skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You used a buggy beautifier that mishandled some code, and you blame significant whitespace?

For that to be valid criticism, it must be particularly hard to write a beautifier for languages with significant whitespace relative to other languages.

I don’t think it is. Beautifying C, for example, also can be tricky in the presence of nested comments (potentially of different types) and nested if statements, some without else clauses, some without {}.
I have only once worked under a manager who could actually do my job and it had plusses and minuses. I wouldn't say it was a better or worse experience than being under a non-technical manager who exhibited all the traits you mentioned.

The problem however is that no one I have ever worked under embodied all of those traits.
> It feels then more like a religion.

And this is not helped by the true believers constantly saying "you're doing it wrong."

So, point me at someone doing it right then! Because the landscape is coated with people "doing it wrong", and since I'm doing this as a job, I don't have time to sift through piles of pyrite for a single nugget of gold.
for a real database that works like git, see http://www.datomic.com

if git killed svn, datomic kills postgres
I volunteer because the line in the front of the soup kitchen is a lot longer than the line for the volunteer entrance in the back. I may not get a huge feeling of accomplishment, because I'm doing quite menial tasks. But it's humbling, and its been said "never think flipping burgers is beneath you".

I also volunteer to play music for a religious service, which is a ton of fun and enriches a lot of people's lives. It's challenging and definitely provides an outlet.

Finally I give a charitable donation to a charity that I know is making a local impact and they manage their finances wisely. They give free food away to anyone no questions asked.

It's the combination of these things (giving my time away giving, using my talents, sharing some money) that bring me a lot of satisfaction about my life.

The people in Hacker News are in a special position because we're typically well-off and there are many talented people on here. I'll never chastise anyone about giving, but I wish everyone would.
Duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886128
HN seems to have eaten my first reply, so here's an abbreviated version.

It's easy to separate specification from verification with dependent types. You can (and I did) show students how to take ordinary simply-typed functional programs, give a specification as a different type, and then do a verification by producing a term of the appropriate specification type. Then, you can use this to motivate intrinsically-typed strategies, and (a) show the students that intrinsic/extrinsic is a gradient rather than a dichotomy, and (b) show them how to exploit this gradient systematically.

As for liveness, in a purely functional language, basically the only interesting liveness property is termination, and this didn't pose a challenge for the students. Indeed, it was the opposite -- I got a lot of questions about why Haskell lacked a termination checker. (They had in their minds that termination checking was an impossible dream, and so seeing a system with a termination checker that was both usable and useful really fired their imaginations.)

Specs were still hard. A proof-based approach is actually desirable for teaching good spec-writing skills, because proofs are more sensitive to the details of the spec. Eg, property-based testcase generation is happy with the equation that the reverse of the reverse of a list is the same list, but it's too weak an induction hypothesis for a proof. So it strongly motivates you to get to the characterizing equation for reversal (that reversing the concatenation of two lists is the concatenation of their reverses in the opposite order). (And it's still good for testcase generation.)

Unfortunately, I don't know enough small, self-contained examples where you have to strengthen the induction hypothesis to get the proof to go through. Ideally I'd want about 60 or 70 good examples of this (to set problems for a course) and, alas, I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a tenth that many satisfying examples.
You know you can buy fractions of a BTC, right?
Some of this is propagation of cultural myths/stereotypes. In a country of millions of people there will be millions of people that don't conform to these blanket statements.

In the US, states and cities have their own driving stereotypes that don't fit neatly into an easily summarized national driving style.
Roger Hare's Shogi Pages
After flying over the post I read the introduction just to search for the root cause how that guy found the crappy API.

> I am a FLOSS evangelist...

And just because of that he found it. Any proponent of close source software here who wants to tell us his story how he made the world a better place by forcing a company to their homework? Nobody?

EDIT: Wow, 5 downvotes but not a single response...
There are tons of counterfeit Pokemon cartridges on eBay and elsewhere.
Because braces don't introduce bugs? You can just as easily omit braces in a if/for etc statement and have a bug, or close the wrong brace at the wrong point (and also introduce a bug).
Compiling to categories
Maybe this is an embodiment of the rule that "all complex systems operate in failure mode most of the time." The fact of failure mode doesn't necessarily justify abandoning a system, because the system that replaces it will also run in failure mode.

Note: I understand "failure mode" to mean that rules are being ignored, or guards have been disabled.
They haven't quite gotten out of the uncanny valley here. It sounds like Obama is slurring his speech at times. Still, very impressive, and more than a little scary. I'm sure that with a little more development they'll be able to knock off the last few rough edges, and then we really won't be able to tell truth from fiction in videos any more.
I guess I'm the control here, because I was briefly a member of ISPE. Not because I have an IQ in the 99.9+% (as far as I know), but because they couldn't figure out how to password protect their Ning group.

Based on the posts though, the members didn't seem any smarter than the average person on HN and the discussions were generally less interesting.
CUDA version compatibility, for instance. Every new release requires new series of drivers.
I mean, if you want the billion dollars valuation, you should presumably be bold enough to solve an actual problem, not to mention one that is so profoundly uninteresting to the customer.

Not to mention one that every app store in existence seems to solve that offer plenty of prepaid options.
Though #54 is "How long ago did you start your company?" for which the average is 4-5 years. So, subtract that off for the age at founding I guess.
Science is a process to find objective truths. It relies upon consistency, if a counterexample is found to a theory that theory is considered incorrect. New theories must match all existing data. Einstein's theory of General Relativity is a good example of this; it replaces Newtonian gravitation in extreme circumstances but provides the exact same results in the limit around everyday energies.

Science cannot create objective understanding of purely subjective systems. The issues surrounding consciousness and qualia are of this sort, while everyone experiences their reality they are inherently outside the domain of objective truth. The closest science can get is to consider them as "emergent phenomena" and give up on explaining the issue.
it might not be okay in your country but in ours in came to a point that criminals here are not afraid of the law anymore. on my way to work i saw a criminal stabbed someone in broad daylight and then walk away like noting happened without fearing the police which is just a few blocks away.
19870213's point was that a git rebase is functional because it doesn't change existing commits, rather it only makes new ones and moves branch pointers. This is correct. You can also say that git gc is functional because it's only garbage collecting. But you can't have it both ways. The cumulative effect of rebase followed by gc is to delete commits that have a branch pointing to them.
Some great comments here. Does anyone mind if I link to this thread from the original article?
Seems like some of the OEs they mention the article are a contributing factor, but it also seems very likely that people who were aware of their higher IQ are more likely to go to doctors and psychologist, and therefore more likely that any other conditions are also caught. A population with a disproportionate level of observations will yield more results.
That feature only works in the US (and maybe a few other countries?).
This isn't new technology. Something similar (audio only) was developed 20 years ago in the US but it "disappeared" from public.
gc is actually essential to implementing pure functional programming efficiently on top of imperative hardware

(see: structure sharing, an essential optimization that lets functional data structures reuse bits of each other internally for low-cost copy-and-modify, at the cost of making a data structure no longer responsible for freeing its own memory since it overlaps)
Prince2 for project management.
I still have one of those cases. It was my first Mac.
I think the point being made is that however rare it might be in the US that it’s even rarer to the point of non-existent in Germany (or the UK etc).

Edit: things don’t have to be very common for people to have deep seated fears and want to try and avoid it (however much they might or might not be overreacting doing so).
Bitcoin is a quasi-legal worldwide distributed mechanism for financial gambling that everyday people can now participate in from their smartphone.

Clearly it has scaled well, it is now one of the more successful means of gambling extant. The fact that it is becoming unusable for any other purpose could have implications, but it's self evident that this use case has scaled considerably.
Problem is, some undefined behaviors are actually correct. Some are documented extensions (a concept straight out of ISO C), and some are just nonportable situations that empirically work.

These could be handled in the prover; you just need an extended language definition. Or maybe not. Depending on what is being relied upon, it could be difficult.

In any case, a prover based on equating "correct" with "strictly conforming ISO C" is going to be of severely limited use. It might be good for some module-level assurance, like that some linked list or hash table module is perfect or whatever.
They don't work well. I deal with them at work. The data is terrible.
ComfortDelGro Offers to Buy Uber Shares
Bitcoin involves broadcasting all transactions; that is obviously not scalable, regardless of block size, regardless of PoW, regardless of other design details.
What did you use to do the indenting?
The reasons invoked by patreon were a bit different (see the update in their blog post[1]), they argued that

- the new model would make it easier to understand for creators (they are now certain to earn 95% of each pledge, where they could earn less before)

- it also makes it clearer for patrons, because now they are paying exactly at the date they made the pledge. And it also avoids double spend for CUF (charge up front) payments, where you could pay twice the pledge within a few days.

But your point is interesting, I hope patreon will give more details about this. If this is true, the business model itself is flawed, and competitors (drip, gratispay, liberapay) will face the same issue.

[1] https://blog.patreon.com/updating-patreons-fee-structure/
You have to keep in mind when looking at data is that the US, relative to the countries you're probably comparing it to, is very large. So you need to look at rates of events - and not quantity of events. How often did other police forces need to respond to something at all analogous to an individual pointing a rifle out the window of a hotel in populated areas and then repeatedly trying to reach behind his waist even after instructed not do so? Perhaps most importantly, violent crime in the US is much more common than other places in the developed world. So that changes the probability determination for what's probably going on in any given event.

We can look at this this on a national level where we're already in pretty bad shape with a murder rate of 4.9 [1] compared to less than 1 for most of Europe. But where things get really insane is when you start breaking it down to where these events are often happening. Crime, especially violent crime, in the US is very centralized into a number of relatively small areas. For instance these [2] are the crime data for Ferguson, Missouri where Michael Brown was killed. In the year Michael Brown was killed, their homicide rate was double the US average. It's now skyrocketed to 42.8. To give some context to that 42.8 the murder rate in Mexico is 16.35. In Columbia it's 26.5. There are actually only 5 nations with a murder rate higher than Ferguson. And you'll find that these extreme rates of violence tend correlate pretty well to areas where the reported police violence is also coming from.

So the point here is that comparing how the police function in countries with little to no reason to expect extremely dangerous scenarios (or outcomes) to countries where such expectations are perfectly justified is not really logical. Here's an interesting thought experiment. Swap the police force of [less dangerous nation] with the police force of the US. Would you expect the behavior of the US police force in the now much more safe nation to change? What of the police from the safer nation now placed in a nation where people randomly killing police is actually a thing?

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

[2] - http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Ferguson-Missouri.html
Its only alien because for decades people sculpted chess to look like accounting:
AlphaZero doesn't waste time evaluating advantage in centipawns for each position(which is unreliable long-term), because it has more general evaluation function that is not as dependent on search algorithm as alpha-beta. That evaluation function is just hidden behind the neural network weights and is probably much faster than AlphaZero itself(a generic network trainer): essentially behind it is a series of rules and heuristics that would translate to fast classical algorithm.
>https://mobile.twitter.com/adam3us/status/923309367260274688

selling a SaaS (presumably with support) to enterprises is a bad thing now?

>Good reason to believe the entire thing was simply the old system attempting to hijack bitcoin.

>https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7fsbw5/divorcing_the_s....

most of the post wasn't really relevant to the on-chain vs off-chain discussion, so i'm going to quote (what i think is) the relevant bits

>The divorce of the transaction layer from the settlement layer enables corrupt influence and tampering within the system in much the exact same way as the fiat system. [...] The core treachery that has been inflicted upon the project is what? You guessed it; to divorce the settlement and transaction layers from one another, which makes it once again subject to the exact same weaknesses as gold in the modern world with its laughable 542 to 1 paper to physical transaction to settlement layer.

how i'm understanding the argument it is that by separating the transaction/settlement layer, it would lead to fractional reserve banking, as seen in fiat currencies. how does lighting network achieve that? to start a payment channel that can handle x BTC in net transactions, you have to lock x BTC beforehand, so it's not like using lighting network is equivalent to issuing IOUs for bitcoin. am i missing something?
The Quest for a Stable Coin
This comment crosses into personal attack. That breaks the site guidelines even when you're defending a good cause and/or partially critiquing yourself. Those things don't magically remove the requirement for mutual respect in discussion here.

People sometimes assume that that requirement is waived for them because what they're saying is so legitimate, but these two things are orthogonal, because taking personal shots at others is destructive to the container which is in all our interests to maintain. And it's fragile. Therefore, please don't post like this to Hacker News.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I'm not sure about it. I personally haven't seen H1Bs at Lyft yet
Don't confuse legality with morality. They may be related but they are not always in sync. In the real world the law will often prevail.

Context is important. You can call non-kobe beef "kobe beef" in casual conversation, but IIRC you cannot in a conversation where you are selling said meat. IIRC "Kobe" is protected by treaty. If you are selling meat from a wagyu cow not originating from and raised in Kobe, you have to use the word "Wagyu" or another word instead of "Kobe".
Off-topic, but...

> In the case of your Safeway card, you are exchanging your data for discounts,...

Does anyone not lie on those forms? Last time I checked, 234-567-8901 worked at Safeway, and someone else created it. Poisoning surveillance companies' databases costs you nothing, and hits them where it hurts.
I'm not at all sure mathematicians would make better programmers. One of the mistakes, IMO, some proof assistants make in their design philosophy is that since, from the perspective of some formal logics, writing programs and proofs are "the same thing", their is a corresponding equivalence of the two activities. This is somewhat analogous to concluding that since both programming and writing involve entering words into a text editor, the two are the same. But the fact that, from some specific perspective, both mathematicians and programmers write proofs does not mean that the activities are similar. Both physicists and mathematicians solve equations, but no one would say that physics is math. Mathematicians manipulate objects that are very different from those that programmers manipulate. Mathematicians manipulate objects that are very regular, and reasoning about them is largely tractable, while programmers manipulate very irregular and very intractable objects. Ostensibly, the difference is only in measure, but a difference in any robust complexity measure is usually a difference in quality. Even the actual proofs are very different. Mathematical proofs are usually short but mathematically deep, while program proofs are mathematically shallow and uninteresting, but very, very long and full of detail. Not to mention that the motivations are completely different. The goal of a programmer is to write a program that meets the requirements, which may include some distribution of acceptable bugs that depends on their severity (i.e. a major, but non-catastrophic bug occurring once a month and some minor bugs occurring daily are acceptable), and increasing the cost of programming by an order of magnitude in order to make all bugs provably absent is the wrong thing to do. In math, the requirements are completely different.
Meetups in the U.S.A
It's not just about changing to a tiered internet. They want to change the fundamental way it works from a connected network where you or I can send and receive any packets we want to any other machine connected. They want to change it to a system similar to cable where information is provided only from certain sources. If packets are monitored and metered they can decide what machines you are allowed to communicate with and the kind of communication you are allowed. They can charge you depending on what you look at, block anything from competitors and monitor everything you do. Right now, I could host my own webserver, pay for a domain name and ooen my server on port 80 and anyone could connect to that machine. If my server became popular i'd probably need to pay for more bandwidth but that's about it.

If there was no net neutrality they could charge me anything they wanted to do that or just outright stop me. They could add whatever terms they wanted to 'hosting' accounts or whatever they call it. They could remove my website for posting content they disagree with.

And when I say they I mean ISP's whose sole function should be to provide access ro the communication network that is the internet, not be the gatekeepers of global communication.

The internet is far more than people hosting content for other people to consume. But they're trying really hard to turn it into nothing more than that.

I grew up with dialup internet where you got charged by the webpage. Fucked if I'm going back to that.
> do we use (reducers) still?!

Yes, for the reason you cite: parallelism. See Alex Miller's recent comment here:

https://clojureverse.org/t/reducers-what-are-they-for/1054/3

> it feels like an ongoing dialogue that's over my head

There's always Haskell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GNDzrgFhGM&t=23m34s
Haskell is one of the few major languages I haven't used much. I find this to be very helpful. Sometimes I look at the Pandoc source and wonder what the hell I'm looking at.
I really thought you were making that up. Yet...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/nasa-denies-that-its-running-a...

It was even picked up by space.com

https://www.space.com/37366-mars-slave-colony-alex-jones.htm...
Oliver’s segments often climax with the host desperately sputtering “its 2016 for Christ sakes!!!” His whole brand is pessimistic cynicism.
Push to Talk is necessary when you regularly have 200+ people, sometimes 800 people in the same channel. We don't use discord for comms because it doesn't support shout + channel hierarchies unlike mumble. Discord is still useful for pings, as their mobile app w/ push notifications are very helpful.
The value of anything depends on demand; the demand for USD comes in part from the need to pay taxes to a government that will only accept USD (and more generally, from the fact that in the United States, the law only recognizes USD as money -- so things like debts, torts, etc. wind up being measured in USD, so anyone who has a legal obligation to make such payments will add to the demand for USD).
I've always been confused when reading Haskell snippets on the web, this really cleared things up for me!
Oh my bad, you're right. Manually adding key and leading into isn't a forgery, it's "notes". Good catch.
hey you're getting downvoted bc you misunderstand so insistently and cockily, maybe try asking a question
Volunteering to teach non-violent communication in a prison increased my anxiety and stress.

It was worth it, though.
> The cumulative effect of rebase followed by gc is to delete commits that have a branch pointing to them.

That would be a strictly broken GC if it removes commits that are reachable from branch pointers. Please file a bug report with the git project if you've observed this happening, because it would be inconsistent with the git-gc(1) manpage, which says it only removes unreachable objects.
Why do you spell it 'Etherium'?
Before asking this question you should learn what is the consensus problem and
learn what is blockchain from cryptosystems' perspective (hint: they are two
completely different things). It's pointless to discuss research if the
interlocutor doesn't understand the basic terminology of the field.

You could start with the Byzantine generals problem, its proof about lower
bounds, and the relation between the lower bounds of Byzantine generals and
blockchain.
This sounds a hell lot like changing the goal posts.
Your team's velocity going up can mean that:

* Your team did more work this week.

* Your team worked more efficiently this week.

* Your team inflated its story point estimations this week.

Any one or all of those things could have happened in varying degrees.

Given all of that, what useful knowledge is it actually supposed to impart?

The best part is the number of story points / velocity can vary wildly depending upon what the team believes the measure is being used for.