skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think it's this one: https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Cousine
An Interesting Pattern in the Prime Numbers: Parallax Compression
Personally, I find TypeScript to be a joy. I am a team of one right now, but at the last company I worked for, we migrated the codebase to TypeScript, and it was a fair amount of work to migrate the existing code (especially since we had partially migrated to Flow), but worth it, IMO, to have the additional type information, especially given that it was a large shared codebase.

I've never seen such a powerful type system that's so easy to use. While the advanced stuff can be quite complex (as a consequence of its power), the experience of working with the compiler is made pleasant by good IDE support, fast type-checking, and readable syntax. Also, the level of type safety you want to go for is totally up to you.

The one frustrating thing can be using frameworks and libraries that don't have good type definition files. React and TypeScript are actually a slightly awkward fit, because React's component classes and idiomatic HOCs are quite difficult to type correctly, even though TypeScript has built-in React support. In my own code, I've ditched React's component classes for this reason.
To me the most surprising result would be if it cost fewer than bombing the nuclear facility. At 100k$ each bomb, Stuxnet looks affordable, plus all the expertise and other attack vectors you get from piecing it togethet.
Fossil Women’s Watch: Fossil Smart Watch
I read the article, and I found it more than slightly dismissive of this option, particularly because the article (and other commentors, it seems), in effect, makes the inference that the main goal of avoiding compliance is a continuation of some nefarious behavior.
I agree. What I find more disturbing is why Brown won't even answer the question. Or Harris. There has to be reasons, but there seems to be enough inconsistencies to at least warrant a statement, even a BS political statement would be preferable to silence.
KM is Texan actually, making the current headlines extra infurating.
"Let's not criticize Cisco"

No, let's criticize Cisco. Those backdoors didn't get there by themselves. They had help. Do they have source control adequate to tell them where those came from?
Who put them in? Was the FBI informed? Were people arrested? Who was fired?
If not, why not?
Depends on your system. We have an automated process that produces a PDF, which a human will then go through and redact so we're not leaking through the
non-relevent PII of other people if one of our users isnt using the system quite properly.
> The phrasing of this question is absurd.

Agreed. The flip side question should also be asked - "Should ISPs be allowed to favor internet properties that subsidize user's traffic?"

I'm not convinced the question they did ask gets at large internet properties using money to disadvantage smaller internet properties.

The anti-competitive aspect w/rt web businesses is, to me, the prime concern. Innovation at ISPs is garbage and will continue to be garbage.
How about having a mechanism to allow the opposition to vote on a secondary name which will be included alongside the primary name in official correspondence?

Yes, it will degrade into "Bill to Save America / Bill to Destroy America" most of the time, but that's the point: it makes the absurdity easy to spot and difficult to ignore.
Something that has changed in that time frame is the massive amount of human created chemicals present in human bodies. Micro plastics, heavy metals, pesticides etc.
>As an employer I don't care how great your skills are, if you can't walk me through your thought process for 45 minutes you're not going to be overly successful. If you can't incorporate feed back or engage when pressed to change your design you're probably not going to be successful.

The post you're responding to makes a great point that this isn't the normal working environment for 99% of actually-writing-code developers. I discuss and iterate designs with my coworkers/leads/managers/architects just fine, but a surprise algorithmic problem you have to simultaneously solve, draw on a whiteboard, and constantly present to an audience while being timed isn't something I have been great at. I bet many others aren't either. I got good at it after a few interviews last time I was looking for a job; but if I hit the interview trail again today, I'm confident that I would flounder in that setting for a while.

Imagine if, instead, the candidate worked out a project -- maybe at home, or maybe in an interview room for some time -- then you take time to review and understand their work and then go through this back-and-forth process of discussing their work. This would also benefit the candidate's understanding of how you collaborate to problem solve in your work environment.

The problem with this approach is that it requires the interviewer to actually invest time to understand the candidate's work.

Anyway, I hope you see why many see it as a problem that the process for a candidate to succeed at a job interview is to practice interviewing skills rather than demonstrating their engineer skills.
How do I opt out of T-mobile sharing my location data with 3rd parties without a court order?
Your article eloquently sums up my thoughts on the matter. Data science is like software engineering, but with bugs that tend to have particularly far error localities. You don't get a clean orderly traceback, instead you get vague symptoms, where the model behaves "weird" for no obvious reason.

I've found encapsulating the data preprocessing steps in pure functions helps ensure that the data cleaning can easily/quickly be debugged. When it comes to the actual model, there is no substitute for thoroughly understanding the characteristics of your dataset. Finally when it comes to model selection, a good scoring metric is absolutely necessary; this is entirely dependent on what you're actually trying to accomplish with the model. So there is little universal advice.

When it comes to the long iteration cycle, the only bandaid I've been able to find is a solid test suite, and thorough code review. This makes it less likely you'll introduce unintended problems. Basically you have to move slow and deliberately, instead of "move fast and break things."

Far from impossible, but certainly more difficult than "traditional" software engineering. It's like transitioning from debugging interpreter tracebacks generated by a simple toy script, to debugging a >40k LOC application written in a dynamic language, which happens to be intermittently segfaulting in production.
Also, let's not forget Libya. Compare Libya before Benghazi to now.
> But if you've got 2 or 3 companies using 80% of bandwidth (made up a number for sake of argument) then it damages the other 20% to charge equal pricing bit-for-bit because ISPs have to increase capacity solely to serve the larger groups.

But none of these companies using up 80% of the bandwidth in your example are forcing their data down Comcast, et al.'s throat. Every packet coming from them was specifically requested by one of Comcast's paying customers, and metered within their customer's plan.
I've seen companies that maintain open source projects have interviewees work on that actual open source project for 4hrs as an interview.
That's correct.

ISPs are simply rent-extracting. The majority of the US (even in urban areas) has little or no broadband competition so there is no penalty on ISPs for double-dipping. They're hugely profitable and transit costs continue their slide toward zero. The big players are mostly refusing to expand fiber deployments.

It has nothing to do with investments in their network, the cost of providing service, or anything else. They can increase profits by squeezing the likes of Google, Apple, Netflix, etc. So they will.
Carmack worked on the Linux Utah-GLX drivers in the runup to q3's release and would have had a lot of thoughts on the low-level GL implementation details.
Investing is not even remotely a single domain, unless you constrain it down to something fairly trivial like making minority investments in publicly traded US common stocks where being smarter doesn't really count for much. There is so much trading activity now that the markets have become quite efficient. In order to consistently generate alpha as an investor like Warren Buffet you need access to material nonpublic information (proprietary research), or some form of structural advantage. Those things require a huge range of human skills, not just raw smarts.
> behaving like Jobs would quickly receive a warning from HR if not shown the door

Jobs was constantly called by HR for meetings during late 80's due to his behavior. Source - Steve Jobs book
One of the most prominent recent efforts was the line-item veto, but the Supreme Court (rightly) said that it requires a constitutional amendment.

You also have to be careful what you wish for. For years everybody bemoaned so-called earmarking. Congress finally prohibited earmarking in their procedures. But many academics have suggested that an unintended consequence was less compromise and greater partisanship in Congress. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics) At the end of the day lawmaking and especially budgeting is fundamentally an ugly business. We should be careful about being overly cynical or fatalistic about it. The most important thing is transparency, but that requires the electorate to be more practically minded and less idealistic.
This question is framed in a way that if economist answers the exact question, it's likely agree or uncertain.

Net neutrality as a whole is still a good idea.

Consider this question:

Q: Should the end users be able to buy better bandwidth or quality of service, so that they can get faster streaming or other services?

Absolutely. If you order Netflix and are not satisfied with speed, you should be able to pay for faster network connection that works with every service. If you allow big corporations to pay bulk prices for delivery that is already paid by the customer, it's double pricing and restricts the ability of smaller companies to compete.
The comments from the economists are much more insightful then the headline:

Thoughts in favor:

* Possible better efficiency (better allocation of resource by bringing externalities to market)

* Net Neutrality already a myth due to CDNs, etc

Thoughts against:

* Price discrimination / vertical price squeeze

* No competition / Market power of the cable and phone companies real issue
Go look up what CPMs are for the EU. Having your website in the EU will simply not mske you much money, why even bother?
I think it's rather the opposite, where modern philosophy benefits from centuries of argument and having had all the weak points removed but they're clearly there for any to see in old philosophy. Reading The Republic recently made me appreciate that there can be such a thing as progress in philosophy.
I'm liking 1.0 of MUI, but React's lifecycle method massacre has just made it impossible for us to move to v17.
That doesn't have to be in money raised, that would be rather unlikely in this case.

It could be percentage of problems "fixed" whether that be by sharply worded letter or by court proceedings (the former is far easier and cheaper for the authority), or by the time it takes the authority to investigate a problem.
> I drew nice curly braces.

Heh, I code pretty often on paper when I'm working through a design and my style has evolved to just using < and > as proxies for curly braces which saves me time, since trying to draw a nice curly brace takes me so long.
7 years after deployment
I concur. It's often easier to reduce the negative effects of friction than it is to increase the positive effects of efficiency.
strcat (or, honestly, anything in string.h). strcat assumes its first argument has enough allocated space for the contents of the 2nd argument, and that the 2nd argument is NULL terminated. If either of those assumptions is wrong, strcat will overwrite memory, corrupting either your heap or your stack, both of which can lead to arbitrary code execution. It's laughably easy to do, so easy that even typing the letters `strcat` into your program is forbidden in basically every C/C++ shop.
I don't think anyone doubts that the skills can be learned outside of school or fancy degrees.

The problem is that there are hundreds of applicants in your situation WITHOUT experience. There are usually a couple of PHD or MS applications WITH experience for every job. Who do you think the company would give preference to?
A few points/questions about U.S. policy and response:

* IIRC, the current administration cut NIH or CDC funding for preventing and/or dealing with foreign disease outbreaks. Under the prior administration, IIRC the GOP in Congress told the NIH/CDC to re-purpose those funds toward other uses. Does anyone know the current status?

* Regarding the Ebola outbreak in West Africa recently, I later read that the only organization in the world with the logistical resources to respond quickly at the necessary scale was the U.S. military, and Obama eventually deployed them.

* The article doesn't mention the U.S. at all. That seems like a major omissions; not even a no comment. Is the U.S. just standing back while these people die and an epidemic spreads, potentially to other places too?

* What is the current administration's stance on funding UN/WHO health operations?
Nobody is saying not to care. Parent comment is just pointing difference in reaction to a situation ( outside actors trying to screw a country), which is hypocritical.
The problem all virus authors have is escaping detection. 2036 is too far out for them to count on not being detected, and on cars being the same. Release it today, and even if you infect all cars and are undetected, GM and Ford's normal update cycle is likely to change things such that by accident your virus cannot spread. You can expect to get a handful of cars to accelerate out of control - and odds are the door locks don't work on them so you failed to lock the door.

Infecting a cars is hard for other reasons. Radios tend to be easy to updated (they can sell you new features - maps if nothing else). All other controllers tend to be more locked down such that it is likely that a virus couldn't actually spread to anything that can take control.

Maybe, who knows who GM will change over the next 20 years. GM only has guesses.
This answer belies the reality that the knowledge needed to conduct actual data science, short of genuine R&D (which is itself at best 10% of data science positions, if that), can be acquired by a sufficiently intelligent person within 6-12 months of applied training.

We have developed tools to deliberately abstract away the complexity of the underlying math, and they work well. They work exceedingly well. I once took a semester-long class in data science where untrained, mathphobe business students were running various kinds of regression models on cleaned up data in WEKA (poor choice of software, yes) by the end of it.

Most data scientists can and should treat the algorithms themselves as black boxes the same way software engineers treat R-B BSTs as black boxes, without necessarily having to know how they work off the top of their heads.

I once worked with a Stanford "data scientist" at a top tech company who couldn't immediately recall Bayes' Rule. He wasn't stupid. His knowledge was just structured in a way that reflected the reality of his day-to-day; this is how it works for all of us.

The primary skills needed are: munging, featurization, analysis (basic stats and then a few other things like ROC, etc), and perhaps most importantly (and the thing I see PhDs in particular chronically fail at) operationalization. You do not need to know heavy math to run a model over data, which is the maximum level of sophistication required for most applications of data science that generate real business value.

I see similar foolishness in data science as I do blockchain, to be quite honest: people hype up and gravitate towards the cutting edge, while forgetting, ignoring, or blatantly obscuring the power of simple math on big data. I guess it's important that people have an inflated view of the complexity of what most data scientists are doing because having the role at least somewhat cloaked in mystique boosts salaries in the long run.

Any argument that a reasonably intelligent person can't be trained to be a legitimately effective data scientist is a counterproductive lie.
Neat, didn't know of those, thanks.
Assuming OP was talking about overloading the '=' operator:

struct A {
int *p = nullptr;

A& operator=(int i) {
*p = i;
return *this;
}
};

int main(void)
{
A a;
a = 1; /* boom! */
return 0;
}
By default Qt renders with OpenGL. You can talk to OpenGL via the Qt APIs. You can provide application logic in Rust, but the actual GUI is still written en C++ or QML.

You can use Qt 3D for a UI with Rust logic. Writing a 3d scene with the declarative QML language is nice. Or you do this with your favorite text editor or Qt 3D Studio.

http://blog.qt.io/blog/category/qt-3d/
I'm not a lawyer, but retroactive copyright extensions seem to me like they should be unconstitutional. It's logically impossible to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by dead creators after their works have already been published by extending their copyrights. These laws should only be able to apply to new works going forward.
This is how I've learned! I'm about 8 years in with vim, but I'm no vim-journeyman; I just learned enough to get started. Movement, find-and-replace, splits. The basics.

And every time I wonder if there's a better way to do whatever I'm doing, I look it up, and - lo and behold - I learn some cool new feature that I can organically introduce into my workflow.

Learning vim in this way has been immensely satisfying. I look at time spent in vim as an investment in my career as a software developer. For as long as I'm in this industry, I'm going to need to edit text. vim can do just about anything and everything; will run on any architecture, past, present, or (it's safe to assume) future; and has allowed me to reduce the amount of time that I spend doing repetitive editing tasks.
Knowledge of ancient philosophy, and of its history through the Enlightenment, is necessary to understand and then deliberately change the nature and present course of civilization.
Ok, let's see how insightful some of the 'agree' comments are:

David Autor, MIT:

> Net neutrality is a fiction. Hire Akamai (et al.) to mirror your servers worldwide to speed content to your users.

What the fuck are you talking about? And Akamai will pump that content onto some magic rainbows to get to your users. I wouldn't put my name/univeristy next to that comment.

_
Joseph Altonji, Yale

> High bandwidth traffic imposes externalities on other users.

Fair, but I'd say this is an incentive for ISPs to step up their game. This is a very old argument.

_
Darrell Duffie, Stanford (Strongly agree)

> If all qualities sell at the same price, markets cannot allocate quality efficiently. Works for soap, wine, and haircuts; why not Internet?

First of all, soap, wine and haircuts are not a medium of sharing information. And all qualities are not sold at the same price. I pay differently for different speeds and bandwidth. Clearly this guy has no idea what he's talking about.

_
Richard Schmalensee, MIT

> It is not generally good policy to restrict firms' product offerings, but there seem to be other considerations.

I like pizza and it's not necessarily a good idea to eat it every day, but there seem to be other considerations.

_
Richard Thaler, Chicago

> Seems like those who cause congestion should pay more. I know some worry that ISPs will play favorites, but that should be preventable.

Yeah, it should be preventable. Through net neutrality rules.

Honestly, what the fuck is this? Also, who cares about their opinion? Not a fan of Taleb but I tend to side with him on his opinion about economists.

Next up, let's ask accountants what they think about Net neutrality.
> they want to be believed and treated "professionally". Further it's "insulting" to be questioned about anything other than specific experiences.

Yeah, I agree; I have the same hypothesis that this is what people want. And it's a problem to assume and/or act like talking about anything other than specific coding experience is in any way insulting. That's not exactly a realistic expectation, nor is it a great attitude for getting hired.

Personality, behavior, poise, attitude and communication skills are absolutely relevant to someone's ability to do their job on a team. If you can't think on your feet or answer a question without a computer in front of you, and you start getting angry, how will you behave in meetings? That behavior is precisely one of things I look for when I ask candidates to think on their feet.

If someone assumes that being asked certain questions is "unprofessional", then that's a red flag and I'll be more careful before hiring someone like that. Now that I think about it, there's a bit of irony that if someone performs poorly on these kinds of questions, I'm likely to spend more time investigating that and asking more questions along those lines.
> The model of select first, action after (reverse of vim) is so so much better for me.

You mean, like the visual modes in Vim? Where you select text before running
a command on it?
> I could talk about my suggestions for days

This sounds like it would make an interesting blog post!
Geo IP blocking will not block the EU citizens that are not physically in the EU at the time.

Just for fun, I would add

server {
# snip....
access_log off;
error_log off;
return 307 https://www.google.com/search?q=gdpr;
}

That should block anyone that might be a EU citizen. /s
I think you are seriously underestimating the value of first hand experience conducting scientific research. It beats into you a mindset you can't get anywhere else. There are no books or manuals or docs to read and master it. There's only the scientific method. You start with a question, conduct experiments, analyze results, adjust your hypothesis, and repeat the process. You get very comfortable with saying "I don't know". You right at the border of the unknown and trying to navigate further.

Companies are using a PhD as a proxy for having research experience because it's the the only qualification like it out there. It's a poor proxy because not all PhDs are created equal.
If you can't control your temper at work to the point where you become known for doing things that can be accurately described as an "outburst", you are toxic. Especially if you are in a position of leadership. You can be passionate about something without being a jerk.
Excellent, thank you. It would be very good to have that information in the official documentation. I've wanted to refer to something like that for compliance reasons, for example.
No because as far as I am aware Elon has not tried to actively hide the problems even if he sometimes paints a rosier picture than reality. That is very different from telling everyone, including regulators, that the diagnostic tests work great, safe, effective. And there are documents showing they knew it didn't work. Theranos is like Enron.