system with proportional representation? Is that a useful comment?
> we strive here to avoid creating new functions

Avoiding creating new functions or objects is a good optimization strategy, but there's most likely very little gain as the optimizer will most likely inline the functions.

Always do the super naive, easier to understand version first, and only optimize after you have identified the bottleneck and measured the performance!
I don't understand why people want house prices to go up.

I own a small house (with a mortgage). I'm hoping house prices go down over the next 10 years. I'll probably want to buy a larger house, so if prices come down I don't have to come up with as much cash. OK, I'll get less for the house I'm selling, but the difference in the prices is also less than if they were to go up.

As long as I sell the current house for enough to pay off what's left of the mortgage, I think I'm winning if house prices go down.
I think that is a bit far-fetched. In the context of a game show it would be strange to think that the host just makes a random choice. Also, why would there be the additional information that the host knows what's behind the doors if he just chooses randomly.
ClarifyJs: Build complex chained methods
Well, big media outlets kind of have an incentive to destroy the internet.
The problem is not that setting up such a structure is possible, the problem is the lack of suitable alternative legal structures that are better suited for the job. For that, regulation needs to be relaxed.
Ask HN: Do you need a npm module for anything?
I could do with improving my open source portfolio, so I'm just wondering if there is a module for node that anyone has always wanted that doesn't exist that I could build?

I'm sure there are plenty of existing modules that accept contributions, just wondering if there is any new ground to be broken.
It’s true.

OS X versions 1-3 were pretty bad. 10.3 was the first to be useable. 10.4 was actually good. Then 10.5 Leopard (or Leper as we knew it) was awful on release. From Snow Leopard onwards it’s been much better, with the occasional howler of course.

It seems to be a constant refrain that Apple’s software quality is declining in the same way civilisation is always falling or HN is becoming more like reddit.

In High Sierra they painlessly replaced the filesystem. Quite an achievement. Although everyone involved in this latest problem should be highly embarrassed.
«It was so weirdly (but not entirely) reminiscent of some of the problems that developed societies are facing today that I'll try to recount the story in English to make it available to wider audience.»
It’s a calendar bug. Local notifications are/can be scheduled 30 days in advance, so on Dec 2nd they can be scheduled on Jan 1st. I saw crash logs on Twitter mentioning “month 13”, so it looks like there’s an off by one bug in that calendar handling code
export default { foo: 2 };

is not the same as:

module.exports = { foo: 2 };

The way your example would translate to commonjs is:

module.exports = { default: { foo: 2 }, foo: 3 }
Both. If they're hard to find, then it doesn't make sense to model your organisation in such a way that it relies on such people. Which in turn means that if you find one, you're not going to hire them.

As a corollary: I'm a developer who likes talking to and working with customers, doing UX research, etc. However, since the idea (which may or may not be correct) is that most programmers would rather work by themselves or at least have a project manager or something shield them from the customer, I'm unlikely to be able to find a job in which I can combine programming with customer interaction, even though I'm convinced that this could be valuable. But: only if an organisation is amenable to it.
Redis for Windows updated to 4.0.2
I have to admit I slightly misread the parent comment, but still: as long it's not a democracy, how can you consider that China "can give their people what they want".

The "they" cannot be referring the people of China, or the majority because China is just not a democracy.

This is the main difference between a country which holds free elections every 4 years, and a single-party country.
"I've never heard of a society breeding itself into prosperity."

America, UK, Germany, Japan - most modern nations had reasonably normal to high birth rates over the last few hundred years.
So all these clean-room precautions that you normally see when people work on satellites are what for again?

I thought that was because we don’t want to contaminate space.
First take a psychological evaluation, that will tell you what the problem is.
Well, we are seeing a hollowing out of many rural communities in the US, there's an analogy there.
>In the context of a game show it would be strange to think that the host just makes a random choice.

A lot of people reading the MH problem were unfamiliar with the actual game show and therefore parsed it as an isolated word problem.
I would argue that it is not so clever.

1) It is less idiomatic

2) Does not provide a performance gain
IObit Malware Fighter 5.4.0.4201 Crack with License Key Here
First, you should know that the "barrier of connections and money" you talk about does not apply everywhere. Actually, a lot of universities are free so long as you prove you are smart enough through entry exams. So while it still is used as a class filter everywhere, realize that there is equal chance in a lot of countries to get into any university.

Secondly, universities are not meant to prepare you for a better salary or job. They are meant to give you a particular set of skills and knowledge from a field of work. Finishing means that you usually get access to a certain community with the same specialty. This is useful if you want to keep up to date with your field or publish new findings.

Software companies that require computer scientists usually are just full of it and they forget that there are other universities that prepare people for software engineering or even just programming. You could argue that a course or bootcamp is enough. But we already know they ask for too much when you look at the requirements they have. They aim for the best and then take what they are given.

I think universities are too easy nowadays to let people in. During my father's time, there were around 10 slots for the arts university in my country each year. All of them ended being praised artists. Actually, national news are made when each one of them pass away.

Now, universities just take everyone, especially if they pay for a slot. This caused a shift into perspective. You are no longer hard-working or lucky to get into a university, you are now expected to get into one to prove you are not a complete moron.

This is the actual problem, and it is reflected in your arguments. I agree, you probably didn't need to go to university. Hell, I know that I didn't need to go through mine. However, we were both expected to, and for no good reason.
Energy wise you need ~240,000,000x the energy to hit 0.5 C, so still a very long way.

Also, g forces are real problem for over land travel. In space you can eventually almost hit C by aiming for a black hole. But to stay on land you start hitting negative g's due to curvature and or high g forces to start and stop.
I find that one can get a better intuitive grasp on many things when you take them to the extreme. In this case, suppose that instead of three doors, there are one hundred doors and behind 99 of them there are goats and behind 1 there's the car. After you select a door, say number 14. The host then tells you that it might be behind door number 14 but out of all the other doors he opens all but door 92, so you are left with two doors to choose from. I think the choice is quite obvious at this point. If not, then try a million doors...
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't payroll be particularly unsuitable domain for analog computing? There is very little that can be considered continuous in payroll, and on the other hand the exactness of values is very important?
if you have $5 million, you could pay yourself $50k a year for 100 years.

There are taxes, but people who have 100 times the median household income in the bank might be able to figure something out.

It makes sense that they're fighting for their money. And people deserve basic empathy, no matter what the situation. There could be solutions out there that make the most people happy.

The cynical view is that this is their greed, and they are taking money from people with less means with their demands.

Less cynically... we can try to find solutions to assure them their house value won't plummet, but encouraging a view where more prices at least stabilize won't put _that_ much strain on them, compared to the help it would give to other families with less means.
I think of it in terms of the flow of evidence.

The host knows which door the car is behind. Therefore if he makes decisions based on that knowledge those decisions can give you information about the location of the car. If there is some action that he is more likely to perform when the car is behind door 1 than when it isn't, and he performs that action, then you should increase the probability you assign to the car being behind door 1.

In particular if you've chosen door 2 then the host is more likely to reveal door 3 if the car is behind door 1 than if it isn't.
Honestly that makes no sense. Why should company management collect evidence against themselves? That sounds like something that only exists in dictatorship countries. Aren't you misunderstanding something?

And how are they supposed to record phone calls if they use "dumb" phones or personal smartphones?

At least if I received such an order I would stop using anything that can be saved (like email) and would discuss the problem only in person. Now go try to prove anything.

I understand that the court can order to preserve existing records. But this "reasonable anticipation" is clearly a gray area that can be interpreted any way and allows to make anyone guilty.
Yes, I see it that way.

The world was run long enough by conservative people.
That's a good poetry you've got there.
I’m impressed that it runs so well on a single core. Has HN posted traffic stats in the past?
Too bad he didn’t follow his own advise in design of C++ (at least the simple and obvious part)
You should discuss important matters only in person to oppose these totalitarian laws.
I kind of wish x.f(y) was the same as f(x, y) in javascript.
I'd argue that berating economic success as the main metric for measuring a country's success is precisely what is slowly but surely eroding the West's precious institutions.

Since when people just want to live comfortable lives and leave their collective fate to be decided by a minority whose interests do not necessarily align with the people's interests (otherwise, they would just allow fair elections).

Small example: of course, country-wide surveillance à la China would lead to "economic success", do you think it's criticized because it would lead to mass poverty ?

It would lead to a perfectly stable future for the population, with ever improving quality of life and security. The problem, as you may guess, lies elsewhere.
It is possible to write simple and obvious code in C++. A lot of people just choose not to. ;-)
It’s so they don’t contaminate the sensitive instruments on the satellite.

If it was about contaminating space they probably wouldn’t leave so much junk there.
I just benchmarked it:
https://gist.github.com/scarlac/87dc480c9f5893060a17a4c6f61c...

Personally I don't find the results convincing. With 20k iterations and 18 trials I have to squint to see a practical difference. But please, judge for yourselves. Numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mZx7ENLTeCG0G_AwjCCv...
They did not become rich because they had tons of people. Hey look at India.
Smarter Rails Services with Active Model Modules
> Social democracy cannot be replicated in countries like USA or Eastern Europe

Why?
Note the `play` function can be reduced to these 3 lines :

chosen = randint(1, 3)
winning = randint(1, 3)
return (chosen != winning) == switch

The only way to win if we don’t switch is to have chosen the winning door (switch==false, chosen==winning); the only way to win if we switch is not to have chosen the winning door (switch==true, chosen!=winning).
>, and if in this particular run through he happens to open a door with a goat, then you will still double your odds if you switch.

Yes, I agree.

>The host doesn't need to know what's behind the door for this to work!

The host has to know it and always open the goat door to prevent mathematicians from making a repeated simulation in their minds where the host sometimes opens a door with a car behind it.

That would be over-reading and misinterpreting the MH wording but that's why the problem is so enduring -- it uses clever text to misdirect a lot of smart people away from the correct 2/3rds answer.
Not to mention the lack of security updates. Basically your only protection is that people lost interest in these phones.
Your confusing a correction with a redaction.

I'd say it's pretty misleading (even fake) of you to attempt to signal that NBC retracted the entire story when the link you provided states that they made a mistake with only one element, and have published a correction. Hmmm.

It's also unrelated to this hnews post, a lot of other sources didn't make this mistake. They also made the correction very quickly, and the entire premise of the article is still correct.

All in all, your comment contains more fake news than the article. Will you redact it?
I'm using the first gen Mi band and the app works just fine on my 4S.
If performance matters a manual for loop will be faster. `arr.map()` isn't all that fast (except in the recent Firefoxes).
APFS for Linux by Paragon Software
Free Video Tutorial: Gatsby – Static Site Generator for React – Introduction
At the most abstract level, security is RISK management which is related to SECRETS management. So, on some level it is true that security is equivalent to obscurity. But, that's like saying that cars are molecules. It is true, but it is not a useful statement.

There are two operative principles of security that you should research. 1) Defense in depth, where there is more than one layer of security that must be pierced. 2) Assume that the attacker knows absolutely everything about your system, design, ports, and so on - except for the key material.
Genuinely curious: with WSL, what is the point of running Redis on Windows?
Divide the doors into two sets. The first set is the door you chose and the door that was opened; the second set is the remaining door. There is a 2/3 chance the correct door is in the first set and a 1/3 chance the correct door is in the second set.

The error is assuming that the first set has a 2/3 probability of winning just because it contains 2 out of 3 doors while the way the set is constructed ensures that one of the doors, the door that is opened, never is the winning door. Including or excluding this door from a set must not change the probability you assign to this set containing the winning door, i.e. you can freely move this door between two sets or drop it altogether without affecting probabilities.
Well, you see all these activities separated, but many times preparing a presentation, attending a conference and being active on Social media can be done during work.

Also people with normal jobs (8h per day) need to sleep about 8h per day, then they still have 8h per day to do other things, not even counting the weekends !
Having grown up in a large single family home that was built in the 60's, I've enjoyed great freedom thanks to the privacy in the large garden surrounding our house.
After marriage I moved cities and live in a small duplex with a really tiny private garden and a common community space.
I must say I do not miss the space of the large independent house.
The need of the hour today is functional living for everyone.
Or maybe they did - just not only because of that.