skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
George Carlin is an expert on ecology? You're betting our future on the standup bit of a comedian?

You're funnier than Carlin. Congratulations.
No, it uses the fixed-width LATIN1 (ISO-8859-1) encoding for compact strings. It wouldn't make much sense to use another variable-width encoding like UTF-8.
Should be coming on/before Tuesday:
https://insights.ubuntu.com/2018/01/04/ubuntu-updates-for-th...
My immediate impression was that both texts are written by the same person. But then again, the "Sloth" section rings way too true for it to be something just set up for analyzing in the latter part.
Using NodeMCU for a camera light
We didn't have to give up cars for the ozone layer, though. In fact, no one had to give up anything, because they invented new types of aerosol propellents.

We are never going to fix this.
The adaptations you are talking about were in fungi, in the presence of radiation which didn't kill them.

This is in comparison to fish, in which adaptations take a longer time, where the decrease in oxygen is a direct threat to life.
> What do you need from Email that a messenger lacks?

Discussion threads. Say I work on two different projects with the same colleague, or that I am also friends with a coworker and do things together outside of work. In whatsapp the different topics would all be mixed together into a big mess. With email I can just reply to a particular thread.
Dinosaurs died off. Earth is fine.

I think unless we start blowing up Earth with nuclear weapons on purpose, it will be fine.

If humans are gone today, the CO2 levels will go back to normal pretty quickly with plenty of animals surviving all over the place.
>To even come close to what a modern processor can do with a certain amount of time and power REQUIRES a ridiculously complicated design.

Requires is debatable. If someone manages to match it with a simpler design, it's an improvement. RISC-V open implementations are surprisingly very competitive already.

>With a very simple ISA,

Seems to imply that this is a minus, but what CISC really means in the present world is that there's a CISC->RISC translation layer, which is not free, and a lot of work passed down to toolchain developers, as they have to generate code for a CISC ISA.

In x86/amd64, the complexity is such that no individual can be expected to understand the whole thing, and CPU designers, low level software and compiler developers have to deal with this (and will inevitably screw up). Why this isn't seen as a massive problem baffles me.
More worryingly, it seems that the "anglo" media is expert at exporting their world view to the rest of the world given time.
> a top-level modifier key (command) that's respected enough by developers that it mostly retains its "I belong to the OS and, therefore, to the user, not to you, mere program" character

Really? Every program on OSX seems to use some weird combination of CMD/SHIFT/CTRL/OPT keys but I don't know if I've ever seen a single Windows/Linux program use the Windows key.
How to bring down half the internet - randomly delete your NPM packages, then stand back and watch millions of web developers scream in frustration.

What an ecosystem we have built.
Well, the alternatives are to make it compulsory and waste the time of everyone who is already good at mental rotation, or to focus on only one gender, which will likely upset the same amount of people (although different ones I guess) without optimally addressing the actual problem, which is that some people are worse at mental rotation than others (some of which are male and won't benefit from a gender-segregated class).
Curriculum vitae continuous delivery using Concourse CI and LaTeX
Wow it's so cool. So I guess the left tower lighted is not an event of the past, it will just appears differently depending on the observation frame.

So let me rephrase my initial question.

Why is the left tower lighted before right tower is lighted when observed from the train frame? Because the train "goes further away" from the left tower? What is "going further away" determined by? Distance delta? So, is the following correct: let two events A and B occurring respectively at positions pA and PB in the same frame, a mobile at position pM, if delta_distance(pM, pA) > delta_distance(pM, pB), then follow that observed_time(A) < observed_time(B) assuming observed_time(A) == observed_time(B) in pA and pB frame? Please note, it's not delta_position but delta_distance I've written. Also, by delta, I mean difference. (edit: I get that "distance delta" is velocity)
> It also beggars the question. Although very non-PC. That were I a girl I would not be dissuaded from this course. I know this because there was literally zero support from anyone regarding computing as a hobby or profession. In fact the opposite, they actively fought against it.

That's not "non-PC" on Hacker News. A lot of people here belive that there are few to no legitimate reasons for women to not be programmers and that they just don't want to. What isn't PC on Hacker News is the idea that it isn't society who is against women as programmers, but the environment built by "us". That maybe it isn't this environment that is more accepting than all others, but that "we" just fit in.
This works out of the box with Next.js (a React-based framework), which is published by Zeit, and has SSR, lazy loading, file structure based routing, etc all set up for you.
Machines, at least within the individual program, is a set of orderly instructions.

Human society is anything but.
A Polynomial Time Algorithm for Solving Clique Problems
I just let this here, I feel it was missing as another failed attempt to prove P = NP.
Very likely the onboard PATA controller is connected via ISA. I had to enable the ISA PATA support during the kernel configuration for Linux to recognise it.

In this case, there probably won't be any benefit of having additional ISA controller cards.
acid rain: stop emitting sulfur, it'll wash out of the atmosphere within years, forests will recover in decades

ozone layer: stop emitting CFCs, they'll decompose over decades and ozone concentrations will rise again

climate change: just stop emitting carbon and...

no wait, we're still locked into centuries of rising ocean levels and temperatures even if we lowered everything to zero right now.

It would take actively extracting CO2 from the atmosphere at very very large scale to reverse the effects.
"Protocol to protocol", I guess?
I prefer Telegram now but this should work in Whatsapp as well:

Just create a group for each context and name them properly.
Sounds like real life. For every idea there's an awful lot of trench digging to do...
I think it is quite funny how a tool to turn proper code into the mess that is ESxx can become so popular. I'm still using Coffeescript 2, it's awesome :)
> How often do you send emails longer than a few sentences?

Actually every single day, and not just once. Maybe I am an outlier?
apt's kernel update process is not broken, you've just somewhat borked your system either by removing the kernel meta package or messing with repository sources/priorities.

Make sure "linux-image-amd64" package is installed for Debian (and whatever equivalent package name for Ubuntu) and "apt upgrade" will install new kernel packages just fine.

(And this is actually not even needed for most kernel updates in Debian because most of the time package name stays same and updated in place, package name is only changed if ABI is changed and requires recompilation of DKMS modules)
I tried Tiny Core Linux on this PC. It wouldn't boot from the install disc. It kept doing the reboot loop.
--with-new-pkgs is already the default for apt, thus a plain apt upgrade indeed installs new packages.
Every kid in Australia learns about these things. They seem to be linked to disintegrating conditions for the reefs. There is little hope for reefs, even if they are well managed, due to climate change. It is estimated that by 2050 there will be more plastic in the ocean by volume than fish. Truly we have trashed this planet.
Huh, i think you've just identified (for me at least) the crux of the issue.

What messaging system other than email allows for topic based discussion? I guess you could abuse groups to donsomething similar, but its not wuite the same.

The underlying one person to one person philosophy of messaging apps is infuriating for organised discussion over time. It makes finding info discussed harder too.

Does anyone have any suggestions for messaging apps that don't put person to person front and center but topic discussion like email?

(You might argue the last point i made there, but go and make two separately stored discussions with the same person on whatsapp or signal or wharever... I'll wait).
> as apex predators we are extremely dependent on the lower branches of the foodchain working properly

Would you mind elaborating on this? It's not clear to me how we would be less dependent on lower branches of the food chain if we weren't apex predators.
I'd be very interested to know, actually. I'd expect the suppliers of money there to have met enough smart, inventive people who are also sharp sartorially to know that dressing smart isn't necessarily a bad thing, but culture infects and when you try to copy (perception of?) SF, you can end up cargo-culting.

Maybe someone here can tell us.
Parenting is a huge messy business that never goes according to plan

Totally, and that goes for systems as well as children.
> Earth is fine

But dinosaurs clearly are not.

> I think unless we start blowing up Earth with nuclear weapons on purpose, it will be fine.

What you think is not so important. What the worlds scientists specialising in that field think is important. If you feel that short of nuclear global destruction our impact is negligible then that contradicts just about all peer reviewed research.

> If humans are gone today, the CO2 levels will go back to normal pretty quickly with plenty of animals surviving all over the place.

That does not align with my understanding of the word 'fine', but seems to imply a rather apocalyptic ending for the human race, something that we might do better to avoid.
Opera also lost most of their distinctiveness (i.e. features) along the way, laid off the bulk of their developers and sold out to a consortium including Qihoo360 (who, as well as the usual FUD—well-founded or not—about Chinese companies, were simultaneously found to be really bad at being a competent Certificate Authority). There’s plenty of scope for Mozilla to have used WebKit and not done the subsequent parts - Brave’s perhaps as good an example of that as any.

Saying that, roc proposes porting XUL and XPCOM which are largely dead these days (the former by virtue of Firefox switching to WebExtensions). With browser.html for Servo being a thing, building Firefox’s UI in a way that it would work in WebKit is more possible than ever.
Hillary is Hiring....Company Cellphone and Hammer to destroy the evidence....company computer and Bleach to get rid of the evidence...apply today...tomorrow may be too late.... why am I not President you ask??? Some weekend Wet Work required....Google Seth Rich...For Complete details...Our New Federal secured Caribbean office space is being made ready so join our Gang I mean Office staff in our new facility and receive as a bonus our federal funded meal plan....We take applicants private information serious and will only be uploaded to our fully protected company server....salary based on experience and execution contracts....
The point is, nobody really gives a damn about Earth itself, and why should we? It's a rock.

What we care about is us, humans. When we say "save the planet", what we mean is "save the ecosystem that's letting us live here, and enjoy that life". If we break things and die as a result, sure, something else will live. But we don't care about that something else, we care about us.

It's a stupid shorthand, but for some reason people appreciate the fake humility of saying it's about Earth, not about us.
I don't lose empathy, but I lose the ability to understand or speak English. If someone interrupts me when I am in deep in the groove I can tell someone is talking to me, but I can't understand what they are saying and I can't reply. It takes me around 5 to 10 seconds to context switch back into English.

Amusingly my wife assumes that I am deliberately ignoring her when she interrupts me and storms off in a huff half the time. My staff and students have just learnt that you have to say my name and wait a bit before speaking.
In 2013, a consortium of the greatest mathematicians published a massive volume which reboots our conception of mathematics.

Ok, here's a rant by a frustrated student who's spent way too much time drinking the cool-aid. None of the authors, except for Voevodsky, is widely known among professional mathematicians. And Voevodsky is not known because of his work on HoTT. In fact, most mathematicians regard homotopy type theory as some obscure stuff logicians and computer scientists do, with no relevance to their research. And they're most certainly right.

"greatest mathematicians". Nobody would call a mathematician "great" for coming up with a definition. (No, Grothendieck is not an example, because he actually put his definitions to use and solved hard problems.) Yet there are no interesting theorems proved via the univalence axiom which weren't known before. Thus, the "greatest" mathematical achievement of the HoTT community seems to have been coming up with the univalence axiom. Everybody can come up with random axioms. Thus, I'd say their greatest accomplishment is not actually mathematical but social, because they managed to market this "breakthrough" the way it has been.

The whole process of how type theory research seems to work is completely absurd. Type theorists first create a syntax and later come up with a semantics for it. In other words, they first think about how they want to say something before they even know what to say. For example, the semantics of dependent Per Martin-Löf type theory were developed only 10-15 years after Martin-Löf came up with his syntax. A few years ago, somebody finally published a proof that the semantics of extensional Martin-Löf type theory is equivalent to locally cartesian closed categories (lccc's). It's not hard to understand what an lccc is, and state their defining operations/axioms. lcccs pop up everywhere. The concept of dependent types, on the other hand, has not existed in mathematics for thousands of years, seemingly without causing any harm. Nobody gained any interesting new insights by understanding dependent types, to my knowledge. Why, exactly, is this awkward axiomatization of lcccs interesting?

And the same happens for intensional type theory with the univalence axiom. It's been blurted out for years that this syntax's semantics should be equivalent to infinity lcccs. Yet there is still no proof, no evidence that HoTT is the easiest axiomatization or the easiest to work with, and a proof, if it exists, will likely be extremely convoluted because it has to deal with all the peculiarities of a syntax that was created without having infinity categories in mind. A language that makes it hard to understand what it means has failed.

If you don't believe me (and there is now reason why you should), please read this thread [1].
Lurie, the expert on infinity categories (well, there are others, but he's written the canonical tome), debates with type theorists about the usefulness of HoTT. I believe it ends with Lurie not seeing any usefulness and calling it a day.

[1] https://mathematicswithoutapologies.wordpress.com/2015/05/13...
Protobuf to Protobuf.
The implication is that people leave bad companies quickly.
Isn't this just you projecting the limitations of current technology on an effort to improve it though?

Users of a microwave currently expect extremely poor temperature control, and so don't even think about temperature because you get what you get. An interface which lets me heat something to exactly "drinkable but hot" is a revolutionary change in how I use the appliance though.

Same story with warming food: sure, you want it warm all the way through - if you actually know the surface temperature though, then you can model that - food that is cold inside is going to have different surface temperature decay rates to food which is warm inside, and some modeling of the observed thermodynamics means the appliance can know this.

So now we'd really be talking: "warm to safe temperature all the way through" and we can give a probability / % complete read out of how close we think we are to it. No more guessing, no more user interaction, also no burning yourself because some parts went superheated.
The @route decorator in Flask has only the side effect of registering a route with the function as handler. I prefer to have a map for big projects where I can see with a glance what routes directs to what functions, but for getting started and for little projects I find it nice and reasonable.
And that still defends against the biggest howler with email, that in raw form it is a post card, not a enveloped letter.

The issue if trusting that the sender is who is being claimed is a very different issue, and one that i don't think anyone had solved yet beyond cumbersome exchange procedures (possibly involving locked suitcases).
The only cure for ignorance is knowledge. Stop doubting and being afraid and go learn...
Excellent summary of the core issue. Though I think there should be room for some nature vs. nurture debate. Exclusively attributing this behaviour to our genes seems a bit like the "lazy excuse" to me. I don't see why properly educating ourselves could not lead to a population with improved inter-group empathy (or both, i.e., trigger that evolution at the generic level, too). But yes, maybe changing our educational system is as hard as finding a genetic engineering-based solution...
It's more that such a commitment goes against the incentives laid down by a means of production that is enforced almost globally by both treaty and military might.
Or a problem solved by sane defaults: i.e. 65ish degrees is quite hot, whereas 55 is about the upper limit of long-term bearable on the skin.

Put that option as the heating default, with literally what I just wrote explaining it next to it, and problem solved.
C/C++ compilations typically read and write a zillion different tiny files and even if they happen totally in memory buffer they'll still do a hell a lot of system calls.
Facebook will ‘completely deprioritize publishers’
I didn't know a few of these, and I think I'll find `<()` specially useful.
Warning 1: Anonymous interview

Warning 2: I'm not entirely happy with the title but decided to take a subset of the real article title rather than attempt to editorialise. If dang or his team can think of a better one, I'd encourage them to edit it.
Yes sure :) For me OSS has always been about scratching my own itch, i.e. Creating a framework or library that I think would make my life easier or would be just awesome if existed. Then release its source so other people with that same itch can benefit and contribute.

My experiences have been mostly positive though not very rewarding because when it comes to OSS people just think of your work as something they're "buying" for free, i can't put it in words but it's like.. so this exists without giving much thought to hours of effort someone has put into it, i.e very few people think about the author because their focus is mainly on the software. It's understandable because I may have done it too.

For me personally i like starting projects a lot and very bad at maintaining them, dread looking at the issues in github. Also for me personally, finding contributers has been difficult so I maintain it for a while then move on to something else. I'm sure like everything a lot of people have a lot of different experiences, mostly depending on the popularity of the project and the people it affects (e.g.systemd type of stuff)
UI designer here. This guy's advice is OK-ish as far as it goes. However, he fails to exhibit the one thing that sets an actual UI designer apart from somebody with just some opinions about the practice: observational research.

The FIRST thing you do is observe. Watch people in relation to the problem you are trying to solve. Listen to them. Ask them WHY they do what you observe. If at all possible, work out what motivates them and what problems they really have (which they often will not articulate to you). Only then start designing solutions.

I'm not saying his ideas about the design of the oven are invalid. But the fact that so few people in design roles even attempt the work of exploratory research is fundamentally the reason why so much of stuff is shit.

This isn't surprising though. Observational research is often frustrating, confusing or difficult to interpret. But above all it takes a lot of time. This is also the reason why, if you have another job like coding or marketing or whatever then you will not have enough hours in the day to do effective design.
> Earth will be fine

I'm so tired of hearing this empty phrase being used. Sure it was fun as a punchline but move along already. It's such a derailment of the discussion. It doesn't state what we mean by "earth" - is it the rock, the ecosystem, life itself? And it implies that the "earth" that is fine is the one that we actually should care about. I have no idea, because the way it's used is not really falsifiable and it's not really anything but a rhetorical trick.
There is another push that I call televication of the Internet - forced video ads.

The main issue with this is that it dictates the flow similarly as the TV does - you are forcefully interrupted.
> Unpopular but very probably true fact [...]

That's not a fact. That's a conclusion based on the premises you put forth. You should put the conclusion on the bottom of your post. Now it is akin to a forecast or fortune-telling. There's no need to resort to such strong language in an otherwise decent post. Your premises don't need it, and your argument doesn't need it either. If you worded your post slightly less bifurcating it would've been an excellent post without sparkling the controversial discussion.

As for your premises,

> Email leaks metadata. [...]

Agreed, but

> stuff like subject lines are simply content.

Its optional content because if sender wants it to be gibberish or deceiving, that's possible.

> * Most email users get their email from a website. Unless you make them install something on all their computers

That's a matter of RFCs and implementing the new technology in client and server. If we follow your reasoning, we'd still be sitting in the previous century in old standards "because the poor users must upgrade their software."

For the other premises (such as for example "It's default-plaintext."), can you demonstrate it is impossible to fix these issues? Because I don't see that being taken into account. What I see is: "let us break backwards compatibility and switch to this here which is better" but without authority to do that for a significant amount of users we're left with the practical situation of a chicken-egg problem of a defacto standard. And could you actually directly quote from the article what and why is not feasible instead of a general dismissal? The latter feels like a rant the former feels like an in depth discussion. Someone could've written a rant like that about DNS (because IPv4), or about TCP because BGP, but what we need is solutions. IPv4 is an interesting discussion because of IPv6. Its a recent, significant example of the chicken-egg problem of an inferior standard, backwards compatibility, and how to make the switch.
Day fun with Miss Witt