skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have two stories.

In college my roommate was a gambler and heavy alcoholic. I have no idea how he even graduated tbh. One day, after a three day gambling bender and a long afternoon at the bar, he hit a car in the middle of a busy intersection after running a red light. Completely his fault and when he got out, the person could smell the alcohol on him and said they were going to call the cops and told him not to go anywhere.

My buddy, fresh from a good run of luck at the blackjack tables looked at the ladies car, pulled out $1,000 cash and told her it should cover any damage. The rear quarter panel was crushed in and the bumper was partially torn off, but the car was drivable. After a minute or so, she took the cash and he came home with the front end of his car totaled.

The other story is when I was working at a startup. There were stories one of the founders was skimming money out of their accounts. After the company went under, I found out several of the developers I worked with were helping the founder cover her tracks. There were stories of her exchanging sex or money for them to keep quiet.
Like I said, my impression is that often the people replying are not engineers. Here's one with that problem: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=674096...
Whoops sorry - I mistook the link for this one:
https://github.com/flutter/engine/wiki/Custom-Flutter-Engine...
> I know truly acts as though this is true.

Because how true could that be by defintion?

I do believe in objective truth, even if not realistically achievable and perhaps not philosophical mainstream. But if it is also simpler and more interesting, that is an additional plus and probably more correct.

I also admit to having premises and no problem to reflect upon them. Only to some of them I keep a sentimental relationship. A frame of reference might always be needed. But why should the frame be special?

Subjective to me is the relevance of the assumption about truth. The same can be said about a lot of discussions about conscience and general perception.
1) To learn effective structure, start with the Pyramid principle [1]. Some people have a natural sense of flow, others don't. I'm in the latter category. I find I need some kind of mental scaffolding, which the Pyramid Principle provides.

2) Jot down any interesting witticisms, jokes or turns-of-phrase that you come across. (I have Google Docs document that I've been stashing phrases in for years). Do not use this to embellish your writing -- that would be plagiarism -- but instead, use it as a archive of the writing style(s) you are partial to and as an aid to developing your own style.

3) Take a creative writing class and workshop your pieces. Real-life critique from peers can often help you discover strengths and weaknesses. Good feedback loops are key to getting better at any endeavor.

4) Edit edit edit. Compose a draft and let it sit. Read it out loud. Repeat until you are happy with it.

Eloquence is a outcome, not a skill. You cannot learn it directly. You can however learn the skills that lead to it.

It's a little bit like discipline. You can't set out to learn "discipline", but you can do things like dedicating yourself to practicing say, a musical instrument. Along the way, discipline emerges. It's a meta-skill.

Writing is an open-domain skill, and not everyone can be a great writer. However, most people can be decent technicians at writing. Some technicians may eventually become great writers.

[1] https://medium.com/lessons-from-mckinsey/the-pyramid-princip...
Awhile back one of my co-workers got involved with a contractor. Apparently the relationship went "bad" at some point and one of the parties decided to get HR involved. Both were fired immediately.
That said, one would presume there would be no shortage of jealous rival researchers ready to say any BS as a critique for any study.

It happens in way more rigorous domains, much less in the question of whether an animal can learn some basic communication.

The jury is still out there as far as I'm concerned.
Mishandling? Jamming it in something? Dropping a screwdriver on it?
Where did you read that? (I'm curious.) Ben Franklin did basically the same thing.
In my opinion, we have far too many "Getting Started With [technology]: Part 1" tutorials and not nearly enough lessons on advanced topics. I get it, creating these lessons takes time and dedication that often isn't apparent until you're nearly done. I've started work on combating this phenomenon myself by creating lessons that do cover advanced topics but even those fall short of where I'd like them to be.

When it comes to "writing a tutorial" for the benefit of your own knowledge, it's been proven to work. This is very good advice when it comes to personal gain. However, for the sake of beginners and content creators that are active in the tutorial community, please consider throwing out these lessons when you're done. It might help someone out there at some point but you have to take into account your initial motive: personal advancement. Lessons that are taught out of passion for teaching and advancing the knowledge of those around you are often the best because they come from a selfless place. Lessons created for the creator's own advancement are often not as helpful. This is something I struggled with when creating my own tutorials. Was I creating it out of love for teaching others, or was there some hidden motive that even I might not be aware of?

This is simply my own opinion, take my comment with a grain of salt. I'd be interested to hear what others think about the prevalence of "beginner" tutorials juxtaposed with an apparent lack of those that would be considered "advanced".
You have to pay for it, so this is promotion. Especially if they're targeting "enterprise"
No, not even in the opposite directly. Reading China daily and global times makes China to look like a communist dictatorship living in a reality far from the rest of the world. It literally provides a more negative impression of China than CNN.
I have found myself saying this in my mobile apps business.

Oftentimes, I will contact someone associated with the community for a product I am building and ask them if they want to help promote the product once it's out. They take this as some sort of partnership where I have to get their permission to publish my products or go in the direction they want to go, just because they might help me out.

And usually these companies are slower moving than I am, so doing the back-and-forth and getting feedback would take forever. With mobile apps, you have no idea if the thing will ever take off, and I have found it is best to just launch the thing and see what happens.

I'm not sure what some of these people think. I'm an independent businessman. I have the right to do whatever I want with my own products, and yes, I can choose to launch something whenever I damn well please. If you like it, go ahead and promote it. If you don't, don't. I honestly don't care.

So I take this saying more as "Doing anything at all will always be perceived as offensive to someone. You might as well do it and let them get offended."

And I know that soundbite lacks nuance and could easily be taken to mean something else, but then it wouldn't be a cool soundbite either. Obviously don't murder, rape, etc, and do take others into consideration when you are working on a team and you need their help longterm.

But I think the essence of the saying is that nobody is purely innocent and anything worth doing will probably ruffle some feathers. If you're overly cautious, you won't ever accomplish anything significant.
You agreeing with him or not has nothing to do with ‘the limits of his world’.

It’s almost as though you don’t understand what he is talking about.
Python does a lot of type checking and complains loudly, very different from eg Javascript.
Raytracing is faking it as well, but the illusion is a bit better ;-)
You don't have to wish for it, that's what's happening.
Sure, the tmp-var-approach could be slower in some weird edge cases but probably only slightly, while the array-swapping approach could be much slower if the JS-Engine doesn't implement this optimization at all or this code-pattern is run in interpreter or baseline compiler.

Not arguing you should do such micro-optimizations, but generally writing "simpler" code should also allow less sophisticated compilers to generate fast code.
> Nobody cares if two engineers hook up

It matters because if one of those people gets promoted it can break the policy.
The U.S. prison system is widely condemned as inhumane, overcrowded, and violent. So yeah, I would say that's torture, too.
Ok thank u downvoters, I shan't waste any more time posting on HN.
Clearly you should both be fired.
Super happy with HCL for over a year in production now.

I've only got one FOSS project using HCL but I think of its' bundled HCL config file is an attractive part of its UX: https://github.com/LukeB42/psyrcd
- Development Environment: lightweight editor + command line rather than one IDE: Sublime + iTerm [0]

- Hosting: Digital Ocean with Dokku (web applications) and server blocks (static website) [1]

- Application Development: React, React Router, Apollo, GraphQL, Express, PostgreSQL [2]

- [0] https://www.robinwieruch.de/developer-setup/

- [1] https://github.com/rwieruch/fullstack-apollo-react-express-b...

- [2] https://www.robinwieruch.de/deploy-applications-digital-ocea...
If Linus had written the reworded email the author is proposing here, this author wouldn't be writing this blog post, and we wouldn't be clicking it on HN and reading the contents of Linus' points.

As to the actual detail of the author's proposed rewordings:

> I'm not talking about the changes themselves - I can live with them. But the _rationale_ is pure and utter garbage, and dangerously so.

becomes

> These changes look OK, but I'm not sure about the rationale.

This rewording imparts an entirely different message to the original. If I read the latter, as a programmer, I would get the impression that Linus thought the commit was "OK". He clearly did not. At no point in his email does he indicate that anything is "OK" about this commit in any way.

> The caps in "AND STANDARD" is another way to indicate frustration [...] None of these carry any meaning about the technical problem; they're just expressions of anger. [...] Most critically, it's possible to describe the danger of this code without

It's important to point out that the author says "it's possible to describe the danger of this code without". He's describing danger but his rewording removes all emphasis, urgency or import in the tone of the email.

> If you were in the "I'm afraid that being nicer would hurt Linux" group, do you think that this email is worse?

Yes.

I'm sorry, but while the argument that Linus makes excessive use of ad hominem and is disrespectul is a valid one, and he could/should temper that, this example is a failure to demonstrate how it would improve things. The final email draft in the blog post is milquetoast; I would forget it within minutes if I were on that list.
Ceylon or Cassia cinnamon?
Airbnb is 'sunsetting' React Native, reinvesting all efforts back into native
You seem to be convincing yourself just fine as well.
>In February, a misprogrammed robot that handles battery modules repeatedly punctured through the plastic housing (called a clamshell) and into some battery cells, the employee said, adding that instead of scrapping all the modules, some were fixed with adhesive and put back on the manufacturing line. According to internal documents Business Insider reviewed, this foible affected more than 1,000 pieces.

http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-model-3-scrap-waste-hig...
MILA Rebranded as Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
Steven Pinker definitely talks about Koko in The Language Instinct... IIRC, let's just say he doesn't have the highest opinion of the experiment ;-)
I guess you could find some way to convert Word documents to Markdown and keep version control using Git, but for non-tech-savvy users I assume that's going to be a problem...
If you follow a consistent process, that can often make you look like you are a "rockstar". I find many people are so random, and don't approach their work in any kind of structured or analytical way, that doing things takes them much longer than it ought to. At the end of the day, rolling up your sleeves and actually doing some work goes a startlingly long ways. And most of all, test your fricking code yourself, at least run it, anything - I've lost track of the number of times that people just check shit in that would be blindingly obviously broken if they had even tried using the feature that they supposedly worked on.
Linus seems like a jerk if you see him as an entitled engineer maintaining a popular OSS library.

But if you instead see him as a CEO, responsible for every single part of the Linux kernel, running on one billion machines, his behavior becomes natural. Even warranted, since, often-times the people at the recieving end of his wrath are not making some whoops-daisy technical mistake; they are trying to exert power and extend their influence through the code they write.

Remember how grsecurity tried to destabilize the Linux kernel?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14633163

Or how one core maintainer broke userland and refused to fix it?

https://m.slashdot.org/story/179833

Linus shut them down.

Linux keeps a thousand volunteers in line. The vast majority of whom are not subordinates, duty-bound to respect nice words. At this high level, with such enormous stakes, I wouldn’t want a weak willed leader who lets the children run amok.
It was simplicity, of design, implementation, use, and indeed explanation. There's only one default, the default if the --jobs option is not used; rather than there being two defaults, one for not having the option and another for having the option but not the option argument.

More generally, I try to avoid optional arguments to command options, in line with the guideline in the Single Unix Specification. (I actually picked such ideas up many years ago, before the first POSIX specification, from a book by Eric Foxley titled Unix for Super Users, where there was an appendix on command line option syntax.)

* http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_...

Of course, if the user wants to use the number of cores available, then xe can work that number out and pass it as an argument; and indeed I have done that very thing in some of the package/make scripts that I have published.
I'm definitely an optimist about this, and I have an interest in it. So, grains of salt. But things worth noting:

The lack of labeled data is definitely a challenge, as you call out. But a sizable chunk of what we do is power a platform and network of pathologists to get this data within hours for training purposes. We think there will always be a very real need for human pathologists, but that the bread-and-butter work in pathology can be better handled by well-trained
and thoroughly-validated algorithms.

And yeah, the non-technical issues are just as important as the technical ones:

* There's very limited use of digital imagery in clinical pathology at all. Fortunately, that's not the case in research pathology, and the success we've had in that field has been moving clinical labs toward an investment in digital pathology.

* Reimbursement (in the US) will be an issue. There are only a few options for billing payers for pathology reads, and they aren't necessarily in lock-step with the potential future of the industry.

* Like I mentioned, this opens up a class of analysis that just isn't feasible for humans to perform. It's up to us to show the value of this type of analysis.

* The regulatory environment is a real thing. We aren't hiding from this, and are creating processes that allow us to build and iterate software like we'd like to, while still faithfully meeting our regulatory burden.

So far, we've found our approach to be viable, and we've had some really strong early results with our customers (and solid revenue!). So I'm pretty optimistic, for sure.
[WEBINAR] How to Close Large B2B Deals
You don't want ABS? How about no airbag either? And doing away with safety belts as well?

The bulk of the cost of producing an electric car comes from battery packs, and cost is also increased because the reduced production numbers cannot achieve higher costs saving from mass production. But all of that is changing every day towards cheaper electric cars.

Pretty much all you mention is actually cheap to include, because it's shared with traditional vehicles, so it's not a major driver in car cost. Actually: if you're going to make a car expensive, then throw in some stuff that people with money (who will actually buy the vehicle) will appreciate.

But you can also get a Smart Fortwo EV, a Bolloré Bluecar, a Mitsubishi i-MIEV… Which are rather basic vehicles and they're electric. The Chevy Bolt is a pretty good middle ground too, if you're in the U.S.

Have you actually looked into the EV market beyond Tesla, with an actual intention of acquiring a vehicle, or are you just thinking out loud?
that exactly what we are doing at Hostinger ;-) this one http://blog.donatas.net/blog/2017/02/26/exazk/
I agree: read more, write more. There’s no substitute for practice here.
I'm primarily a Firefox user, but WebGL heavy apps tend to run way better in Chrome.
Bone marrow transplants disagree

https://bethematch.org/transplant-basics/matching-patients-w...

You can't look at the clusters of IQ around the world and ignore a genetic component to intelligence either:

https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country
Thought experiment:

1) Prices keep rising. Existing home-owners refinance (cash in their pocket). People who can't afford their mortgage default on their loan. People who can't receive a mortgage are forced to rent, leave town, or sleep in their cars.

2) Will the housing bubble violently explode? Or just slowly deflate? Teaser rates and CDO obfuscation were the reason the housing market exploded in 2008. If we don't have any of that in 2018 (just good ol' fashioned lack of supply and overly-levered, synthetic housing demand), then a violent bubble explosion would need to happen for a different reason.

3) People seek semi-legal alternatives. Living in cars. Living in tiny homes (mostly illegal by zoning in major cities). People leave the USA to work remotely.

The pressure cooker is boiling and I'm keeping my money on the sidelines. I would much rather live/work "non-traditionally" than corner myself into a mortgage I ultimately can't pay.
Didn't happen to me but to someone I met:

Hedge Fund in Connecticut (aren't they all). Someone's first job after grad school. Someone and his boss are trading, and things go very well the first year. Its a small fund ($1-$10 million). The idea is to get a track record and then make the big bucks.

The second year things are way down. Almost half the fund has evaporated. Someone comes to work to find he can't place trades. Sees that the shares are there but the liquid money in the cash account seems to be gone. Panics. Calls the major investors to tell them.

Investor calls cops on him who arrest him. Turns out the boss had run off with the liquid cash in the account (worked out to about $60,000). The fund was down but it was a small fund.

Someone was released from jail and not charged, but the boss was.

It is just wild that someone would try to make a run for it and ruin their lives and go to jail for that sum.
Ship Custom Elements version 1, then we'll get excited.
First physiological test for autism proves high accuracy in second trial
It's bad on the small scale of say like a post, but I think it works on the larger scale of the community at large.

If you make a post and it goes into negatives not because you're being an ass, but because it just goes against the groupthink, whatever. Your overall karma will go down a touch. There comes a point where no one post is going to devastate your overall standing.

But if every post you make gets downvoted, isn't that indicative of a larger problem?

But that's looking at the problem solely from a "user" perspective.

It's still bad from a content perspective because it means good, relevant content that goes against the groupthink gets buried.
Agreed, based on this skin color seems to be a red herring in talking about race in that it takes just one difference and magnifies when it's just one other difference of which there are many. Interesting to read about the degree of genetic diversity within Africans and the lack of it (relatively) among non Africans.
NaCL is more like Google's ActiveX. wasm directly builds upon the experience and success Mozilla had with asm.js.
Oh huh. It's not dependent on the actual flights? Just the airport?
The problems you listed are absolutely issues with people watching sports as well, but have nothing to do with the subject material. It's a people problem and can be resolved on that level. Let's not pretend that this is somehow unique to gamers or sports fans or really any other involved hobby.
Argument like yours seem to rely on an incorrect understanding of the design of C. Languages like Java encapsulate program execution in a runtime that, in theory, can catch and manage all sorts of programmer errors that C does not catch. That's ok. If the programmer references past the end of an array, the compiler may catch and object, it may simply compile the instructions and let the program step on its own data structures or encounter a memory fault or even a protection violation if the architecture provides some type protection. And it's bizarre to see this warning about ROP exploit, when current "optimization" based on UB is a source of ROP exploit vulnerability. One cannot reliably put protections in code against bad pointers if upstream errors are grounds for deleting the guards.
Among married people something like 50% of couples met their spouse at work. It's going to happen, it's best to have an open and above-board way of co-existing with fraternization rather than simply banning it, which is idiotic.
> As with most things the truth is somewhere in the middle, right?

Personally I really hate this assertion. The truth doesn't care if it is in the middle or not.
> That leaves me to wonder as to the timing of this action. Krzanich received a lot of flak over the past months... it's not entirely unthinkable that the board was sitting on this information and only now used it to get rid of Krzanich without making it look like it's one of the other major issues he could technically be blamed with.

Agreed. AMD is breathing down INTC's neck, particularly in servers. Board wants a different direction.
c/c++ are still very much alive and now we have rust, golang, etc.

So yeah. Even JS is "compiled" now with webpack.
Looks cool! I was going to fill it out, but I decided to put it off.
WebAssembly started at Mozilla, but is very much not controlled by Mozilla today. It's a W3C Community group: https://webassembly.org/community/contributing/
This is good news for the country, even if it's bad for my wallet. The prior state of affairs was absurd. Online retailers already have major advantages in terms of convenience and inventory. Getting a N% discount vs. brick and mortar by not charging taxes was completely unnecessary.
I don't have much to suggest. For YAML, the use of whitespace, colons and dashes primarily emerged from usability testing with domain experts who are not programmers. In particular, testing was done in the context of an application that needed a configuration and data auditing interface, an accounting application. Even anchors/aliases worked in this context and supported the application's use by making the audit records less repetitive without introducing artificial handles.

Other use cases such as dumping any in-memory data structure from memory, perhaps out of a sense that we needed full completeness, actually didn't have any end-user usability testing. Round-tripping data seems in retrospect to be a diversion from the primary value that YAML provided.