skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It's much easier to write C++ than it is to read it. This is because you can always write using a simple clear subset of C++ that you understand. Try to pick a style that you think as many people as possible will understand. Programming languages are for humans to read. I try to write code that I think C programmers can read.

While I don't disagree with the sentiment (quite the contrary), if writing code that C programmers can easily read is the goal, using the STL is probably not the best idea.

Personally, while I'm very biased by my usecase for C++ (compute-bound performance sensitive numerical code), I quite enjoy writing code that's essentially C with function overloading, operator overloading and a few judiciously placed templates. I don't miss the STL, OOP, smart pointers and the rest, and the language suddenly seems much more concise and convenient, not to mention compile times are virtually instant and debug builds aren't unusably slow any more. YMMV, of course, everyone should pick the subset of C++ that suits their usecase and relevant constraints.
Remotely? On what model year? Mine has the "anti-theft" system that disables all the electronics without a dealer-provided unlock code, but is a few years old (2013).
The consumer pricing structures, when you start getting services like Dropbox used extensively in professional settings, such as graphic design for advertising, is a problem. When we've got to go back to the original files with a press deadline that's​missed at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, where do we expect to find the customer service, if we're impacted by a degraded node in Dropbox's cloud? I accept the problem is with the community of freelance designers, and equally the disinterest if agencies and other line of business data consumers to provide adequate alternatives (we do, with real enterprise grade systems and support contracts) but even Draconian measures to enforce control only back up a community who have been backed up and disenfranchised plenty enough by the large agencies pushing work off the payroll for the length of my career (decades...) and it just happens to be a hard sell to make any extra work for a highly talented community who are now treated as least cost providers.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you start writing the application without a database first.

My early education on databases always seemed to follow a "how do we make a database do this?" rationale rather than "what data do we need to store to support these features?", which I think leads to a software design that is too strongly coupled with the database. Software modules end up dependent on database features, or table structure, and refactoring or switching data stores becomes more costly.

Instead, start with a simple in-memory data store - a list of objects with some interface for accessing them, will probably your starting point. Add some basic serialisation/deserialisation features (CSV, JSON, etc) when you get past initial testing and require some persistent data. Then, once you have your API in place and your software design is stabilising, you should be able to map that data to a database fairly easily:

* The primary structure maps to your main table

* Child structures become additional tables, with foreign keys

* Data used to lookup records can be indexed for better performance

Beyond that, you should profile/benchmark your application to find what needs to be optimised, and then investigate whether your software design or your data store should be doing the optimisation.

Let your software's features influence the design of your database. Don't let the database's features influence the design of your software.
> The ones who make the money tend to be workaholics.

Citation needed.

> You can afford it, sure, but you'll lose pots 'o money that way.

Which misses the point, anyone else CAN'T

> Any billionaire I've read about made their investment decisions themselves.

That's a myth. They have the money to externalize things other people don't so having money means you have more time to spend on yourself and others. Most billionaires you read about that grew up poor are in the vast minority of people who ended up in the top 1%

> I recommend reading some biographies of wealthy people and how they got that way. Kennedy, Jobs, Gates, Carnegie, Buffet, Musk, Hearst, Getty, Walton, Bezos, take your pick, etc.

War profiteering, Screwed employees out of their stock, born fairly wealthy which allowed him access to tech others didn't have, Robber Baron, Talented and Lucky, Talented and Lucky, Printed lies, Money from parents, Externalized costs onto US taxpayer, Used investor money to build a company because he came from a banking background.

Most of the people didn't get wealthy because they worked harder, were smarter, etc. They either were in the right place at the right time and their hard work enabled them to take advantage of their luck or they were born into wealth and used that as an advantage. You're also comparing wildly different time periods with different rates of economic mobility.

That's not to say these people were undeserving of their wealth or that they are bad people, but realistically wealth for the vast majority of people is something that they are born into, especially in top 1%.

This point is especially poignant when you realize that the families that are wealthy in parts of the world such as Venice, Italy today are roughly the same families that were wealthy in 600 AD.

Edit: To clarify I think we're all really talking about the top 1% of the developed world. Not just the worth at large as others have noted most of us reading this are probably in the top 1% globally when including undeveloped nations.
Note that this was written by Aubrey de Grey, who is also notable for having an amazing beard and for trying to stop human aging.
You're right, but non-technical clients don't care. It's a little different to them.

With a ZIP code in the US, it consists of 5 digits that form a unique number for a geographical area with 4 more digits that represents a sub-area within the 5 digit ZIP. But there are no instances where there can be a letter. That's a hard fact. If you put 4308A-65XK as the ZIP, the post office or delivery service will not know how to deliver the mail without trying to cross reference address with possible valid ZIP codes.

Invalid CSV is murky, because CSV is a serialization format. That is, invalid CSV may not play well with a program that accepts well-formed CSV, but a human may still be able to parse it with no problem. Returning "invalid ZIP Code" makes sense. The client would understand that letters do not belong in a ZIP Code.

If you've never had to deal with a nightmare client of that sort, hats off to you.
Magic Mirror has a different cast every episode and seems to be doing rather well.
Why did CSV ever happen? Using printable characters as separators is really silly. Using multiple characters (like CRLF) is silly. ASCII actually contains four control characters for this purpose: file, group, record and unit separator. I'm sure a lot of problems would be solved if people just used these.
Try that with money accidentally put into your bank account.

You can keep repeating it over your shoulder to the judge as you are marched to prison for theft if you take it and can’t replace it.

Try that with a piece of mail that was sent to your house on accident. It’s a federal crime to open that envelope. The law doesn’t care that it was delivered to you.

Try removing the DRM from your DVD and making a copy of ‘your data’ on the disk you bought. A federal crime has been committed.

In this instance I would guess no laws are broken because no one powerful enough to make it illega has cared enough about the tiny fraction of people able to get around their tricks yet.
In my experience the reason for a JSON object per line is because a tool can then split the entire file by newlines and have a list of objects to start parsing/processing in parallel, which avoids having to parse the entire file up front to get usable data, and lets the tool start processing things while some data is still being parsed.
I look it as a good experiment to find the right amount of auto to use. Go to one extreme and then see what bites you in practise, then make changes to where you use auto so that you get good and clean code.
"I say this because I'm a bit worried that long term Python has locked itself into a corner where it will keep getting pushed into as the other languages develop a better developer UX."

You can stop worrying. That is absolutely what will happen.

But it is a good thing. Languages should be something, not merely an accumulation of every fad and trend that appeared over its lifetime. That means eventually they will mature, and eventually hit a peak, and then fade. But during that process, at least you'll have a nice, mature language, instead of one always chasing the latest pretty-shiny, immature, confusing, crammed with too many features, with libraries constantly jerking around trying to keep up and always just a bit broken. Indeed, I kind of thing Python has already done a bit too much of the latter, and were I in charge of Python I'd give some serious attention to the idea of simply freezing the core language.

Python is what it is. Let it be what it is, because what it is is pretty good. It's by far my favorite language of the genre it is in. It's got way too much baggage to compete in the next arena, so let it be the master of the one it is in instead.
Maybe that is the benefit.
I love Foundation but it is dry as hell compared to what most people expect from TV/Movies today.

If they made it like the books, those of us that have read it would probably love it, but I doubt it would be popular.
(Incidentally, Python used to allow tuples to be destructured in the function head, but they dropped it in Python 3 because no one knew about it or used it. A sad day.)
> regulation, wash trading and whales aside, there's no way to really gauge the 'fair market value' of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin

I think you mean "intrinsic value".

"Fair market value" is the value determined by the market, and thus is easily available for Bitcoin (especially if you exclude regulation and wash trading, although the latter has little to no effect on pricing). The fair market value is determined by the real world market, not by any sort of technical analysis of what the price "should" be.

If you did mean "intrinsic value", it's worth noting that this is very much an unsolved problem for almost anything. One of the most interesting market phenomenon out there are "close-ended funds" -- mutual funds that no longer issue new shares, but trade on the open market, much like ETFs. They have a value, the "net asset value" that represents the combined value of their holdings, which are fixed. Where things get strange is that they do not trade at their NAV -- they almost always trade at a discount or premium to that value. If you bought all the shares, then you could liquidiate the company for exactly the value of the NAV, so they should be worth that much, but for some reason, they are not.

Find a person that understands how close-ended funds are priced, and you will find the next Nobel prize winner in economics.
I went the same route but ended up adopting feather from the makers of Python's Pandas and R's tidyverse, Wes McKinney and Hadley Wickham. https://blog.rstudio.com/2016/03/29/feather/

> SUMMARY: Feather's good performance is a side effect of its design, but the primary goal of the project is to have a common memory layout (Apache Arrow) and metadata (type information) for use in multiple programming languages. http://wesmckinney.com/blog/feather-its-the-metadata/

The approach is data frames on disk storage.

> data frames are lists of named, equal-length columns, which can be numeric, boolean, and date-and-time, categorical (_factors), or _string. Every column can have missing values.

This fits the needs of all of my CSV usage.
Something of a nitpick, but just because it took me really quite an extremely long time to figure out what he meant:

The line should be "we're so short on the real thing". As quoted, it sounds like he's trying to say we're short of an achievement (e.g. achieving actual general AI).

He does erroneously say what's quoted though, so the title isn't incorrect, but perhaps they should have [sic]ed it; he says "short o' the real thing" but I don't think "o'" has ever been short for "on".
Well, yes, of course. Teens want independence from their parents, and they have a natural predisposition to push boundaries.
Command-line Tools can be 235x Faster than your Hadoop Cluster
I would like to add that this is not a binary choice. Depending on the complexity of the requirements its possible to differentiate between and even mix the levels of abstraction.

I personally like to avoid using ORM by its true meaning (mapping object and relational models) but I like using certain facilities an ORM library might provide, such as session management, user input validation, etc.
I am more than happy to condemn them all, but do you have sources on the types and manner of data used by the various campaigns via CA vs FB direct?
Simple, because Facebook are a threat to the entire way of life for mainstream press, so they will jump all over this, spin it and twist it in all sorts of wonderful, self serving ways to ensure their continued existence against the beast that is threatening to turn them into inconsequential dinosaurs.
The senators only have 5 minutes each so all there is time for is a bit of grandstanding. Anything you try and go deeper on Zuck will just kill time for 5 minutes.
Thanks, glad you liked it. I love teaching Erlang.
These "Falsehoods programmers believe about X" articles lists all revolve around the same thing, accepting arbitrary inputs. If you can constrain your input, then great, you don't need to read the article. Or read it anyway, just so you get a better idea for exactly how to constrain it.

But if you can't, and business needs force you to allow anyone and their dog Sue to pass input into your software system, then you need to be able to handle garbage input effectively, up to and including just correcting it for them if that's possible.

The biases listed are good to check your code against if that's indeed the case.
Appropriately, the very site this article is sourced from, The Guardian, readily derided Facebook for its invasive tracking aspects. Another link on HN then pointed out that The Guardian themselves spread data out to 56 tracking services.

Que sera.
Huh? Isn't the point of this whole comment chain that large companies are able to comply with regulations that protect user safety that small companies might not be able to? In that case it's self evident why a large company is better able to protect user safety.
I don't think you can really compare screenplay pages to novel pages – they're written in a very different way.
I think the triple model is awesome, but we haven’t been able to develop decent triple stores to back it up.
The Internet may switch to 3 but industry will stay on 2.7 for the next decade and no EoL will change that. There is absolutely nothing that can change that because there is zero benefit to rewriting a decade's worth of code and no manager will authorise that.

So don't bin those 2.7 books just yet if you want a job at a big co.
>Both studies, which haven’t been published in a peer-reviewed journal, are set to be presented later this month at the Association for Computing Machinery’s Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems held in Montreal, Canada. Wisniewski says that the research was peer reviewed prior to its acceptance into the conference, though.

In CS, conferences are considered just as good as journals.
A fundamental principle of Asimov's writing about robots was that the Three Laws were inviolate. Yes, the Zeroth law was introduced, but there was literally only one robot capable of handling that transition.

In the movie you have thousands of robots running around killing and injuring countless humans. That's something I'm quite sure would never happen in Asimov's writing.

Asimov was unique in that he was the first to start with the premise that humans _could_ safely develop advanced robots, rather than using the "robot uprising" trope that everyone before him used (all the way back to the first use of the term "robot" in Karel Čapek's R.U.R.). So, despite that groundbreaking approach, what do we get in the first major motion picture about his robot series? A robot uprising...
Also, considering the prequels and sequels canon, there is R. Daneel who, being older than the Galactic Empire (and, presumably, among its architects), is certainly one of the most interesting characters in science fiction.
I'm sure I stole the idea of rebootable code from someone else, but I'll be happy to take credit for it.

I almost submitted the talk to That Conference this year. I should start shopping it around more.
I wasted time, money and effort on it.

What happened is that it was pointless.

Build something people want, not the semantic web.
I'm not saying that regulatory capture doesn't happen, I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily happen every time a new piece of regulation is introduced. Saying that any hypothetical regulation introduced after this Facebook fiasco (and all the other data breaches of late) will benefit Facebook and hurt competitors is not exactly what I would call level-headed skepticism.

Doesn't mean that we shouldn't be very careful about what comes out of this whole discussion and maybe make our voices heard if we deem it unfair or ineffective but we're not there yet.
> So I'm much more thrilled about Amazon developing a series based on Banks' "Consider Phlebas"...

Wow that is big news, I did not know that! That book is so cinematic already, it leaps off the page. Should translate to the screen very well. Hope they do "Use of Weapons" and "Player of Games" also, in fact the entire Culture series is an amazing opportunity for TV conversion.
At least in our shop it's the other way around.
If it makes them study, why not!

Edit: This was a lame joke based on the original, broken title of this submission. I do not condone teen monitoring apps in any way.
I'm aware that this is the case once the connection is established. What I was referring to was the latency of TCP and TLS connection establishment, involving multiple round trips. Maintaining a persistent connection introduces the problem of requiring the DNS server maintain state for each client.
I've been a moderator over at Reddit for over a decade.

Personally I found Steve Huffman's claims to be disingenuous, deceptive, and self serving. I have no idea if there will ever be any consequences for that but I feel like Reddit would be a better place if there were.
When I was a young boy in the 90s, my libertarian aligned father let me use the computer and access the internet. He explained to me that I shouldn't visit certain type of sites, I should never give out my name or address and that he had software installed to monitor what happened on the computer. He explained that this wasn't a breach of trust between us as I was using his equipment and that I had to abide by his rules. He stated that at any time I was free to get a job or find a way to earn my own cash and purchase my own computer.
Elon Musk gives first glimpse inside Tesla Model 3 production line
The Peltzman Model of Regulation and the Facebook Hearings
Also I am Legend is a decent movie if you have no "great book expectations".
No, of course not. Vanilla JS is a scripting language. I was referring to React.
The author used the term "monopoly" six times in the article. Facebook is a lot of ugly things, but "monopoly" is not one of them.
It's a process. I've found my daughter asleep with her iPad in her hands before, it's something that happens and there have to be consequences and rules. All devices go in our bedroom at bed time. If there is work to do, it takes priority as you can always go back to that game or video and continue later. No walking around watching screens.

But self control is just a skill kids need to learn by itself, if they have it as a general ability then they can apply it to screens too. Our kids have to do self-study time on top of homework, they do piano and flute, we take them horse riding and skating. They just joined the local Air Cadet squadron and just did a weekend camping. Spend time with them, do things together, encourage a variety of activities, talk about issues and build close, trusting relationships. I don't think intrusive surveillance has a place in that recipe.
'Short of' has at least two meanings:

1) Lacking in quantity (e.g. "I'm short of money this month").

2) Not having reached some point on a continuum (e.g. "He stopped short of claiming to be best singer in the world.").
It's not that hard unless you had some very advanced code utilizing Python 2 internals that were significantly changed in Python 3. However, conversion takes a lot of time and if something works, why should you be forced to change it?
What happened to the old Unix philosophy about doing nothing on success (a.k.a. "Rule of Silence")?

That is:

$ vault kv undelete -versions=2 secret/my-secret
Success! Data written to: secret/undelete/my-secret

should instead be:

$ vault kv undelete -versions=2 secret/my-secret
$

Also, the screenshots on the Vault OSS UI Introduction page [0] are completely unintelligible.

[0]: https://www.hashicorp.com/resources/vault-oss-ui-introductio...
Ditto this. The article doesn’t say much of anything at all and makes giant jumps in logic based on a few quotes without full context.

Honestly I have been somewhat impressed with Zuckerberg’s handling of this situation, at least in comparison to public statements from other companies when it comes to issues about users and data privacy. However I am still
pessimistic about the potential for any useful action after all of this kerfuffle around FB and CA.
This is one of the only intelligent pieces I've seen on the FB hearings. I've said variations on this before, but FB will get serious about it when users stop using it.

Until that time, everyone can complain, but the concept of "revealed preferences" is relevant. Do people actually care? If so, they'll change their behavior, FB will likely notice, and changes will happen.

People have been complaining about FB and privacy since practically day 0. Throughout that entire period, FB has only become more popular. "What can we infer from that?" is the key question.
What did they do that was illegal?

Maybe it's unethical, but is it? When people signed up, wtf did they think was going to happen to their data?
Cambridge Analytica was probably a "Pearl Harbor" moment for the US government, they probably wanted to put regulations on Facebook for a long time.
Is there also a canonical and pretty (i.e. editor/VCS-friendly) text representation for feather data?
In the movie they are being remotely controlled while running in maintenance mode by a positronic brain that figured out the zeroth law by itself.
3 Methods to Capture the Promise of Technology in Call Center BPO Offerings
Isn't it #2 (no pun intended) behind Google as an advertisement platform?

Look how much people spend on a SuperBowl commercial, it's clear Facebook still has a massive audience and that's the value.
Yeah, I think you picked the wrong day to be that guy.
Why was there no discussion about the price discrimination which occurred in the last election, and to be fair, probably also happened in previous elections? No other media company is allowed to do this. Does the Honest Ads bill even address this?
An Introduction to Neural Networks and Autoencoders
Surprised to see no one mention LinkedIn. On LinkedIn it's popular to comment on objectionable content with "This is not Facebook".
It's tricky -- teachers are in loco parentis, so does that also apply to equipment distributed by the school system? At any rate, I know it annoys the kids, but it gets them off to a good start circumventing technological lockdowns. So at least they're learning a valuable computer skill.