skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Oh please. The only thing a non mining full node does is make a choice which network rules you want to follow. They do not define the rules miners use, they do that themselves.

> There have been four wildly unsuccessful hostile fork attempts (XT/Classic/BU/2x)

These were all upgrade attempts that failed to gain miner support. Calling them "hostile forks" is stupid. The only thing hostile with them is the threat they pose to the developers who do not want to scale Bitcoin on-chain, for whatever reason.

> All of these attempts have been failures, because all of these attempts have not understood how bitcoin works, and the fact that nodes are the peers in bitcoin, and they police and enforce consensus.

No. Spinning up mass nodes in a sybil attack has no relevance.

They failed because they failed to gain enough hash power backing their upgrade plan. This is due to politics and economics.
>So, test in the browser, or on the app. Just test the endpoints separate from your integration test

Unless you're testing different behavior when you're testing the endpoints, what you're doing is essentially writing duplicated test code.

That means two sets of tests (add person browser test / add person API test) that will nearly always break on the same bugs. That means two sets of tests to maintain when you change the code.

It's not that you shouldn't sometimes drill down to test code at a lower level, it's that when you do, you should be drilling down to a reusable abstraction that is independent of the higher level code.
Boost Keras with plugins. kerasplugins
> Try this thought experiment: Imagine two teams of programmers, working with identical requirements, schedules, and budgets, in the same environment, with the same language and development tools. One team uses waterfall/BDUF, the other uses agile techniques. It’s obvious this isn’t a good experiment: The individual skills and personalities of the team members, and how they communicate with each other, will have a much bigger effect than the methodology.

Another thought experiment: imagine getting two teams of programmers using the same methodologies and everything else and expecting the results to be the same. It's just not practical to perform studies like this because there are too many variables.
Can you elaborate on why you want to blame the NRA?

I should disclose that I own a number of firearms, many of them sidearms, and don't like the NRA very much, nor have I ever donated to them or been a member. I'm just curious as to how you see them as being the source to blame.
1) Where did you live in the US? I'm in a medium-ish sized metroplex (whatever that means) of about a million people, and I never hear live fire.

2) Why would you worry about a (remote) gun-shot that you heard? By the time you hear it, you will be already shot-or-not. If not - why worry?
Yet another one?
There was already this one in the audio driver earlier this year... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14314795
Makes you wonder who this is for.
Try Hy (http://hylang.org) - an excellent Clojure-like Lisp in Python.
Autotune should sound less odd if the correction is relatively small.
If at some point bitcoin will suck significant portion of saving of whole world then they will own huge share of all of that which seems a bit unfair.
Polar Bear populations are not declining. Also, the plural of anecdote is not data. https://polarbearscience.com/2017/02/15/baffin-bay-and-kane-...
There is such a things as physics in software: between time, scope and people, one of them almost always has to give. Exceptions I've seen are with mature and well-bonded teams working on familiar scope they understand clearly, with a timeline they themselves defined.

I've found the best "methodology" to deliver decent results are sticking with short iterations. Software is often about doing something we've either not done before, in a way we've not done it before, with people we've not done it with before. So we will have surprises (aka delays) on the way. The more frequent we check just what these delays are, the more realistic we can be about whether we can make it on time, or if we need to cut scope or pull in more help to make it on time.
> I am merely pointing out that one could produce a video of a starving polar bear both in our world and in the world where climate change is not happening, because wild animals starve all the time.

Good thing most people already know we don't live in the world where climate change is not happening, so this doesn't need to act as proof of it happening, but rather as an individual example of what is happening all over.
Too late to edit.

Now that I think of it this would make sense for the FED to actually use the blockchain tech to manage its currency supply. Instead of the printing press they issue cryptodollars which supposedly are better than paper because they can be easily and fastly moved around or whatever. But not for a 3rd party to just say: This is a dollar, but called differently, trust us, we issued it.
Get VPN, forget a problem.
Whats the ideal here?

1. Doctors
2. Foreign combatants
3. Police
4. Motorists
5. Other

I can see how all of those groups perform tasks that might result in the death of strangers unavoidably. Doctors are the only ones who I’d actually pay to wager with my life, so I’d them to win.

I’d like a world without wars, but I’m happy that we have a stading military.

I lived in the UK for 30 years. It’s national news when they kill someone and they stand up and appologise for not having a better solution. That feels about right. But their number isn’t zero.

And finally, cars. We’re already talking about the trolley problem wrt automated cars. It seems we accept that death from going 2-3 times our natural speed in vehicles 10x our weight is dangerous. But It would be nice if technology could get that death rate to lower than law enforcement.
Perfect match: website gives academic refugees chance to connect
Always is a big word. So you are saying people living today have a disadvantage against people from 200 years ago? I mean I get where you are coming from... less competition and more room left to explore but there is also less knowledge to start from and less people to cooperate with. The advantage depends not on time but on how resources, in particular knowledge, is distributed in a society - bitcoin makes a design decision which undouly favors early over late adopters but it wouldn‘t necessarily need to.
A small detail - Clojure has 20,000 libraries of its own. See http://clojars.org .
The polar bear situation really doesn't look like good evidence to me, they state the bear's lameness is assumed to be due to starvation-based atrophy but it seems as likely that this is just an injured bear that can't hunt effectively.

I'm certainly not denying climate change is wiping out polar bears, just that this shows good evidence of that.

The article states bears starve through summer until sea ice forms on which they catch seals .. but the image is from Summer, when the sea ice presumably is yet to form. I guess it could be cumulative from the previous Summer being too warm; again it's not good, clear evidence as it's presented.

Could someone answer where the seals go? I'd have expected if they weren't resting/mating on sea-ice that they'd rest on land and actually be easier to catch? Do they instead stay at sea?
Importance of Custom Embroidery Digitizing for Promotion and Branding
Observed polar bear populations are not declining. However, since there is far less ice the polar bear are much easier to find these days, making the counts go up, rather than down. This has been the case in Svalbard, at least.
How to live stream video to the browser
They know which song is played and how many seconds you are into the song at what time. The only info they need is the playlist of the store to find out your location.
Since when did a customer actual have a solid understanding upfront that was 100% correct. Thats just la la land, and one of reasons for the Agile approach. Iterating after discovery works.
Keep in mind the ideal number would be 100% via proper police procedure.
Maybe they're once bitten (by Minitel) twice shy.
That's actually a good point. In my company most projects start with a fixed budget, a hard deadline and unclear always changing requirements. Everything is already set before the dev team gets involved.
Yes, this is probably effective propaganda, and moreover, propaganda for a just cause.

Nonetheless it is not evidence for climate change, and moreover it is not even necessarily an example of the effects of climate change - even we 100% fix climate change, there will still be plenty of starving wild animals available for sad videos.

The actual way to ensure there are no starving wild animals is to exterminate them in the wild. But that's probably not a good idea.
Sure, both to that and to policemen‘s fear of simple traffic stops.

In most other countries the police officer can encounter a citizen without drawn gun because the odds of the citizen wielding a gun or worse are miniscule.

In America even the drawn handgun might not be superior armament.
How to write a forwardable email introduction
But why is this discouraged so much?
Don't use computers for anything you want to keep private.
> Agda-the-proof-assistant was hard to teach, mostly AFAICT because I don't know how to teach having mathematical ideas well.

One of the (several) problems I find with dependently-typed languages is that they don't easily allow you to separate specification from verification [1]. When using a language like TLA+, it's very easy to separate the two. I actually think it's easier to teach mathematical thinking with TLA+ than without any formal language at all, as you can get feedback as to what has gone wrong, i.e, you can "play" with the math, and use the model checker before writing a proof to get a counterexample. I agree that teaching how to think mathematically is still required and still hard, but there's much less accidental complexity in the way.

Another advantage is that complex concepts are only encountered later [2] (e.g., you can cleanly separate safety from the much more complex liveness). The only downside (for teaching) is that the proofs are declarative, so you don't get to teach actual syntactic manipulation of terms (which is, arguably, not important unless you want to teach low-level proofs). Of course, the computational theory is TLA rather than lambda calculus, so it's irrelevant if you want to teach that formal system in particular. On the other hand, advanced and very powerful concepts such as refinement are very elegant and relatively simple.

[1]: Another is that proof is pretty much the only form of verification (of specification given as types), which is both extremely costly and very rarely required, and yet another is that complicated matters are encountered very early on.

[2] I've been playing with Lean for some weeks, and I still don't understand what object `id` (the identity "function", polymorphic over all types in all universes) is; all I know is that it's not an actual function. I'm not sure whether it's the same or not in Agda.
The proliferation of guns isn't everything. Finland has one of the highest number of guns per capita[1], yet their crime rates are one of the lowest.

There is a massive correlation between (gun) crime and poverty. Regional inequality means that those who live in poverty have a pretty poor chance of improving their lives. To me, the problem stems less from guns and more from a poor quality of life for massive numbers of people in America.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c...
Even more accurate would be to say people who commit crimes are most at risk of being killed by the police.
> The only kind of fake news stories anybody falls for are fake news stories that support their own biases.

I'd rather say that people only fall for fake news stories that don't run counter to their own biases. I.e. when someone is completely ignorant about a topic, and the first story they read about it is fake news, they might believe it.

In any case, you seem to be agreeing that people fall for fake news that supports their own biases, hence:

>> people in first world countries (eg, Americans, Germans, etc.) can't reliably detect fake accounts or fake news stories.

They can reliably detect whether something does or does not agree with their preexisting knowledge/biases, but that doesn't always help with detecting fake accounts or fake news.
Even armed criminals are not approached this way most places in Europe. The policy in the UK is to get civilians away, contain the threat, call for reinforcements, and if possible wait and/or try to negotiate. If it quite rare for it to become necessary to shoot. You don't engage someone armed unless it is to avoid immediate and acute danger to anyone.

The proliferation of guns make it harder to respond like that, but still a lot of the cases we see with gunfights involving the police in the US is cases where individuals or pairs of officers go after suspects alone without waiting for backup and without trying to contain and de-escalate.
Seems to me yet another confirmation of the first rule of the Agile Manifesto: "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools."

The methodology cannot be effective without creating the right personal dynamics.
"Heart-wrenching" doesn't convince minds in Hacker News.
None of those are the examples OP was talking about. What value are you getting by having the thermostat connect to Google's servers rather than connecting to it directly? What do I get by letting Google see inside my house with a security camera that I couldn't get by connecting to the camera directly?
Maybe you'd prefer watching a polar bear eat a seal alive?
That's because you are using an extremely small sample; of course the individual differences are going to matter. Now, get a random sample of 1000 teams using waterfall and 1000 teams using agile, and you'll get much more meaningful data. The larger the amount of samples, the more the individual differences are going to be smoothed.

Of course, not many people have the resources to do that kind of experiment.
No silver bullet
It’s entirely possible that you’re misreading the situation. Here’s my anecdote, which is similar to the girl’s:

I used to be really tensed in public, and when I have to take a phone number from someone (networking event etc) I would fumble a lot, make all sorts of silly mistakes while feeling the intense pressure of the other watching me. Sometimes I give up, pretend that I’ve taken the details, and smile, half friendly, half apologetically. Then I’d go away feeling super bad.

Now I understand that it was silly to feel pressured in the first place. But you know, it happens.

>You can't really pretend you're interacting with a male

Well yes, with practice. Just how you learnt to overlook skin colour, height, dreadlocks etc, by understanding that we’re all fundamentally humans.

Can’t comment much about humour, I’m an ethnic minority so have the unusual advantage that some banters are forgivable ;)
You are both right and wrong.

There have been multiple attempts at scaling Bitcoin on-chain by raising the blocksize. They have all been unsuccessful because they have been blocked by the Core developers and their supporters using censorship, troll campaigns, ddos and abuse. It's not due to technical reasons but because they want to redirect scaling off-chain, using technology they coveniently develop. The very same developers actually supported bigger blocks a couple of years ago but changed their tone to support the scaling approach their company favors. After the last attempt (Segwit2x) it's clear Bitcoin won't scale on-chain.

However the technical limits of the technology ha never been reached, tested or even been fully researched. Bitcoin Cash is for example a fork which aims to scale on-chain by increasing the block size. If all transactions from Bitcoin would be done on Bitcoin Cash the network would work fine today.

Where the actual limit is we don't know. It's probably not possible to support every financial transaction for everyone. For that we do need off-chain scaling in addition to many other improvements.
Yes to both, but unfortunately the cost in time, money and related skills is prohibitively high:

- The diagrams would need to be re-traced and any printed labels replaced with braille ones.

- As braille characters can often take up more space, the labels might need to be shortened, meaning that a separate diagram key would need to be prepared.

- These are technical diagrams, so if you redraw them at the same scale they appear in the book they might not necessarily be understandable in a tactile form.

In terms of money, if you can get away with using A4 paper, the particular type you would need costs £0.38 per sheet. If you need to use A3, it's £0.77 per sheet. Many commercial transcription services, when you take into account the labour costs of adapting the diagram, will charge £70 plus per image, and £3-5 for additional copies if you need them. There are free transcription services provided by charities, but the staff are not experts in preparing technical diagram material and the turnover time can be six months or more.

TL;DR - it's not worth it. Producing one tactile figure would cost twice the cost of the book. I don't know how many figures there are in total.
Life Without the iPhone Is Pretty Damn Great
That is why we need opensource hardware.
> As Bitcoin is practically useless due to high fees and congestion

I disagree here. Gold is very expensive to get into and out of on a percentage basis, also requires careful storage, and is more difficult to exchange (manual pickup/delivery or insured registered mail). And yet it is worth eight trillion dollars.

In addition, believing that Bitcoin is dead for transactional uses because of temporary issues may be a mistake. It is simply software after all, and there are now hundreds of billions of reasons for the developers and users to get it right. My thought is that the alt-coins are simply testing “improvements” to the core technology, and if any updates are sufficiently proven and begin to threaten Bitcoin they will simply be stolen by Bitcoin’s users and eventually co-opt the alt-coin’s value due to Metcalfe’s law.
The Anaemic Domain Model Is No Anti-Pattern, It’s a SOLID Design
Around 60 years ago, Lisp pioneered functional programming and was the only thing that supported it at all. Up until the mid-90s or so it was still far and away the most popular language that had meaningful support for closures and higher order functions. That hasn't been true anymore for about 20 years, but for a long time anyone interested in using that stuff probably learnt it from Lisp, and Lisp was probably their best bet for getting to use it.

There was always more to Lisp (I read a cute essay from the mid-60s about how to balance assignment-and-goto style programming with recursive-pure-function style programming in Lisp), but older people making that connection isn't unreasonable, or younger people who've only heard older people talk about it.
It sounds like author is not too fond of code reviews, test approaches, and linting rules. These things are based on personal preference and semi-religious beliefs often leading to conflicts, even on two person team.
Segwit isn't a a block size increase. It allows for a tiny amount more transactions but it's very clear it's not enough. An actual block size increase (say to 8MB) would solve the current problems.

LN is years from being actually usable by the masses. This is from their developers themselves.

> Maybe it's more proof that no one cares?

That's a pretty idiotic thing to say. The technology isn't ready yet despite the developers being aware of the problem for, as you say, years.
NASA to test prototype Kilopower reactor
Yep, it's probably just old.

Which is not to doubt global warming and it's effect on polar bear populations. Just that this particular bear is not really evidence.
> By the time you hear it, you will be already shot-or-not. If not - why worry?

If you're not shot now, you could still be shot later. So trying to assess the situation to find out whether more shots will be fired seems like a good idea.
How about:
You have two teams. Each team will work on two projects, A and B together.

The first team does A in "Agile" and B in "Waterfall"

The second one does A in "Waterfall" and B in "Agile"

I bet working like this would pull out at least some interesting stuff
Danny MacAskill is incredible and when you watch the behind the scenes videos you really get a sense of how patient and supportive Red Bull are of their athletes.

So good!
> Decentralized can have many meanings. What is important is that you can transact with anyone without a third party having any say.

I understand the premise of decentralised transactions, it's just that if the value of the currency can be manipulated by small group, it is not removing the need for trust, just shifting it...

> As long as they do not collude to destroy or disrupt the network it has no relevance at all.

I thought the point of decentralisation was to remove the need to trust others...

> As Bitcoin is practically useless due to high fees and congestion, I agree. But not because the reasons you gave.

AGREE! 7tps vs Visas 4,000tps with a peak capacity of 56,000 tps...
> Of course, not many people have the resources to do that kind of experiment.

That's what I meant about it not being practical. Who would invest that amount of money? There's infinite variations of different methodologies as well.

I'm not sure what the solution is but it's tiring seeing bad studies used to promote certain approaches.
Tera zikr
I've seen many teams claim to have switched from 'waterfall' to 'agile', but the only ones that haven't slipped back into a 'waterfall'-like mode after a few bad releases have been ones that put a strong emphasis on tools - specifically testing tools.

Good interpersonal dynamics are important, but the sheer level of irony that the first rule of the Agile manifesto emphasizes deprioritizing the main thing that will actually get you away from waterfall-like development is pretty staggering, IMHO.

Never mind. Forget the tests. If you have a meeting at 11am every morning where anybody who sits down is shouted at then you've done it. You're "agile".
Longer pause doesn't mean better ideas. I pause because I never heard the words before or because the words is longer than others.
Are we still pushing the idea that superficial diversity is something to strive for? How about diversity of thought?
Because software has uncertainty (about requirements, environment, tolerances, complexity) and creative elements thrown in.

It's not a regular pipeline kind of workflow, like some Taylor-inspired assembly line, or regular old civic engineering.

Besides all those methodologies are unscientific BS invented by consultants, not something derived from actual studies (even when there are some comparative studies involved they are laughable in scope by scientific standards).
I find it interesting that the SOLID principles can, at least according to the author, lead us away from object-oriented programming and take us back to something akin to the old C programs we used to have.

"If adherence to the SOLID principles is a property of well engineered Object-Oriented programs, and an ADM adheres better to these principles than an RDM ..." -- but surely ADMs can't be said to be OOD?
The thing that I feel these methodologies solve is reminding developers of the users.

Ultimately a lot of people tend to lose track of higher level objectives when working on the (admittedly complex at times) implementation details. This is probably the biggest productivity killer in the business

How many of us have had that first demo with some people external to the dev team and for all the feedback to be super obvious things that could have been caught before a single line of code was written?
What are you learning so intensively?