skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This isn't the builder pattern, since these methods directly mutate the final result rather than a distinct builder object.

Also, it's perfectly possible to have a non-mutatative builder that returns an entirely new builder instance with the given configuration at each step.
Sounds like this is just the result of a poorly designed process with no rollbacks and incompetent staff. This seems obvious to me that its not the warning of the eeevil AI as its being made out to be. Its more a warning of the stupidity of humans who make rules, but we've always known that.
Google has all their code open, but the rockchip and MALI drivers must match Kernel version. Not much is out there, but hav you checker this?

https://github.com/rockchip-linux/libmali
Developer time is the highest cost. Building and deploying a function in an hour minimizes time to market and opportunity cost. Lifting and shifting to a dedicated service like AppEngine is a "good problem to have" once the function's usage exceeded specific thresholds. However, if you never reach said thresholds (e.g. only a few thousand calls a day), you didn't spend the time/money setting up a service backed by dedicated services.
Yeah, it's not so much China per se as once quality brands increasingly churning out mediocre goods at low costs in various overseas factories. Mind you, the trend of retail conglomerates, private equity firms, etc. owning a bunch of brand names/catalogs is nothing new. But current trends towards disposable goods, fast fashion, etc. have exacerbated it.
Python decorators
Elm on fire Shaders in elm
> Blockchains don't so much remove trust as distribute it.

That's true about govt issued currency too.
i wholeheartedly agree. the present crony capitalism and government interventionism into the market are damaging to the honest enterpreneur - one that doesn't have a senator's ear. the only way for free market to work is for goverment to back off. it's good that at least one other person understands that!
> American expertise will naturally decline because we don't have students studying EE.

We won't decline in absolute numbers but comparatively. We will never produce as many engineers as china because they outnumber us by more than a billion people.
> it's important to remember the more complex human psychology

Yes, and it's important to remember that it is complex, not reduce it to simplistic formulae. Your theory is pretty much exactly contrary to empirical evidence. When you've earned money through hard work it can create a reward cycle, but it can also create a feeling of completion, of having done enough and having the right to stop. When you haven't earned money it can make you feel like a burden, but that doesn't necessarily lead to defeatism. Feeling indebted can also motivate someone to pay it back or pay it forward.

There are plenty of theories leading in all directions. Where does the evidence point? There's plenty of evidence that unconditional cash transfers (the term you should Google for) work just as well as in-kind or strings-attached aid[1][2]. Often better, and easier to administer too. Maybe the problem isn't that poor people lack motivation or work ethics. Maybe that's just an ugly stereotype. What they seem to lack is, obviously, money - or not money itself but the time and security and opportunity that even a little bit of money can provide. One of the most important things money can provide (especially in the absence of universal health care) is better health, including mental health, which is in a sense what the OP addresses. Giving people a small temporary opportunity without addressing these more permanent limiters to their success might be putting the cart before the horse. Preference for such approaches might have more to do with the givers' attitudes and biases than with results.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/we...
[2] http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/unco...
A quick Google said pension funds own [16%](http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-stock-market-ownership-...).
There's an added complication that `a(b, c)` could mean "call `a` with two arguments `b` and `c`" or it could mean "call `,` with two arguments `b` and `c` to form the pair `(b,c)`, then call `a` with that one argument".

The latter would be written `a([b, c])` in other languages. These are all isomorphic (we're calling `a` and giving access to `b` and `c`), but can confuse people who are new to the syntax.
The "benefits of the existing system" are a straw-man argument. They are actually there to compensate for the the weaknesses of the existing system: terrorism - inability to cope with fear and unjust oppression of foreign countries, tax collection - complicated (otherwise) unenforceable tax code, etc.
We've been moralizing work in the US at least my whole life.
> not of the good kind, like e.g. becoming a doctor

I would estimate that around 90% of the people I know who want to become a doctor (around 30 people) are motivated solely by the desire to make lotsa money and be able to drive an expensive car. Just saying, I don't think you can easily divide ambitions into "good" and "bad.
I would think what is needed is a true object graph environment:

https://youtu.be/4yepPOznakk

it is a mix of declarative presentation with the ability to tap into code at any node.
Eclipse Collections (GS)
Police Killings Have Harmed Mental Health in Black Communities, Study Finds
Exit makes sense as a human right. This is true across many levels of organization: you are free to quit your job, drop out of school, even emancipate yourself from your family after a certain age, and it's widely recognized that protecting the freedom to do these things improves collective outcomes.

A corollary is that you should be allowed to join organizations that want you.

But entry to any organization, regardless of whether they want you or not? In a world where Google has to hire everyone who applies, or Stanford has to admit everyone, or families have to house and feed anyone who shows up at their doorstep even when they don't want to, you no longer have a Google or a Stanford or a family functioning anywhere close to its current level. "Entry to anywhere as a human right" is an idea which may be initially attractive due to its simplicity, but the only people I know who stick with it after further thought appear more interested in harming groups of people they don't like than trying to lift up everyone.

And as a practical matter, for all of its flaws, the US has nevertheless done more than any other country over the last 7 decades to enforce a right of exit across most of the globe. A more diverse and stronger US would be an improvement, yes, and I'm pretty sure Canada/Australia-style immigration policy will get us there. But there are ways to become more diverse and weaker, too; and importantly, in that world, bigotry is even further from being solved, because the probable leading superpower is a more bigoted, monoracial China. (In contrast, when the City College of New York ceased to be a top-tier institution, the damage was fortunately limited to just itself; other top universities had ended anti-Jewish admissions practices some years earlier.) You seem completely blind to this danger.
Lately I'm becoming convinced that we give ideas far too much credit. Greek individualism, introspective theology, Ayn Rand or the human potential movement... these are ideas.

I think we're overthinking. We are fantasticaly intellectual creatures, and I personally enjoy ideas like these a lot. But, I think most of our psyche is just much simpler, more primitive.

What is the social setting we are living in, is it adequate? Do we have enough friends, shared mission, sense of collective belonging. Are we secure in our social lives? What is the condition of your life as a homo sapien?

Think of it this way. If we were alien zookeepers designing the sapien enclosure for maximum ethical zookeeping, what are the ideal conditions in the enclosure? What conditions would make the exhibits stressed or depressed.

Ideas matter, but indirectly. Does your introspective theology come with a community, how does that community interact?
130 is smart people.
I've seen it happen a couple of times - one a receptionist, the other a PA, made meteoric rises to Head of HR or Head of Project Management under 6 months after starting dating the CEO. No-one no matter how talented gets promoted that quickly on merit alone... And no-one takes the CEO seriously after it comes out either
This can't be proven in a traditional market either. The reverse is also true: as a seller, you can't prove they shipped the iPhone and not the brick the user claimed to receive (or that it wasn't tampered with by someone in between). The big difference in the existing marketplaces is that the marketplace is usually both the service provider and the escrow, where Bitcoin allows these two services to be separated.

In the case of Paypal, they will side with the buyer in most disputes, which puts you at a big disadvantage as a merchant. You're basically relying on the majority to be honest, and take into account that small scale fraud is not going to be a major risk to your business.

There's also the disaster that is buying digital goods with Paypal, where the seller has virtually no comeback in the case of fraud, and is one of the means people use to empty hacked accounts, since it leaves no physical trail. The seller of the digital service almost always takes the hit. This is the real biggest use-case for Bitcoin, as cryptography can be used to prove the sale of the digital goods.
RxJava: 2.1.15
Sure, but if the theory that what people really needed and wanted was the ability to choose and audit providers was true and this alone was sufficient to protect most people, MtGox would never have become the dominant crypto platform. Particularly not at a point when ample evidence that it was utterly terrible already existed, and in an era of early adopters including the small minority of the public actually capable of auditing smart contracts.

Since then we've seen more exchanges, but again the largest exchange - Bitfinex - is a project with a history of hacks and auditors walking away, before we even start getting into the "is Tether fraud on a massive scale" debate. If "more large exchanges, more small exchanges" were the solution to the dodgy exchange problem, that wouldn't be the case. It's almost like the distribution of trust isn't remotely close to an adequate substitute for a legal system for the average person
I can't believe those are real admin responses. TigheW was far more patient than they needed to be, that was painful.
Ada uses "function" and "procedure." I think they've relaxed the rules slightly, but it used to be procedures have no return values and functions may not modify their arguments.
Then? Those (other) tools? That workflow? It was for version control.

Today? The needs are different, and Git needs a better wrapper to do that. Thus, GL's emphasis on less code-centric (more PM-y) features.
Ask HN: What are some great books that are relatively unknown in the US?
From novels, to nonfiction, to the art of leisure.
Sure :) but it would require a deep change in Python language semantics, without which this isn't possible.

You'd have to carry that information in the AST somehow. From a call site, a function object is just a an object with certain properties. "Did it have a return or not?" is not information which exists on that object. Only the return value is (when you call it), and if it is None, you don't know if that came from "return None" or from the default behaviour.

Python could enrich the function object to include that information, and it would essentially be "supporting 0 or 1 return values", instead of "n return values". But adding that no-assignment rule would be backwards incompatible. At that point, might as well go all the way and support any number return values :)
wow, this is great insight on the economics. Thanks!
People not being able to work due to faulty work equipment has a non-zero cost to the economy.
None of those things are going away as long as humanity is human.

The "benefits of the blockchain" exist exactly to exploit those weaknesses.
This is only because good precedents were set by the built-in functions. Mutating functions return None, and only non-mutating functions return something non-trivial. It's purely convention, but therein lies the power of the core language setting a good example.
I know the priority is different for phones but Apple haven’t been able to keep their Mac line up to date for a few years now.

Even their best selling MacBook Pros seem to be permanently stuck with the last generation’s processors.

Business priorities can be difficult for companies of all sizes.
Pravega: Storage Reimagined for a Streaming World
> “social” platform

I never realized it, but the biggest reason why I don't like social media could be the terrible name. Will put "social" in quotes from now on!
> You simply cannot out innovate 4 decades of work in a few years no matter how much money you throw at it.

Sure you can, as long as you have the people, resources and the infrastructure.

> Also, China has a branding problem and it is only going to get worse.

So did every country. When we were starting out as a nation, we stole IP from britain and we were known as the nation of the shoddy. Believe it or not, germany was once known as a nation of terrible brands and shoddy products. So was japan. Ask your grandparents. "Made in japan" was equivalent to junk in our grandparents time. The same with korea. It's only within the past 20 years that korea shed the "junk" image with Samsung, LG, etc.

Also, for most of history, "made in china" was considered high quality. That's why we have terms like "fine china". Until the opium wars and the collapse of china, china was renown for quality goods.

History has shown that countries move from shoddy manufacturing reputation to quality reputation. Don't really see why china would be the exception to the rule.
What would be wrong with such a world?
Rails Devs are well compensated...where are you getting this from? Yes rails is more suitable for rapid development than spring, and easier to teach and learn. How is that bad though
People have modest ambitions and most often, if you are highly ambitious, this is frowned upon. American optimism is the exception.
Not sure if you had a chance to go through documentation, but complex stuff like chained requests, dynamic parameter construction etc are supported. You can also provide custom validator functions in YAML to verify responses and a lot more.

Please checkout the documentation.
Not necessarily, but probably an age-driven assumption. The cutlery produced in large quantities was made of stainless steel and exported globally; if it was imported from the UK there's a good chance it was made in Sheffield.
> We don't get to see half of what we think we should be able to see of people's lives. Even people we "know".

One of the few times in someone's life that you get to glimpse many of their facets all in one place is their funeral. Weddings are skipped if someone doesn't want to go to the expense of buying a gift and attending. Same for many other life events.

Unless someone makes a conscious effort to bring all their circles of friends together in a series of parties and events, many times these circles stay separate and sometimes these groups are completely unaware of each other. My epiphany that social "platforms" were crap at their claimed mission was w-a-a-a-y back when I realized they were no better at getting my different circles of friends together with me than if I didn't have the platforms in my life and didn't lift a finger to try to consciously bring them together.

These days, I tell people from all my friend groups to drop by an all-day party I hold, they'll meet interesting people, and hang out. The social platform works great for coordinating in my use case, but apparently not for really fostering closer connections. At least for me. YMMV.
One show , I don't recall the name,asked people answer some question like what is distance between NY to LA. They could choose any range as the answer and the right answer had to fall in that range.So to win people just had to select huge range like 0 to 1 million miles and be sure they got the answer right .However people would mostly select a narrow range that they felt was the right answer and got it wrong frequently. I think it is some desire not to sound stupid even though there is a incentive to select a ridiculous range.I think this desire not to sound stupid could be at play here as well so people choose things that to them seems reasonable even when asked about their ideal life.
Retrieving Docker Registry Metrics Using Prometheus
My point is that you likely have a biased view, as understandably you had an especially-bad experience, and that's the experience that's being highlighted for everyone to see.
I don't want to take the test right now. Maybe tonight. I know there is something motivational at the end of the test that would make me want to do it, but I'm not going to do it anyway. Basically, I'm procrastinating by writing this comment and not doing the test.
How do you operationalize that? If you are in charge of investments for a teachers’ pension fund, do you invest in less profitable banks because they have looser underwriting standards?
Awesome-ai-services
Like the drug economy?
Not taking sides here, but just wanted to point out that in Haskell/Agda/Coq/Idris/etc. your `foo` would denote a function, just like writing `foo` in e.g. Javascript. Your `foo()` would call the `foo` function with the argument `()`, which is a unit value (AKA null, void, etc.).

Interestingly a function which takes a unit value as argument (AKA a "thunk") is isomorphic to its return value, i.e. wrapping the body in a function doesn't change its meaning. Yet it can be useful to prevent side-effects from triggering, even if the effect is as benign as "heat up the CPU by performing lots of calculations".

Now I will take sides and point out that if we have currying, all of the following are the same:

f(a, b, c, d)
f(a, b, c)(d)
f(a, b)(c, d)
f(a, b)(c)(d)
f(a)(b, c, d)
f(a)(b)(c, d)
f(a)(b)(c)(d)
f(a)(b, c)(d)

Not only does this proliferation of forms over-complicate a language, but it's also completely redundant as a no-parens language would write it as `f a b c d`.
I'd say good ambitions are those where you want X for X itself. If you want to be a doctor because you want love helping people - good. If you want to be a doctor just for $$$ - bad. If you want to become a singer because you love singing - good. If you want to be a singer just for $$$ - bad.

Old good "follow your passion"?
Re: "is it thread-safe?", the answer is yes. JavaScript is single-threaded and, since SharedArrayBuffer was disabled in all major browsers in response to Spectre, there's no concept of shared memory.
Also quality of life takes a sharp decline after 90 as many parts of your body really struggle. Feeling your brain decay, dealing with incontinence, being unable to get out and embrace the world while watching your friends and partner pass on while the world moves further and further from you doesn’t seem that much fun.
There is no "unspent income tax" in the Netherlands. There is however a tax of 1.2% on savings and investments over 25000 euros.
>"By your theory every single exchange is simply careless then right? Every intelligent computer user knows that ALL THINGS get hacked."

I wasn't positing any theory.

The "carelessness" referenced also had nothing to do with being hacked.

Carelessness is misplacing 200,000 bitcoins. Carelessness is not even knowing that 200,000 coins are unaccounted for. Carelessness is hiring quiche and pastry chefs for your cafe instead of hiring security personnel for your exchange.[2]

"Shuttered bitcoin exchange MtGox has found almost 200,000 bitcoins which it believed were lost, according to the company's CEO Mark Karpeles.

The money was sitting in a wallet which the firm thought no longer held bitcoins. However, following the application for civil rehabilitation (a Japanese legal procedure analogous to bankruptcy), "these wallets were rescanned and their balance researched," says Karpeles, and one wallet was found to hold a balance of 199,999.99 bitcoins."[1]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/21/mtgox-mis...

[2] https://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2014/05/02/bitcoin-cafe-...
Apache Log4j Audit 1.0.0 released
Why is it called a Fibonacci Heap?
First Real Test for Tesla to Come from Game-Changing Jaguar I-Pace
Just look at torrents and the high fines that go along with it.

Still pretty popular, no?
Apache PDFBox 2.0.10 released
The list is mostly the kind of tactical mitigations that get bypassed a lot by private individuals and academia. Clever people write one, clever people break one, rinse, repeat. The untested theory is that they would be really hard or impossible to bypass in combination. The kind of people that could test that have mostly been smashing things like Chrome or mobiles where there's enough users to justify their efforts in terms of fame, money, etc. The real mitigation here is obfuscation of using a platform hardly anyone uses that is also harder than average to target. Then, there's some benefits to the security measures used on top of it. Obfuscation is main reason attacks aren't attempted much, though.

A better list would start with design techniques and assurance activities that led to systems with few to no vulnerabilities during pentests by well-funded, knowledgeable attackers. That's on top of what survives in the field with lots of attention. In the 80's-90's, those techniques included precise specifications of behavior or security policy, ways of proving/testing that in the code, hierarchical layering with simple coding to facilitate analysis, small kernels with most code deprivileged, memory-safe languages where possible, verification that object code matches source w/ no compiler errors/subversions, partitioning GUI's/filesystems/networking limiting apps effects on each other, covert channel analysis of entire system, secure repo's containing these artifacts w/ secure transfer to users, and option to re-run the analyses or rebuild the kernel themselves for independent replication.

Each of these techniques found or prevented many vulnerabilities in systems they were applied to. They even became mandatory requirements under the first, security certification: the TCSEC. Trusted Xenix in 1990 used some of them for that reason. Unlike often-bypassed mitigations, each of these methods still work today. Some work even better due to tooling improvements. The BSD's are largely ignoring these methods to maintain legacy compatibility with insecure architecture, unsafe code, and configuration scripts that can be just as risky. Unsurprising given early attempts at applying strong methods to UNIX, like UCLA Secure UNIX, showed the UNIX design had covert channels and such built in. You couldn't fully secure a UNIX without breaking legacy compatibility in lots of ways on top of a significant performance hit from memory safety and context switching. Led high-security projects to just virtualize UNIX/Linux on top of secure, isolation kernel. Projects that are attempting to follow some of these lessons in low-privilege architecture or language use include GenodeOS, Muen separation kernel, seL4, JX OS, and ExpressOS for mobile. EROS was an interesting older one that added persistence on top of capability-based kernel.

I figure someone should mention the methods that stopped NSA's hackers in various evaluations since they're strangely not on the list.
5 Reasons Most New Venture Creators Need a Co-Founder
The crypto bank that puts deposits to work can pay interest. The 100% reserve bank can’t. That’s how it competes.

Consumers will use it because they already use banks without 100% reserves such as Bank of America, HSBC, any current bank in the banking system...
Actually, yes. I think most of this email is far preferable.
https://data-artisans.com/blog/dellemc-launches-open-source-...