skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It looks to me like the original gradient based shading code is just wrong. Maybe there are numerical problems due to its frivolous use of trig functions, or more likely the way it calculates gradients is just broken. But shading based on slope should obviously make all zero slope areas (like water) the same color, and the fact that it doesn't means it isn't working.

The raycasting code in this article, on the other hand, seems to be missing the Lambert term! Just because a surface is not in shadow doesn't mean that it will appear at uniform brightness. If it is diffuse/matte, which seems like a reasonable starting point for most terrain, each light ray L should have a contribution to the brightness of the point proportional to L dot N, where N is the normal vector of the surface (and to find that you need, sorry, the gradient). In short, light almost tangent to the surface doesn't illuminate it much. Other kinds of surfaces will have different BRDFs (e.g. they can be shiny) but none of them will have the completely unshaded behavior shown. Of course, it's fine to do totally nonphysical things if it helps emphasize some aspect of the data, but it doesn't seem to be done knowingly and I think it produces a misleadingly flat look.
I buy hundreds of dollars of their instant camera film packs per year. I hope nothing happens to that.
I have very mixed feelings about using parser generators instead of hand written parsers. I've contributed to GHC's parser grammar and spent a lot of time reading Rust's hand-written parser.

On one hand, a grammar is an invaluable tool. It helps keep you honest about ambiguities when you start thinking about adding language features. I think languages should always keep some reference grammar up to date.

That said, I don't think it is a good idea for compilers to use parser generators. A hand-written parser can have better error recovery and more helpful error messages. GHC's parser has some pretty bad parse error message.

Some work was merged into Happy a while ago to support better messages (enabling you to see the expected tokens along with the bad token), but using that in GHC itself is blocked by how complex GHC's tokenizer has become.
How does your join necto privacy policy compare to local ISPs like Sonic? What about ISPs you help get started? Because your writeup about privacy is about net neutrality and throttling.

I see nothing about limiting data retention, not selling member data, or refusing to provide data voluntarily.

https://www.sonic.com/privacy-policy
This is false, and you should be embarrassed to have repeated it publicly.

If you'd even taken the time to look at the Efail.de website, you'd see the (extensive) timeline of contacts the Ruhr team made, including liasing with CERT teams, starting last year.
The most obvious limitation is the scale out concurrency model of lambda (serial requests within a container). This is great for simplicity but means you can’t have a connection pool.

Something like dynamo db is a better fit if it works for you, otherwise most people seem to be forced to run a few servers with pgbouncer
What is "it" when "it" is purely random noise? By definition and known physics, heat-death of the universe means there is absolutely no configuration.
As an interviewer or interviewee?

For a take home interview, variations on 8 queens can be interesting since they utilize dfs and backtracking.
If you know of a way of ensuring forward secrecy without a response from the recipient, I'm all ears. Considering that NaCl's crypto_box() interface doesn't provide forward secrecy, I feel somewhat safe in believing it's flat out impossible.

Sure, the sender can generate a temporary key pair, and immediately toss out the private half. A passive recipient however cannot do the same. We need a handshake of some sort.

If you want that handshake for email, I don't know how to do that without giving the long term keys to the mail server, which in most cases is operated by a third party that reads your emails for a living. I'd love to have a solution for that, but I don't believe there is any.

Simply put, forward secrecy doesn't make much sense in the context of email.
Interestingly, there seems to be an equality bias[1] where the experts opinions weight no more than any other person's opinion. So apparently the reasonable heuristic isn't always applied in how we perceive and judge information.

[1]http://www.pnas.org/content/112/12/3835
That's disproof of a binary notion of self. It doesn't disprove a statistical notion of self, which is a stronger sense of self than a purely uniform universal non-self existence.
How bout "How To Ship Half Life 3 Handbook"
Foxes (as a species) and hawks (as a species) are in a power struggle for who gets to eat the rabbits, but this does not mean that hawks are coordinating with each other to do anything, nor that the hawks are trying to communicate anything to the foxes even though information flows between them.
I believe that specific wording is also an exact line out of _Fight Club_
I have set up a Spectrum transport and now I use Messenger with XMPP client, gradually migrating some contacts from the transport to native XMPP :)
This is delusional and would never work
As someone who grew up during the Cold War and interned at Los Alamos Natl. Lab (including occasional work in the plutonium facility) I fail to be moved by what seems to be overwrought reaction to me. Seems Google could help make things be deployed more responsibly than might otherwise happen without them.

There are bad guys out there. Help make the tech great at not accidentally involving people who aren’t the bad guys.

I know it isn’t a popular view, but the Categorical Imperative implies that, if without Google’s help the system deployed would falsely harm innocents who might have been spared, Google would be responsible for having pulled out.
I saw a demo of this in Oakland a few months ago. I thought it was super interesting, especially the way they're extending routing concepts. It feels like a very elegant technical solution.
Has your perspective ever changed?

Have you ever had amnesia (loss of memory), or creation of false memory, via disease, injury, inebriation, or anesthesia? 99.99% likely you have.
Partly this is a design flaw with front loaders. Old school washing machine it’s easy to leave the door open when not in use. So everything dries out and you don’t get mildew (if your machine is like mine you are smelling mildew).

Front load the damned door smacks you in the shin and you close it. Creating a nice little terrarium to grow stuff in.

I throw a little white vinegar into the prewash every time I launder cotton. Keeps the mildew under control and helps with hard water.

Check out the top load HEs. The Japanese were using that design for a long time.
And that robot would be me.
> I think the safest assumption is that being dead will be exactly like not being born.

From a purely entropic and information theoretic standpoint, these are very different states and certainly not a safe assumption.
Hello HN. I'm Jason, the CEO of AFS.

Happy to answer any questions!
I can't see how this avoids needing to do a comparison against the string in the slot once you've actually found the index though. I think I need to see this in C or asm to grok what the benefits are.
"Dude’s written the same exact piece over and over and over"... "They all say the same thing: “liberals are condescending and think we’re racist because we’re racist”)"[1]

[1]https://twitter.com/parkermolloy/status/995767845601542145?s...
My results have been similar.
I have a related story. I was on an island in Indonesia, and the small town next to the beach (mostly locals, but still tourist related businesses), was full of garbage. I have a photo of a local kid that was sitting on the beach, on top of garbage, because there was no clean place to sit.

Now, down the road a few hundred meters and over a hill was a little cove, with a beautiful beach. It was a little more touristy (about 10 people were there), had a restaurant and chairs to rent, and the beach itself was only about 40m wide with rocks curving around the sides. This beach was also full of garbage. Two tourists showed up, both women in their 20s with snorkeling gear. They wanted to clean up the beach, so they went in the water and start snorkeling around, while picking up the trash. Fairly quickly, they had so much trash they needed garbage bags. They went to the restaurant a few meters away and asked if they had a spare bag, because they're cleaning the beach. Well, they didn't have wallets to pay the local restaurant owner, so they were refused a garbage bag. In the end, they just left the garbage and walked off.

The situation was pretty shocking. This restaurant business relied on this small 40m beach, and not only did they not take the time to keep it clean, they couldn't even do the smallest gesture of providing a garbage bag when someone else offered to clean it for free.
Possibly just ignorant. Most people have never/will never be in charge of large budgets.

A normal consumer with a normal job is only really going to encounter the lower end of the field.
I gave up long ago on trying to learn shell scripting and remembering it. Switching to xonsh for my shell made shell scripting easier.

http://xon.sh/
Very cool, congrats guys. I am a Monkeybrains customer with a bunch of their equipment on my roof (I signed up for their enhanced "FTTH" campaign) and have wondered about replicating the service for myself and my neighbors if I were to move elsewhere.

Do you have an operating model for these small ISPs? Specifically I'm curious what the breakeven point is.
I don't think many candidates tell the recruiter they're working with to be less greedy, nor do many employers tell candidates this. My point is that there's an extremely wide range of scenarios that both parties see, and most people on one side of it have a hard time considering the perspective of the other.

There are plenty of young software engineers who hear about first-year salaries at Google and expect similar comp packages from startups. (Are they being too greedy? Meh, they're just misinformed or need to take some time to recalibrate their expectations.)

There are also plenty of companies guilty of the same thing. Their expectations are too high as they turn away great candidates because they don't have a CS degree from a top school or have an impressive track record of open source contributions.

The OP listed "don't be greedy," which sounds familiar to me. It's easy to have a few bad experiences and then draw a blanket conclusion that every tech company is trying to squeeze me. My point is only that it's frustrating on both sides, and whether you're an applicant or a hiring manager, understanding what the process feels like to the other party will make the process that much easier for you.
Just one reason - so people can't selectively retract some posts and not others to make themselves look like super predictors.

And yes, that can be done on a non blockchain platform, but not with the same security of consensus.
> Basically that Congress is able to pass a federal law to prevent sports gambling

It's not clear Congress has that power. The much more pertinent fact is that Congress can induce states to pass laws by withholding funding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

> Restricting a state from passing a law is quite different from federally mandating a state to pass a law.

From the decision:

"The distinction between compelling a State to enact legislation and prohibiting a State from enacting new laws is an empty one. The basic principle—that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislature—applies in either event."
You were right the first time. In typesetting, A typeface is a family of fonts, and a font is a weight and set of variations (and size, too, before digital).
I have seen just this happen. I don't know how someone as basically incompetent as my former boss could do it, but he was made an IT manager for a huge government department, in spite of the IT department at my workplace having the worst reputation in town.
Buying non-Luxottica frames is pretty easy. Go to any smaller eye glass shop and odds are they will have independently made frames, sometimes even locally made.

As for cheap lens, you get what you pay for. Improvements in lens materials, such as Trivex, have made life quantifiable better, and lens coatings get better and better all the time. Anyone else remember the first generation of transition lens? Compared to today's coating, is a world of difference. But in regards to being accessible, head down to Costco (no membership card needed) and pick up a pair of quality polycarb lens.

I also find it difficult to believe that England only has 4 frame makers, when I am pretty sure there are more than that in the Pacific Northwest alone!
Lets just go full cycle and allow political gambling.
What is the point of piping, in your view? My understanding is that it's a stream of bytes with backpressure, designed specifically to minimize buffering (by pausing output when downstream receivers are full/busy).

> If pipes had the connotation you claim they do, it would never be safe to pipe ciphertext, because the whole goal of modern AEAD cryptography is never to release unauthenticated plaintext to callers.

You say that like it's a reductio ad absurdum, but I think that's essentially right; you can't do backpressure with unauthenticated ciphertext. You have to buffer the entire output to be sure that it's safe for further processing.

Thus, if you want to buffer the entire output, don't use a pipe; ask the tool to generate a file, and then read the file only when the process says that the file is done and correct.

(I'd say that's a lot more wieldy than two-pass decryption.)

Based on your other remarks about PGP, (nuke it from orbit) I'm not sure you have any constructive remarks to make on how to improve GPG, but I guess making it two-pass by default (with a --dangerous-single-pass flag) would be an improvement.

For normal size emails, users probably wouldn't notice the performance cost of the second pass, and clients who care about performance at that level can opt into single-pass decryption and just promise to check the error code.
I don't understand any part of this argument. What wouldn't make sense would be for crypto_box() to provide forward secrecy, since it isn't a messaging protocol, but rather a simple primitive for authenticated public key encryption --- a low-level building block from which you build protocols.

It's obviously not impossible to build basically any peer-to-peer end-to-end protocol using email as a transport. But, if you were right, and it was, that wouldn't mean "forward secrecy doesn't make sense for email"; it would mean "cryptographic security doesn't make sense for email".
Three strong counter points to that.

1) id Software sold to Zenimax for $150 million. [1] John Carmack was a large shareholder at the time and claimed a year ago that Zenimax still owes him another $22.5 million. Adrian Carmack owned 41% of id when he was fired & bought out of the company in 2005. From that ownership consolidation, it's very likely John had 1/3 or more of the company when it was sold to Zenimax.

2) Oculus was purchased for $2 billion. $400m in cash and 23 million shares of Facebook. Those shares would now be worth $4.2 billion. Carmack owned a position in Oculus pre the Andreessen Horowitz investment. A 1% stake would have been a substantial windfall.

3) He earned a large amount of money from being an owner of id Software from the Wolfenstein days forward.

According to Wired, he put $8m into Armadillo before closing it down. The id sale alone covers that cost at least twice over after taxes.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/john-carmack-zen...
Most voicemailboxes are count limited (mine tops out at 20), so this strategy effectively just removes voicemail as a feature on your account.
I think his success gave him a shield from consequences, so it was easy for him to become a jerk. It's the same theory as the reason that the most attractive people are often jerks. No one is willing to push back.
hahahha, nice. good to know lol.
All my yard work clothes go through the HE washer twice. Once on quick wash and then again on a regular load to get the dirt out. Running the cycles longer does very little to get out the stains.
Tell that to Linus Torvalds.

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/linus-torvalds-right-to-offend...
I believe I found some references to an attempted bombing shortly after Rudolf Hess's death.

* "Hess Death Sparks Neo-nazi Activity", Jewish Telegraphic Agency, August 24, 1987. https://www.jta.org/1987/08/24/archive/hess-death-sparks-neo... . "In Frankfurt, police arrested two young neo-Nazis who placed a bomb which did not go off in the city's central railway station."

* _Right-Wing Terrorism in the 21st Century: The 'National Socialist Underground' and the History of Terror from the Far-Right in Germany_, Daniel Koehler, Routledge, 2016. https://books.google.com/books?id=1w8xDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT211 "On August 20, 1987, two neo-Nazis were arrested after they had placed materials for a combined explosive and arson device in a locker at Frankfurt Main central station."

The latter account is sourced from p. 125 of

* _Verfassungsschutz 1987_, Bonn: Bundesministerium des Innern, 1988.

I was not able to find volumes of _Verfassungsschutz_ as far back as 1987 online.
Scissors for cut.

Underline anywhere.

Paragraph justification.

Copyboard for paste.

Fill bucket for fill.

These are intuitive for most people for whom they were targeted.

Three bars for a menu is not intuitive.
If you do medium format there is not really much choice for medium digital format. And lets not even talk about large format. The world of photography goes beyond 35mm.
Backpressure is a feature of Unix pipes. It isn't their raison d'être.

I don't care how you implement it, but any claim that you can't check the MDC in GPG because it's a piped interface is obviously false. GPG can, like any number of Unix utilities, some casually written and some carefully written, simply buffer the data, process it, and write it.
M. Williams wrote a well-regarded treatise on this topic:

https://www.amazon.com/We-Are-Book-Elephant-Piggie/dp/142313...
But again, if there are NaN's cropping up in your analysis, and your results depend on what an intermediate tool decides to do with them, you have overlooked something substantial.
Grammars don't keep you entirely honest about ambiguities, because parser generators resolve some ambiguities like shift in favor of reduce in Yacc. It's possible to massage a Yacc grammar into working and then not entirely understand it.

> A hand-written parser can have better error recovery and more helpful error messages.

A hand-written parser lets you put a breakpoint on the function which handles a given phrase rule, and when the execution stops there, you get a call stack which more or less corresponds to the top-to-bottom derivation, with arguments you can examine at every level.
Cool HTML/CSS3 Animated Resume for Developer Role
Debian – package chezscheme9.5 in buster
Wi-Fi Alliance “EasyMesh“ certification to let users choose devices cross brands
If you dont invest in your products what do you expect? Film sales are actually on the rise globally and Fujifilm is just letting everyone down.
How do you compare Amazon to Microsoft?
thanks for sharing this and also for your thoughtful comments on many a HN post.
> And unfortunately, the design decisions made for those operators don't extend to anything else written in the language.

Yes, it applies to a number of built in functions and other operators beyond the mathematical ones.

And there's no reason they can't to even non-built-ins. When you implement a method or function, you can adopt a similar special-method-based protocol for it's arguments, and define the appropriate special methods (monkey patching existing classes, if necessary) for the acceptable types.

> If "strong typing" is to mean something about the language, it should it should apply to more than a handful of built-in operators.

I suppose there is a difference between a language with a weakly typed core (where you cannot avoid the risks of weak typing without isolating the core), one with a strongly typed core that doesn't force user code to be strongly typed (where Python sits), and one that forced strong typing (which probably had to be static, as well).
Which is why HE washers spin so damned fast. It’s cheaper to centrifuge off a bit more water than to heat it out of the clothes.
"Standard" does not mean "universally compatible". It means "standard", as in, something an authority or custom has established as a model or example. Gather together every "standard" system call you can find and run unit tests on them on multiple platforms and you will discover they don't always return the same results.

"Using a standard library" is a form of "rolling your own code" when the thing you want to do is non-trivial. Sometimes it's hard to know if what you're doing is non-trivial, but certain things should be a given. Dates and times are non-trivial. IPC is non-trivial. Memory management is non-trivial. Sure, you can call malloc() and free() yourself, but it's really not that hard to screw them up. Same for dates and times: they are more difficult than they appear.

This is part of why people write things like date libraries, to work around portability problems and provide what you actually want. In this case it's not so much a portability problem as a problem in understanding what you want to do and how best to do it.
I still have to conclude the Andes example as given is misleading. It strongly implies ray-tracing "fixes" the problems shown. A footnote alone can't fix that (or is the wrong way to fix it). This clause under the picture is particularly problematic: "but it's disconnected from the underlying physics of what makes real shadows occur: rays of light not hitting a surface due to another surface in the way." -- As I mentioned, you often DON'T want that effect for the type of map shown, and that alone is not the main cause of the differences in the illustration. I'd bet money I can tweak the brightness-mapping curve to make the left look very similar to the right. (As somebody else mentioned, the actual curve depends on weather and local textures etc. such that both techniques are ultimately rough approximations.)
I think it's weird how Apple, even to this day, took some of Jobs's "darker" traits as if he still runs the place.

For example, a couple of years ago, I remember a game dev saying that they made one of the top selling game on iOS and received plenty of attention/help from Apple's engineers at WWDC, but when they made an Android version of their game, suddenly it was radio silence with Apple.

This is the kind of thing Jobs would have done, but now that he's gone, I'm disappointed that Apple did not evolve past this kind of behavior.
Orlando judge named to secretive U.S. surveillance court
"User engagement"
seeing the diagram - I wonder what the replacement period is for the solar panels. Also the service costs for the panels relative to batteries.
Wow, you have a lot of knowledge in this area. Thanks! I wonder if because Elsevier is likely a bigger company it could be a good business to create by partnering with them, then let them buy it. So they don't have to take on the risk of developing it in house, but can still reap the rewards.
Who needs Kaggle datasets when there is Facebook?
EyeBuyDirect and FramesDirect (both owned by Essilor) will remake your glasses with correct pupil/fitting height. Order the first pair, adjust them for correct fit, including pantoscopic tilt, then measure the vertical position of pupil. Make any compensation needed for tilt, then return the frame for a free remake with the new value.

When you order the same frame again, you can specify your custom fitting height.
I thought the same thing for a brief moment.