skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Is there any non-artistic reason why one would like to do it this way instead of using any programming language that's actually any readable?
I get the impression that well meaning teachers, parents, guardians, friends, strangers, and everyone else HAS been trying very hard for a very long time. Socrates, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, you think they were trying their darndest?

The problem is that even if we give ourselves well meaning instructions that will benefit ourselves in the medium to long term, invariably we will come to betray ourselves.

Personally I think it stems from a censor-breaker strategy that emerges from the complexity of the limited hardware we have that needs to quickly solve real world problems.
FWIW that benchmark is not reliable . Developers have submitted go programs that do far better, but they get rejected because they use custom memory allocators. This is despite the fact that C++ does precisely this with an arena allocator.

Go was not designed for the small scale, but the large:

- it has a sensible module system that makes compilation fast

- it's a simple language that encourages boring code - your coworkers will probably write code that works and that you can maintain

- Multithreading is a first class concept. Programs you build locally using typical patterns scale when you run them on massive multi-core servers

- the language is memory safe by default

C++ projects require experts to build, scale and maintain. Go is designed to give that capability to journeyman developers.

Yes C++ is generally going to be faster, but rarely do people talk about why that is. It usually comes down to: a smarter compiler, unsafe operations, or clever optimization. The first is legitimate, but rarely that significant. The second is a penalty that's usually worth keeping (you want bounds checking on arrays), and the third misses the point.

Sure the expert c++ developer could write faster code, but is that who you have? Are you going to take the time to do all that optimization work?
Problem is that SEO is tied to appearing relevant, so to penalize SEO is to penalize relevancy. Splitting SEO from relevancy is often a matter of making better search

Searching for least-relevant can be pretty random: it's easy to point at the center of a circle, but the edge of the circle is not a point
Most enterprise laptops are vastly easier to fix than Apple hardware. The manufacturers of these machines have thought carefully about repairability and designed it in from the start.

For example, the Lenovo X270 opens with eight Philips screws. Once you're inside, you'll find an array of standard parts in standard sockets. Lenovo provide a detailed service manual and will sell you anything from a replacement fan to a new LCD from stock. The logic board isn't caked in BGA underfill and has a sensible level of density, so component-level repairs are vastly easier and less time-consuming.
Capabilities have the following downside vs ACLs:

Someone can share them with someone else.

ACLs can be thought of as server-side mechanisms to increase the "specificity" of capabilities. The typical capability that ACLs work with is "identity", ie "I have access to this account."

The idea is that people won't be able to delegate fine grained capabilities to someone else without giving the broad capability (access to their whole netflix account etc.)

Now, the downside of ACLs is that they're much harder to do in a distributed computing fashion. So instead of blockchains etc. you have to trust a certain backend, and that backend can lock you out or become compromised.

Think of capabilities as client-side controlled access tokens and ACLs as server side controlled ones.
Look into https://github.com/markbates/pop
There is a project to get something like JNR bundled with the JDK – see http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/191 and http://openjdk.java.net/projects/panama/
I quite honestly believe that Facebook contributed to -- or was responsible for -- the ever growing rate of depression. This type of behavior has led numerous people to participate in degenerate activities instead of contributing something to society. Social media may have started well but now it has morphed into becoming the cesspool of the internet.
Bah. I was hoping this article was about automating away the politicians, not just the analysis of their neural network state :(
Why Bitcoin is stupid
They already announced that the new Mac Pro is a ground up redesign and with serviceability in mind. So you don’t have to suspect anything.
Depends on the precondition.
> and their behaviour up until now slightly suggests the opposite.

Please elaborate. Afaik 'kik' wasn't significantly depended upon, and people using the old kik could still install it [1] (had the leftpad author not unpublished it), and that is the only example I'm aware of of npm handing over a package name.

[1] http://blog.npmjs.org/post/141577284765/kik-left-pad-and-npm
What about another person walking around in your spaceship?
> “Harry’s never been a salesman,” said Mary Bertschmann, his wife of more than 50 years. “He didn’t get his art out there for them to see.”

Like pretty much everything in life, it all comes back to marketing. In order for people to want a specific artist's art they have to know the artist exists and they have to be familiar with his work. The more people that know, the more people will want the art, and the more valuable it will be.

For example, a Rothko is worth millions, but if I paint a large fuzzy colored rectangle it's worth practically nothing. People know about Rothko, what he was doing, and why. His art has a well-known, proven track record of being a good investment and buyers already know this.

Even in art, it doesn't matter how good the product is if nobody knows about it.
> When citizens of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in June 2016, most observers were stunned. The polls had predicted a victory for the “Remain” campaign. And common sense made it hard to believe that Britons would do something so obviously contrary to their self-interest.

Y'know, I suspect that Leave voters thought leaving was in their self-interest — or at the very least that voting 'Leave' send a message which was in their self-interest.

What I find perhaps most interesting here is how the narrative about political campaigns has changed in four and eight years. When Mr. Obama won twice, his campaign's adroit use of the Internet was praised by the media; when President Trump (for whom I did not vote) won, his campaign's — and other actors' — use of the Internet has been reviled by the media.

I think all of this is just due to psychic aftershocks from the 2016 election: folks just can't believe that their candidate lost, that they live in a country which rejected her. The sad fact of the matter is that Mrs. Clinton was easily the worst candidate that the Democrats have put forward in a generation — she makes Mondale, Dukakis & Kerry look charismatic! Pretty much any Democrat in the country could have won the election — heck, Tim Kaine (the Democratic vice-presidential candidate) would almost certainly have won handily.

My own theory is that outside meddling in the U.S. election was intended to weaken Mrs. Clinton's administration. I don't think anyone expected Mr. Trump to win.

> It reads like the plot of a sci-fi novel: a technology celebrated for bringing people together is exploited by a hostile power to drive people apart, undermine democracy, and create misery. This is precisely what happened in the United States during the 2016 election.

You know, there were an awful lot of folks who felt pretty similarly in 2012. I don't think many of them tried to undermine the freedoms of association & speech, although perhaps some did.
Gilbert's "Developmental Biology" is another great (and really good-looking) textbook. It almost made me want to go into developmental biology, just for the textbook :D
I can open my own as well as family members' microwaves' doors by the handle with one hand just fine, without shifting it. The trick is a snappy tug.
No wonder he's still struggling, his art isn't good.
Unlike in business, the question in politics and policy is not primarily efficiency and profit, but justice (including liberty and democracy) and human welfare. The relationship between automation and efficiency & profit is relatively clear, but the relationship between automation and justice & welfare is not. I think the questions are:

1. Automation can reduce transparency, by moving open discussions and reasoning into obscure, sometimes proprietary computer code. Effectively, the person writing the code, or the person who controls the coder, decides the policy. For example, some courts now use software to determine prison sentences; what was once decided based on established principles and transparently detailed by the judge is now decided in some cubicals by developers and written in C (which is often prioprietary). Why are you going to jail? The software (i.e., the developer) said so. Also, remember that code is mysterious and obscure to most people outside HN; they have no understanding of what it is, of its significance, what it can do, etc. Many can't define the word "algorithm" or even "web browser"; even open source code provides no transparency for them (and doesn't for us, unless someone makes the extraordinary effort to review the code).

2. To whom will automation shift power? The lobbyists with the best algorithm? The people developing the technology and solutions (see #1)? Will automation democratize power or further restrict it? Note that the developers of one solution in the article went to Harvard. Sounds to me like the same people running Washington, and the same gateways to power.

3. Lobbyists who have more data about constituents in general and about major players in particular will have an advantage. It could increase competition to erode privacy in its most important context - politics.

4. Will it result in better policy - more justice and better welfare - or just more power for the few with the data and algorithms?

If I were devious and wanted to change judicial policy nationwide, for example, I'd buy the companies making software for courts. I'd be surprised if I was the first to think of that.
If there was a eighth one, I would add learning to touch type. Groking VIM becomes easy when you can type fast.
> Why would you use more spaces when and only when you have a longer space?

I've also wondered this. Referring to this mock-up[1], I have the same monospace text with single vs double spaces after sentences, and proportional font with single vs double. The usual argument is that #2 is better than #1 (for mono), but #3 is better than #4 (for proportional). It feels like an inconsistency in the preference, and (as you pointed out) the reasoning doesn't make sense.

[1] https://imgur.com/a/nozuw
Such explanation looks misleading to me. Even having the module detected as potentially malicious, why was it put into a state that such module doesn't exist, letting others publish package with the same name. For me it looks like there is something wrong at the npm side internally with the processes.
God, Rothkos... nobody has ever been able to explain why I should care about him or his fuzzy rectangles. And I was engaged to an artist that loved him...
I agree; it is down to opinion. I'd like to make use of the thin-space — but it doesn't make much difference in the typeface I'm using to write this reply.
Just curious ... show of hands, how many people here have never been on Facebook?
The solution is to have some tool which parses C header files and uses them to build the Java bindings.

Unfortunately, C is a pretty nasty language to parse, so you end up using something like http://www.swig.org/ or https://github.com/rpav/c2ffi to parse it for you. But the challenge with adopting those sort of tools for Java is they aren't written in Java, they are written in C and/or C++. (Obviously that doesn't stop you from using them with Java, but it does make the whole thing less pleasant.)
It adds a datapoint (my own behavior) that contradicts the parent's claim of what people will do.

I think what you really mean is "your statement does not contribute to my argument," not "your statement does not contribute to the discussion." There are arguments besides your own, and I am living proof that they live in people.
This should be called "problem-mode", not "product-mode". The distinguishing feature is that teams continuously work to solve a problem. This doesn't end when the product is finished.
IIRC, the published results were that above a certain bar, there was no predictive value to interview results. Having interviewed many dozens of people, and been in dozens of interviews, I can confidently say that the current standards of technical interviews do not screen for quality, but interest.

The whole point of having someone study typical problems to the point where they can solve them in 30-45 minutes is not to demonstrate quality at the job. Rather it is to have them signal that they are interested in doing the things they need to do to get hired. Those types of problems are outside the scope of software engineering, and getting good at them requires a significant investment in time.

Yes, they will reduce the rate of false positives somewhat, but greatly increase the rate of false negatives.
I must ask: how many people actually use the right shift key when typing? I have grown accustomed to only using my left and was wondering if others shared this behavior.
Should i go from front end developer to ux/ui designer?
Hello everyone,

I work at a very small startup primarily as a Frontend Developer and after working on a plethora of front-end projects using technologies such as HTML, CSS, JSS, React etc. over the past couple of months, I was asked If I take on some design roles as well which I was happy to do so. I started reading about and learning design philosophies and got acquainted with Sketch for designing and wireframing and inVision for prototyping. The more I worked on designs, the more I really started to enjoy it. There was something about wireframing from scratch, creating designs, implementing the prototype, and then finally building it with HTML, CSS, and JS that really got me hooked. And that's when I started to wonder If I was more suited for design than development.

About two weeks ago I was actually given the lead on the total site redesign in which I work one on one with the CEO to build a brand new design for our application. Everything was going great, but then we had a company-wide meeting on Friday and found out that our runway is 5 to 6 months. The good thing is we have a 4 person dev team, Q&A tester, a business team, and a social media person so we may be okay, as well as a react native ios app on the way, so we should be okay when we go to investors. But If things don't work out I will have to look for a new job, and that's where my question comes in.

I have some experience, wireframing, prototyping and designing and I can do HTML, CSS, JS well enough. I also have some working knowledge of sketch and inVision. Would I be able to find a UX/UI Job and get into the field with the knowledge I have?
> Someone can share them with someone else.

Delegation is a feature, not a bug, because:

> the downside of ACLs is that they're much harder to do in a distributed computing fashion.

That's because large-scale work almost always requires delegation. So using a system that tries to prevent delegation is really shooting yourself in the foot -- but it seems fine at first, as long as the system stays simple. You only run into trouble when things get complex, and the ACLs become completely impossible to manage, but by then it's too late to make a fundamental design change.

Now, you might insist that in some cases, you really do need to prevent delegation. But it turns out ACLs don't really enforce this: I can always set up a proxy server that has my credentials and provides some API to another user, hence delegating my authority with whatever granularity I wish. No ACL system prevents that, hence no ACL system prevents delegation!

Usually, what you really want is not to prevent delegation entirely, but rather to prevent accidental policy breaches. That is, you trust that people aren't maliciously trying to circumvent the rules, but you aren't sure that your users fully understand what the rules are or why they are in place. This especially comes up in compliance scenarios: HIPAA or ITAR restrictions might legally prohibit delegating some data, but the rules are so complicated that not every employee in your company understands them. So, you want to enforce some basic policy rules that prevent them from doing so.

It turns out this is a UI problem, not a security problem. In either an ACL system or a capability system, it's easy to design a UI that prevents such user error, without the need to fundamentally change the underlying security architecture.

But, we're too used to thinking of these compliance problems as something the basic security architecture should enforce, rather than as a UI problem. So we keep shooting ourselves in the feet.
And should it be transparent? All measure of sins and inefficiencies cannot survive unblinking illumination.
Given your use case is a Mac, any Mac, running OSX even an option? I also use FPGA cards and what not but I do so in a separate Linux box because all the tools I need to for the setup only have native Linux versions. And if all you need is a screen running OSX which remotes into other things, isn’t that what the iMac is?
Are there no businesses which promote "back catalogs" for YouTube content?
reading more of your comments I disagree with very little of what you said
The opposite of this would be "build it to walk away." It's not obvious that every project worth writing some custom software for is worth having a dedicated team working on it.

You need to think seriously about how to avoid changing dependencies, though. It's like planning an exercise in retrocomputing in advance.
Most of these figures exhibit at least two lines of symmetry, but there are a couple that only have one. What causes this behavior?
Agreeing with this - I've switched to Firefox on all my devices and I'm incredibly happy with it!

A big understated benefit is being able to run unlock/Adblock on my phone - which has made a big difference in mobile usability.
It seems to me to be overly simplisitc to take a specific event and say "that's the decisive moment where it all went wrong".

Technically Presto had some unique features; for example the inturruptable script engine allowed the browser to feel performant and responsive without having to heavily invest in parallelism via multiple threads or processes. But it also had some architectural differences to other browsers, and never had the market clout to ensure that the Opera-unique features were reflected in platform features and so had to be implemented by the competition, or even to ensure that features that were hard/impossible to implement in Presto did not become required for web-compatibility. For example Presto was unable to implement beforeUnload without a significant rewite of the core document loading pipeline, but that omission from Presto wasn't enough to prevent sites depending on it when it worked in Gecko/WebKit/Trident. Similarly a lot of effort would have ben required to port Presto to multiple processess (similar to the multi-year "e10s" effort for Gecko).

Presto was also highly optimised for memory consumption and so was ideal for running in resource constraimed environments like early smartphones and games consoles. But I think the launch of the iPhone and Mobile Safari changed consumer expectations for the web experience on mobile and Opera didn't manage to respond in an effective way. I have no idea what the optimal response would have been, but if Presto could have achieved double-digit marketshare on high-end mobiles (as opposed to low-end devices running Mini), we might have avoided many of the compat issues that currently affect the mobile web.

Organisationally I think there were other issues; I already spoke about the focus on the particular use case of making a highly integrated, highly configurable, desktop browser product, which doesn't look much like the more successful mass-market browsers today. I think later there were other problems, but I was far away from the executive decision making, so maybe I'm not best placed to comment on what the actual company goal was.
Do there exist modern information workers who can't touch type?
It isn't well argued, but the point is that if you have two chip designers/ISA shops in the world, both may make the same mistake. If the ISA is open, you (hopefully) have a hundred, and not all will fool themselves the same way.

Also, if you do come up with a better way, you've a much greater chance of persuading someone to implement it.
I actually think that the 27" 5K display in the iMac Pro is going to age quicker than the internal components. I suspect that ~32" 8K displays will be mainstream in a year or two.
Go back to what, the AIM and Myspace domination? Before Facebook it was Myspace that was the juggernaut of the social media sphere.

As the number of people that can freely access the internet grows, you see them focusing around a single social media platform. That's because social media strongly benefits from centralization, it's easier to talk to family and friends if you don't have to manage fifty different accounts.

The idea that there was a 'multitude of cultures' before Facebook is just wrong. There was the main social media platforms and a bunch of niche offshoots. That's why this is such a tricky problem to fix because even if Facebook vanished tomorrow, eventually there would be another platform which absolutely everyone would circle around.
State machines are wonderful in general. I'm sure most people were taught it, but somehow it always seems more complicated than just to code some if-statements... until you have some spaghetti
logic with many transitions which is magically made maintainable and less buggy by refactoring it into a state machine.

That's how state machines first clicked for me, and it blew my mind. And this keeps happening, when somebody mentions it in code review, somebody's mind is usually blown.

So the more people read about this "boring" subject the better. Although the (non)deterministic finite automata (DFA/NFA) regex engines are a super interesting read IMO: https://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp1.html
In my experience teenagers are often better at ignoring "lower brainstem" attacks than their "teachers, parents, guardians," etc. Much like a DOS attack, ignoring this shit early and often is the dominant success strategy.
I'm a landlord who accepts crypto.

You can pay tax with a shift payments visa card via coinbase. In general, you pay through an intermediary that swaps it for you, or cash out just what you need to pay tax when you need it.
And a set.