skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is very efficient, but the consequence is Vi will become slow when working with huge files, because it has to traverse through a bigger linear array

To put "bigger" into perspective, a modern CPU can traverse and copy memory at over 10GB/s.

This is why I've always found the argument for more "efficient" (and complex) text editor data structures a bit tenuous --- even if you have to move MBs of data with every insertion (as happens with a simple gapless buffer), computers truly are so fast that it wouldn't look any different to the end-user; a 1ms and 1us delay upon each keystroke is, to the user, practically indistinguishable.

That's not to say I'm one of those who preach against "premature optimisation" and don't care about efficiency; far from that, in fact, but the popularity of and lack of speed-related complaints against the small DOS text editors and even syntax-highlighting IDEs on PCs in the 80s through early 90s which used the same "one buffer" paradigm, on machines with a fraction of the memory bandwidth of those today, suggest that the complexity of more "clever" data structures may not be worth it.

...and yet we somehow still manage to make editors that peg a single CPU core just blinking a cursor.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13940014
The problem is not with the characters themselves though, it's with how CoreText processes and parses the unicode symbols.

Don't get me wrong, I know fonts can be malicious, even... but given the history[0] here, with these unicode[1] issues... I think it's pretty safe to say the issue is not with a specific font, per-se, but with CoreText and unicode parsing. For example, when I ran OSX on my old macbook pro, I used open source fonts on my terminal, and this unicode parsing bug still happened.

In 2015 an Apple spokesperson had this to say: "We are aware of an iMessage issue caused by a specific series of unicode characters and we will make a fix available in a software update."

> BOM or endianness don't seem to be relevant to this bug.

Yet on your blog you allude to just that with the left/right comments, though, to be fair, you state that you really don't know the problem:

> I don’t really have one guess as to what’s going on here – I’d love to see what people think – but my current guess is that the “affinity” of the virama to the left instead of the right confuses the algorithm that handles ZWNJs after viramas into thinking the ZWNJ applies to the virama (it doesn’t, there’s a consonant in between), and this leads to some numbers not matching up and causing a buffer overflow or something.

This is claimed to be a dissection of the issue, but there is not even a stack trace present, and yet you joke about that...

> Yes, I could attach a debugger to the crashing process and investigate that instead, but that’s no fun

Nah, you should do that... and you'll likely see that it's CoreText being the same old piece of shit as usual. If it was a font problem, then loading that font on a different system that uses a different rendering engine should reproduce the same problem. It doesn't, I tried that years ago.

Sure, I would posit, that potentially, this is a whole different bug, but... given the history, and the repeated failed attempts to fix this entire class of issues... it's safe to say that IOS and OSX do not handle unicode very well.

[0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/04/unicode_of_death_cr...

[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/27/text_message_unicod...
> AMP is obviously conceived, funded, and implemented by Google and its employees. If you squinted your eyes and tilted your head just right you could see a "good for the web" angle with faster mobile pages.

An idea predicated on a lie can only go downhill. Engineers need to, as best they can, convince product owners that AMP in any form is a poison apple.
My imagination is failing me. What would the analog be?
You can describe "safe" along different axes and python is not completely immune to memory issues. I guarantee that if you start using ctypes you'll manage it at some point.
This Startup Doesn’t Look at Resumes–Here’s the Genius Hiring Hack They Swear By
Sure, but that was just a thought experiment to show that ~50% efficiency isn't some insanely low number. If you wanted you could ask for their records and dig in, and I bet most people would find each individual expense is reasonable. Then you add it all up and are somehow still surprised at how much running a large scale operation really costs.

And sure, we can delete the cost of office rent for government workers, but you have to add in the nice benefits package and you have to add in all the mileage they get reimbursed for driving their cars, and the fact that a considerable portion of their time is lost in training and meetings that don't directly support accomplishing the CCT's core mission. None of those things were included in my thought experiment, and erode the efficiency a little bit at a time.

Source: Am statistician employed by the government.
> it's also worrying that people were prescribing medicine based on tradition rather than science

Why? New drugs have been getting less effective over time, even though the scientific requirements to get them approved have been becoming stricter. The majority of our most effective drugs were approved before there were any requirements for demonstrating safety and/or efficacy.
I think his point was that Bing implemented AMP voluntarily, without being pressured as you suggest publishers were: https://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-joins-...
The hardware may still be prohibitive cost-wise and/or underdeveloped, but mixed reality headsets may eventually be a potential solution for this problem.
Just because people "know" something is safe doesn't make it so. Below a certain percentage increase, or with more long-term effects, public perception of the issues that might come with a common treatment could be overlooking things.

We've known (for various confidence levels) that lithium salts are effective for some mood disorders since at least the 1870s (though there's various stories and one-off doctor recommendations that survive about lithium salts or natural water sources with high lithium levels being good for melancholy much older than that), then the FDA banned it in the 1940s due to the nasty discovery of lithium poisoning fatalities, and now we're using it again since 1970, with recurring blood tests to be sure you're not accumulating too much.

We used lead regularly in all sorts of things until, surprise, lots of people often exposed to lead turned up with nasty health issues.

We used asbestos all over the place until, decades after we started using it, we realized "hey, maybe all these easily-broken-off fibers that turn up in the shredded lungs of people might be related".

We used syrup of ipecac for hundreds of years, until we concluded "I _think_ the side effects from the ipecac are probably worse than the thing we wanted them to expel".
On a nature documentary whose name I don't recall [1], they showed a great example of a cuttlefish disguising himself.

There was a larger than average male with a harem of females, and there was a smaller than average male that wanted to mate with the females, but was nowhere near strong enough to beat the big male in combat.

So the small male took advantage of his small size. He took on the appearance of a female, and approached the large male as a female would.

The large male was fooled, and accepted the small male into the harem. As the large male continued vigilantly watching for approaching challengers, the little male mated with all the harem females right under the big male.

[1] I almost certainly saw it on one of the Nat Geo channels, one of the Discovery channels, BBC America, or PBS.

Edit: a bit of Googling turned it up. It was in the BBC documentary series "Life" from 2009. It's this segment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p005bpsl

I misremembered a little. The large male only had one female, not a harem, when the small male joined.
Is there a way to generate IR which is easier on LLVM? The Jai compiler compiles 60kloc with an llvm backend in seconds. Could performance like this be seen in rustc?
It's even worse if software is involved. Radio controlled heart implants that rely on security through obscurity is tragedy waiting to happen. I recommend Karen Sandler's talk about her own experiences with that kind of device.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW1h1s_ojpM

"Freedom in My Heart - Lessons from a Cyborg Lawyer"
I have the same questions. I have used Anki to learn several languages, more than one of which is at B2. I like entering my own cards. I like that Anki is 100% open source. Without a compelling reason, I wouldn't switch.
No idea but in any case I'd imagine SDN dongle could work as an effective RF sleuthing tool (wireless protocol known or not).
* looks to us :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_it_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F came to mind
I whish ReactOS was mature enough that you could run every win32 programs and games in it perfectly.
2-3 years as an analyst, 2-3 years as an associate, boom, you're a VP.
decoration can also be a style and I feel like AI learning impressionism would just be it picking up the impressionist 'style' ... there are already image filters that people can apply to photographs for that sort of thing, but I don't think applying those filters turns their photos into art ... also I should mention that I am setting the bar very high for what qualifies as art
Good product, but still can't beat Cointracking in my opinion by number of features, supported APIs and looks less polished. The pricing ($1k? seriously?) is non competitive, either. Cointracking prices are quite ridiculous as well. It's good to see a competition, but overall I feel like the early adopters community so far is being screwed by startups like this. $1k for a glorified excel spreadsheet is a joke
Those languages were Wirthian, and were designed for fast compilation.
Oh, I didn't realize that. Thanks!
It was one of 19 devices that were class 3 (high risk) but granted 510(k) exemptions due to precedent. Ultimately all of these devices were intended to be transitioned to the higher standard pma approval process normally associated with class 3 devices, but were allowed to leverage moderate risk 510(k) pathways typically granted to class 2 devices until pma processes were developed for them. FDA was slow in orchestrating the change, and so this was allowed to continue until these safety concerns manifested, forcing FDA's hand.

I was actually not aware that this had happened as by the time I entered this space almost all of the class 3 devices in question had transitioned to pma. To my knowledge there are very few devices left where this is still the case.
I have two ways of thinking about death that I've found helpful.

The first is to sincerely imagine that I will die in 10 years. That's far enough away not to require drastic changes in my life — I still want to work hard on something that I'm passionate about — but close enough to remind me not to fuck around and take these years for granted. There's also a bonus that, if I do happen to run into some bad luck and have my life expectancy cut short, then it won't come as such a shock, because I've been living like it's my last decade anyway. And if that doesn't come to pass and I live a normal life, I'll feel more gratitude for it.

The second trick I use is to imagine that reincarnation is true, but that instead of "coming back" as plankton or a bug or another person, I come back as me and relive my life, over and over again, forever. In that situation, I'd want to optimize to have a great quality of life, and spend as little of it as possible worrying about my inevitable death, or agonizing over things that have gone wrong in my past. Since my rebirth is inevitable, I'd just be dooming myself to future agonizing. It sounds morbid, but I've found that this helps me to recover a bit when I feel down about something.
When even the judge is too stupid to understand the case, of course something like this will happen. I'd say this is pretty much the norm with any trial involving any technology. I can't say I've read any case where the judge had any real grasp of the underlying technology. And a jury of peers ... oh please, don't make me laugh. Yet this system of charades is what we're supposed to be satisfied as carrying out justice? It's a penal system not a justice system. There's nothing just about having a judge too stupid to understand the case and the technology behind it.
One problem to moving to IPv6 is that most of the firewalls I've looked at either don't support it at all or the support is very weak. I know that IPFire doesn't support it and I couldn't find any information on Smoothwall IPv6 support. I think that pfSense supports it but I don't know how well.

Come on people, it's 2018 and your building a network application. I'm thinking a top priority would be IPv6 capabilities. Apparently, I'm wrong.
I think the meaning is that fewer things are implemented by bringing in outside capabilities. In lisp, everything's can be expressed in terms of other lisp code. Typically directly so. In other languages that are not as macro friendly, most keywords get the explanation of "this is how the computer will act" and then explanations of new behaviors.
It's a shame how data hungry DRL is (even when compared to DL), but the DRL framework encompasses all the standard classification/regression tasks and also includes decision making, planning and pretty much anything else you can think of.

Model generality and data efficiency are in an inverse relationship and a lot of research has been in moving up or down this hyperbola. On one extreme, tailoring models to specific use cases/datasets/environments, on the other end transferring learning across domains. DRL is stuck pretty high on that generality end. Some breakthroughs seemed to have moved progress to a higher level curve, optimizers (Adam, DQN, TRPO) have gotten better which helps everything in general, core structures like CNNs or memory cells, which seem to be somewhat universal (or our best guess yet), but there's still something fundamental that seems to be missing. Or maybe this is all there is and we just need a computer with a richer/higher-resolution sense field and the flops to process them.
This story comes up quite often. It seems an opportunity for someone to launch a farm equipment business that makes it's margin on the initial sale instead of the service.

Even if it's just refurbished pre-drm tractors.
> If the mean number of readers of a self-published book is 10, versus an average large-press book being 50K, which review do you publish?

I don't get paid for writing my blog, and I've reviewed books that have probably only ever had ten readers. If they're really not getting paid either way then it shouldn't matter.
It would recompile foo if you changed something in bar that caused a generic function in foo to monomorphize differently, AFAIK.
I work from home 3 days of the week and usually go into the office twice a week. In every location I've worked (we tend to get moved about every two years), I invariably end up standing on my desk to twist some/most of the fluorescent tube lights directly over/around my desk so they disengage and go dark. The only challenge then is fending off well-intentioned facilities personnel who want to replace the "failed" light.
> Something as basic as finding the largest N elements in a array isn't a trick, it's something that should be painfully obvious to anyone who's coded for more than a month.

Not a trick? Of course it's a trick.

The efficient way to do it is to heapsort the array, but just stop after you've popped N elements from the heap.

You can do much worse and still stay in pure linear time (though as I noted in another response to you, the difference in polynomial order between O(n) and the O(n log n) that would be required to finish your heapsort is ε, where ε is larger than zero but smaller than any real number): just scan the array N times, looking for the largest element that's smaller than your shrinking upper bound. I'd rather see a solution that sorted than one that took N passes to pull N elements -- sorting will be faster -- but the N passes approach is pure linear time.

Then again, naive N passes will fail when the array contains duplicates. To avoid that, you'll need to allocate a data structure to hold your N answers, and implement a way of adding values in and having it appropriately discard the lowest value when you add to it while it's full. That's starting to look like a trick. It also cuts you down to one pass.

Is the "not a trick" answer you're looking for implementing an N-running-maxes data structure, or remembering how to heapsort? Do you really care about getting your results in slow linear time instead of fast "so close to linear you can't even tell the difference" time?
It's a different word for the same thing. I hear leash in American TV shows but in Australia we call it a lead.
You come to HN to avoid reality?
//Breaks resolution never to comment on political subjects on here again

The first thing to do in going about non-futilely answering and discussing the question would be to broadly define liberalism, about which there are presumably many different definitions/ideas/understandings, to bring to light some of the presuppositions that debate would otherwise be a blind struggle over. (That's an assumption of mine.) Is it to be just 'what we have in the western democracies nowadays'? But it means different things in different regions and countries. Is it something people aspired to in the 18th C and we've not achieved, or achieved and lost, or achieved and have moved on? (In discussions of 'Has communism failed?' the huge gap between what the word meant originally and what the Soviet system became is central, and even that is not a simple question to answer. It depends which definition you use.) Maybe every system fails.

That reminds me what I was reading today in the comments on the agile theory vs reality story. Radical cool new ways of doing become their own opposite when set in stone and blindly followed. Which reminds of how in the USA the Amendments are usually touted to justify some asinine practice nothing to do in spirit with the original Amendment in any way, and more usually its opposite.

Democracy itself is hardly a total success or free of contradictions, exploits, shortcomings[0]. Depends which sense you use; there are wholly differing definitions of democracy used by the major writers/theorists of the subject.

And failed relative to what?

The shortest and quickest answer, here a good one I think, is that given by Betteridge's Law[1] — No.

But it depends.

[0] A couple of very readable and more-relevant-than-ever classics on this theme: Michels' Political Parties (1911) and Lippmann's Public Opinion (1922).

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
Performance is one dimension of many.
The article reads to me like Amazon is cynically trying to escape criticism for the poor working conditions they impose on their workers, even using this offer to get the public to flip the criticism Amazon receives to get the public to see this offer as a reasonable choice for the poorer Amazon employees. Amazon is really saying that the cost of these offers (even including the cost of employee turnover) is less than the cost of improving working conditions so employees aren't in such dire straits by working there in the first place.

60-year-old Jim Perota, who worked in Amazon's distribution center in Chattanooga for 3 years, said he took his $3,000 offer and figures "he more or less broke even". But working conditions were so bad even this was considered reasonable because, "What mattered was that he got out.". How bad were working conditions?

> He says he hated the job. He says he lost 30 pounds working at Amazon
> because he was on his feet so much, picking items off shelves and
> putting them in bins, and also packing goods into boxes. His breaks were
> only 15 minutes, but it would take 10 minutes to get to the break room,
> so he’d sit on stairs, waiting for the work to begin again, he told me.
> Perota had worked for the postal service, as a disc jockey, and for the
> U.S. Census, but working for Amazon “was the most brutal, and it took
> the biggest toll on my body,” he said. But he couldn’t quit, because he
> needed the health insurance, he said.

"The Offer" strikes me as a distraction away from focusing on Amazon's exploitation of their workforce. I can only imagine that this exit payment plan costs Amazon less than improving the working conditions and earning a set of employees that are proud to work there.
Instead of shutting it down couldn't he put the miner in a faraday cage?
From your link, go to https://newbiedba.wordpress.com/2017/11/27/thoughts-on-postg... for the followup after he wrote those benchmarks. When he ran his benchmarks, he indeed got better throughput on MongoDB. But the 99% performance was massively worse - in fact slow enough to be unacceptable. To an extent that he concluded that you'd be better off using PostgreSQL.

And he's right. As pages like http://latencytipoftheday.blogspot.com/2014/06/latencytipoft... make clear, we have a lot of calls back to the application happening. Users will notice the occasional slow load surprisingly quickly, and it is worth a lot to get rid of them.

So even your chosen source agrees. A relational database is not orders of magnitude slower. In fact, a relational database is probably a better fit.
The UPL license also has some somewhat "unique" patent grant wording with regard to a "Larger Works" file, which can even reference external projects by name, and its supposed use as a CLA document.

Not being a lawyer (and similarly not a licensing or IP subject matter expert), and know the license was drafted by Oracle, I am somewhat suspicious of it.
I see you haven't understood what I said. The specific examples I cited were real in the past. Even if those, specifically, are now solved, am I to believe this will never be an issue again? Because I think what's more likely is that non-Windows emulators will be behind by a few years in the future as well.
I didn't understand that either. Google voice doesnt seem neccessary. Other than that, it sounds like a good setup.
we could call it pen-mail ... part of the protocol could be that only letters written with a quill pen at a desk in a room with a fireplace would be able to be digitized and transmitted through pen-mail
I have it on my machine at home I'm quite sure, will post the name later.
Thanks for the kind words. Yes, lists are universal, but so are many other kinds of data structures (including strings, obviously, since there is a 1-to-1 mapping from lists to strings). So mere universality is not the killer feature.

In fact, there is no one "killer feature". It's a confluence of lots of little details. Two of the details that turn out to matter most is having symbols, and not having comas as separators in the surface syntax. Those two things are the difference between S-expressions:

(defun foo (x y) (baz (bar x) (bing y)))

and JSON, which can represent the exact same thing:

['defun', 'foo', ['x', 'y'], ['bar', 'x'], ['bing', 'y']]]

but obviously you wouldn't want to write your code like that.

You might be able to improve on linked lists as a code representation. You could, for example, use vectors instead of linked lists (i.e. cons cells) or maybe associative maps (i.e. dictionaries) as a core data structure. It's not hard to try out things like this in Lisp, so if you really want to know what happens, just grab yourself a Lisp interpreter (or even better, write one yourself) and try it.