skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If you don't see the "good sense" then maybe the problem is in you. Politicians should probably watch what they say, but they should definitely watch what they do. In the age of a random accusation ending people's careers (this year's events made this painfully obvious to anyone even outside of the college space, the #metoo overreaction and what happened to James Damore being prime examples), it makes perfect sense to watch who you're meeting with and under what circumstances. Don't "trust women"? What about just don't trust people. Blindly trusting women, as if they're a special case of a human, that's like something from a neo-marxist book of a social justice activist. Nonsense. Defending yourself from an accusation is infinitely easier when you can prove that you in fact weren't at the place at the time.

The other side of why this makes "good sense" is the temptation angle - you can't get tempted if you don't have an opportunity. Unlike what the lefties think, Christians are people too and they get tempted just like other people, especially when drunk. Men are like recovering addicts when it comes to mating (all heterosexual or homosexual men with regular levels of libido are like that, if you say this doesn't apply to you, you are a liar). Resisting a beautiful woman/man flirting with you is like being a heroin addict trying to not shoot up a dose in front of you. Of course you can resist, but it's hard, requires a lot of self control and most people are incapable of doing it without first experiencing the drawbacks. Is there another option? Don't put yourself into that situation in the first place... if you're married, there's no reason for you to be alone with likely sexual partners when alcohol is involved. All the cries about "sexism" of what Pence said are absolute nonsense and probably stem from the left's disrespect of traditional family values and marriage (they don't see having 50 partners in a year as a problem and an "open relationship" is almost a goal for them). There were multiple cases this year (not two, but like a dozen) of self-proclaimed male feminists who supposedly "trusted women" and "trusted themselves to demonstrate appropriate behavior" who should be the beacons of proper behavior when it comes to "respecting women" who ended up being sexual harassers, rapists or even murderers in one case. Does this prove anything? No, but it illustrates that "trusting yourself" is easy to say and hard to do even if your stated goal is exactly that.

Not that it matters, but since this accusation is very likely - no, I'm not a Christian... or a Republican... or an American.
Think of it this way: Neural networks are a particular kind of formula. For instance a 2x2 neural network takes 2 inputs, x, and y, has 2 biases, bx and by, and 4 weights w1 ... w4 and calculates 2 outputs ox, and oy. The formula it uses is:

ox = w1 * x + w3 * y + bx

oy = w2 * x + w4 * y + by

And then learns how to change w1 ... w4, bx and by to get ox and oy to be more useful (less error). Is it so weird that a 2 layer network (which is the same formula, but it uses ox and oy as inputs to a second identical calculation to produce the final outputs) will produce better results, even with learning ?

Even in a neural network so absurdly large as the human mind, it isn't just a bunch of wires connecting everything to everything. There are clear patterns, clear formulas that are dictated not by learning, but by the architecture itself (e.g. CNNs in the eyes and optical cortex, and something much more like LSTMs in memory heavy regions).

In some sense one might even say it doesn't make a difference. A fully connected network with the same fanout as a CNN can do everything a CNN can, and more. Likewise, a network that is simply presented with the last 50 timesteps can do strictly better than an LSTM or GRU RNN would.

But such a network would have much, much greater computational complexity (by a factor in the thousands at least, in the case of those CNNs by a factor that is roughly the number of pixels in the image).

So they don't work better per se. In fact they are "worse" by the most important metric (error). But they are a good trade off : LSTMs are thousands of times faster, with only slightly worse results for sequence labeling or production (ie. text and audio comprehension). CNNs are millions of times faster at image comprehension than a fully connected network, and are only slightly worse at it.
You know it was hard enough for PayTV smart card developers to keep transistor level reverse engineers from getting inside their chips, and all that was at stake then was $35 content subscriptions. I can't imagine how putting personal banking inside SGX will fare. Or, I acknowledge I am probably missing something. Am i?
Around one in five, one in four books were bought with no intention of reading. On one hand that's a lot of faking, on on other, the other three fourths is much more and not fake. (Source: Editors I knew, over alcoholic beverages.)

EDIT: "Were", not "are", because I've lost touch in the past years and don't know how it is nowadays. Sales have dropped, the audience may have too. (Still see gorgeous women in the bookshops though.)
The way I took it is that CNNs use local context and are translation neutral (so if a certain combination of pixels is an eye, they'll be an eye anywhere in the image), while
RNNs can decide which information to keep and can decide in what way positioning affects result.

So the thing CNNs are really good at are perfect for small images, but symbols already have that thing done. When CNNs and RNNs are used together (e.g. image segmentation), it's almost as if the CNN is creating symbols and RNN s processing them.

Or, you know, maybe I'm far off. I'm in no way qualified to talk about this (just a fan).
You take out a fraudulent loan by making misrepresentations of some variety on the loan documents.
Yes, it is usually the case that misspellings are incorrect. :P
Personal Infrastructure
Why would I want to integrate them? They have some insanely hurtful views, which they stick to no matter the evidence, and society doesn't need them, they need fewer of them and more of us.
Because they drive traffic ?
What I don't understand is why such a person resorts to a nickname, but does use a picture. The US government knows the real name of people like ioerror and moxie marlinspike. It seems pointless to consistently hide the real name to the public.
Bitcoin and other crypto coins are a neat idea until their underlying cryptographic primitives are broken. Then they will immediately loose all of their value. Every cryptosystem of the past has been broken at some time.
None of the examples you have brought has anything to do with blocking freedom of speech, etc. - except maybe TELUS case which happened in... the same Canada we now praising as being so much better than US?... But even this looks more like business dispute than anything else - though I agree that their actions were both stupid and despicable (and FCC couldn't do anything about it because FCC has no authority in Canada...)

Yes, ISPs have attempted to block apps like BitTorrent because they use tons of bandwidth and ISPs oversell bandwidth, it is a known thing. Has zero to do with freedom of speech. And, of course, they did it in secret for a very simple reason - once this is known, they got their asses kicked by both customers and FCC. Pre-2015.

AT&T case isn't even related to NN - Apple routinely blocks apps competing with their services, and NN has nothing to say about it. That's what you get for choosing closed garden ecosystem.

Summarily, I see a bunch of instances where ISPs blocked services which competed with their own or overtaxed their networks, and got a rebuke from FCC. One case where it looks like genuine attempt at suppressing speech, and it happened in Canada. But ok, I grant you this - instead of "no examples in 30 years" we can say "one example in 30 years". Maybe you could find more, and we could have an example of some stupid ISP trying it every 2 years or so and getting their hands slapped. Hardly a case for introducing sweeping new regulations, and hardly a case to predict collapse of the whole internet if the regulations return to "once every 2 years, hands slapped" situation? What would you think would have happened under 2015 regs anyway? Just the same - once per 2 years, somebody would try something and get their hands slapped. You already have it.

> Also if China can block VPNs then I'm sure Comcast can figure it out too;

Pol Pot figured how to kill millions with common hoes, and Stalin figured out how to put millions in gulags in Siberia. That's not the reason to proclaim Comcast would do the same. Would they try some shenanigans now and then, to gain upper hand competing against other ISPs or trying to adjust to new and creative usage of their networks? Surely they will. And if they try something shady, the same thing would happen that happened in 2005. BitTorrent is still alive, and so is Comcast. Somehow it worked out, despite it being 10 years before the light of Obama shined on all of us. I am sure we'll be fine in 2025 too, and Comcast won't take our freedom of speech and won't put any of us in gulag for using BitTorrent or Tor or VPN.
What a horrible advice, just because you are too lazy to return correct status code someone who consumes the api has to do twice the work.
You are barking at the wrong tree. DO is in no way responsible to yellow.guide contents.

If you need help from the HN crowd, I would suggest making a new submission with the title starting with “Ask HN:” and give a good description of your problem.
Too bad the first thing people do when consuming a REST API is to put a RPC wrapper around it (or find software that with auto-gen a wrapper for them)

Subconsciously no one wants to deal with your carefully constructed REST URLs. They just want a function name and some parameters.
well most consumers work better with 400 errors.
(i.e. angular1 or even angular2 where the 4xx error codes will be inside the error clause of the promise/observable)
The Mozilla Corporation is 100% owned by the non-profit Mozilla Foundation, so any earnings that the Corporation makes, they either have to reinvest, put it to the side to reinvest it later or pay it out to the Foundation, where it's again in non-profit hands (i.e. forced to invest into their specified mission).

The only way that the Corporation could do shenanigans, is by paying their employees higher wages than would be necessary to hold them or is considered reasonable for the job that they do.

It was set up, because there's limits to how much money a non-profit is allowed to put to the side, which would have limited Mozilla's strategic flexibility.
I don't see how those things are really solved with rest, particularly given that people will often be using a wrapper rather than building their URLs manually everywhere.
"Is it really common to go swimming at a conference with others attendees of a different sex?"

That is pretty common in pretty much any kind of society where water is present. Swimming is normal social accepted activity and swimming pools ceased to be gender segregated years ago.

"Crazy parties with booze et al at a conference like NIPS?"

Crazy parties are not common, but booze at conferences is common pretty much everywhere except in Arab countries.

"Why even have these non-professional outlets, distracting from the professionalism of the conferences themselves?"

Conferences were always largely networking and socialization - even years ago. Even when they were male only. And they will always be that way - you all could have just exchange papers otherwise.
A minimization of the issue through relativism, lack of objectivity (perpetrated through the omission of the most relevant details) is certainly what Facebook hopes.

> This is a PR response [...]

There comes a time when there is a need for change, words only serve as a mean to manufacture consent.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

A fallacious consensus is not what the community needs, nor is in Facebook long term interest.
The beauty of technology, hacking solutions together, and putting petty BS aside to solve a bigger problem is the heart of the developer community. Any attack or criticism based on anything other than merit goes entirely against that. Even if developers don't believe in equality and egalitarianism on a moral level, I'd like to think that on a purely practical level they want both 50%'s of the population to be working at their peak capability.
You're right of course, like the first time you hit a race condition (with a week of debugging) and build a distributed lock system. You publish it and people find it useful!

Only to realize later postgres offers fine locking capabilities far beyond what you've created (now that you get it).

Then you realize that all anybody is doing is creating subsets of Erlang (half serious). So why aren't we all using that?

In the grand scope, is it really a bad thing?

We end up with X ways to solve problem Y and you never know X + 1 could have some advantages. Exploration should be encouraged IMO!
I can confirm that extensions.ui.experiment.hidden gets reset to true on Nightly after opening about:addons. It seems to have no effect, though it might have if one uses lockPref.
REST is a design pattern, and like all design patterns, it can be over-applied.

Bits of your application that have natural nouns - “post”, “credit card”, “product” - fit naturally to endpoints. Log in doesn’t, so don’t try shoehorning it in. If only 80% of your application can be defined as REST level 4 but is clear and easy to use, who cares? And if your domain doesn’t fit well with REST, then don’t use it!

Personally, if I have an object like “product” and want to use some custom verbs, I include them in the “links” section of the product response. My authentication process is in the documentation, with /login and /logout URLs.

My first priority is always to make something usable by humans. I try to do that using REST wherever possible, because usually those goals go together. When they conflict and I can’t resolve them, I choose usability by humans over strict REST principles.
Because when dude touches women without her consent, it is reasonable to exclude women from networking occasion. /logic
Using GitUp
Nope. Rest is stateless, which means it is a form of message passing - the right thing to do (a universal design principle, like a pipeline, etc).

Soap is just a crap by a committee of idiots.

If you like this blue is new white pattern, consider Javascript is new J2EE instead.
Also, aren't the types incorrect? Glancing over their docs, Int represents a signed integer. A negative input shouldn't be allowed, nor can you guarantee that your output fits in an int. Now I'm slightly curious as to how they handle overflows. Maybe they do runtime checks?

Conflating of data types with storage types is a surprisingly common occurrence, although I can appreciate it's largely due to pragmatism.
>Someone had to trade the money that ended up in the billionaire's pocket. Presumably they received something of more value to themselves than the money, otherwise they wouldn't have made the trade.

That abstract reasoning seem to miss a lot. Where I live, rent is crazy expensive. Rich people own their own homes. Almost everyone I know rents, giving a lot of money to people who need it less than they do. (I don't even dream of ever owning a house here. A cheap one is >$1m.) It's like a Monopoly game near the end, all the money going one way. So sure, you could say not-being-homeless is 'of more value to themselves than the money' but it would be a weird way of putting it.
It turns out that schema-first design is useful. It turns out that having a cross-platform industry standard for such schemas is useful.

What developers didn't like about SOAP aren't necessarily the features, it's all the XML.
It's as if his great work contribution warrant some kind of free pass for abhorrent and unacceptable behaviour.
Your comment on dyadic enumeration was really interesting.

I hadn't considered it before but it's amazing how fast the space of available "logic gates" blows out from just a simple transition of binary to trinary.
That means I can't use any kind of generic retry / back off code because I've now got to start dealing with your custom errors, and if you have html versions of the info Google will start demoting you.

Just add a code, it's seconds of work.
Reading the headline I thought the article would be about mindfulness, which would have been nice. Reading the article I was pleasantly surprised to find a different subject that I also enjoy. :)
The link you provided talks about censorship on forums etc. That happens on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. every day. ISPs no longer own most of the social media, but I'm not sure how the same kind of censorship is ok now (in fact, Congress just severely criticized Facebook and Twitter for doing not enough of it and allowing Russians to publish their opinions about US matters on these sites) but exactly the same censorship was not ok then? Cases of ISPs refusing hosting and other similar services are known and widely lauded. Of course, that was not because it was about censorship, but because Nazis were the ones being censored, but censorship as a principle has been accepted, and the question now is only who you can censor. And as you can know, there's no shortage of people who would declare everybody who doesn't agree with them literally Hitler and demand to censor them. Either we accept this is ok and the competition will take care of it, or we say the state must intervene and stop it - but we can't say both depending on how the company doing it is called.
Ohh thank you, I was wondering what "VC" was.
And yet most popular "REST" APIs provide lang. specific clients that expose regular function calls to consume the API turning it into RPC.
How often do you sync? First of all, mist crashes way too often. Even when it works it takes hours to sync. DOes it work smoothly for you?
You are correct on tires. Batteries, though? Where I'm from many know how to do it and only a few pay. Sometimes the guys at auto zone will replace it for free or some dude in the parking lot is happy to help. Or that friend at work. And so on. A few cars have a more complicated path to the battery and you have to remove things, but it isn't usually a problem.
I am most certainly aware of that, but that's the official reason according to the government, that's the reason served in the media, and finally, that's the reason mobile providers were given for not being able to serve LTE signal (two out of three most popular mobile providers did the tests in most populous cities half a decade ago).
I disagree, at a minimum, use 200/400/500. Each grouping of error code defines semantics which are implemented by generic clients / servers / middle boxes / monitoring agents etc. These are things out of your control, and often ran by a range of different companies. Debugging these is .. hard.
I know parity is better, I tried. But I prefer "official" stuff to at least be bailed out if i lose my coins :D
Maybe REST was the best protocol for the great public API explosion of the past decade, where startups wanted to expose a public API to anyone on the internet. The most important requisite was that the most developers could access the API with a minimum of technical knowledge and tools, and the APIs were simple. I am less and less sure that REST is the best solution for communicating between internal services, which know a lot about each other and where you can spend time onboarding developers on a specific techniques and stack.
Not at all. Some languages and libraries don't handle non-200 status codes nicely, they may raise exceptions for each code, or maybe not. For example, Python's basic urllib library makes it easy to get 200 responses but a hassle to get anything else (you need to wrap it in a try/except).

For some APIs, it definitely does make sense to use proper status codes, but for others, it's like fitting square pegs into triangular holes.
Can I send a large request body with a GET? That's usually the reason I end up with POSTs.
What do you think is a better solution?
How much was the exchange difference?
The prohibition against usury that used to be part of Christian practice hasn't died out everywhere: it's still forbidden in the Islamic world (Riba[1]), which is why there are Sharia-compliant banks[2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riba

[2]: https://www.citywealthmag.com/news/britain-has-more-islamic-...
There are probably hundreds of http clients, not sure if "most" handle error codes elegantly, I know that python's base urllib library does not.
Thanks for the great analysis.
This is a common ploy of Canadian politicians. Talk about how much better we have it than the US, but ignore all the things that are worse.
For me, it is privacy. Cash is too cumbersome to deal with, that is probably the only reason i use credit cards.
Free Download “Thelma” (2017) BluRay
I think that approach of creating abstractions and concepts just in time is good tbh. It allows for thing to get incrementally complex. I wish there were a way to manage concepts through that process so that you could have all of the simple, easy to change stuff for new concepts while using the more comprehensive and often complex stuff for more "hardened" concepts.
Well, I thought, a perfectly reasonable one. I don't want to know how people who have money got it. (I find 'money' the most boring subject in the world, by some distance.) Perhaps, it seems, you assume everyone wants to know that. Well, maybe everyone you know does. But I found your comment extremely strange at first. ..well, I'm not in the USA - such a mindset seems rather estadounidense.
Not all APIs are public though. You could picking a communication protocol among services within a single technical organization. In that case you can decide to train everybody to use Thrift, for example, if the pros are strong enough.
I looked up „Dogma“: Prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group.

Seems to be exactly what a lot of folks here are trying to do - „non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer, period.“
Anonymity is something people give up without knowing. If all cryptos opted for default privacy, things would have been different.

With bitcoin, merchant you make payments to can potentially find your wealth, or another can deny transaction to you bwcause you donated somewhere.

These are not doomsday scenarios, this happens today and will happen more if we do not choose privacy.
The difference is when an expression is to be evaluated. Back quote and friends are evaluated by the read function. These expressions are (or at least should be) functions on syntactic forms - syntax transformers. People call them macros. Of course they could have been misused in many cryptic ways.
Definitely not "solved", just made more explicit, kind of like a warning sign in the road. A while ago I worked with an RPC system where the RPC calls looked just like normal function calls... everything worked well, until it didn't.

Anytime a computer program consumes a potentially scarce resource (e.g., network, disk, database, etc), there should be some warning-sign or flag raised to the developer. RPC hides that, whereas REST makes it more explicit. So much of programming is social, and the mechanics of REST, even though theoretically identical to RPC, raise many social flags warning of danger ahead.
You're right; your comment ended up below a couple other siblings and I lost the thread. My reply should have been to your parent.
There's nothing wrong with wrapping REST APIs, as long as you wrap them in something that makes it clear they are a rest API. There's a huge difference in call foo() and calling http.get("foo").
They probably have abuse clause in the contracts. They would claim that charging more than X times per week, for long period is abuse and terminate privileges.