skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You've broken the site guidelines, which ask: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work."

You also broke the one that asks commenters not to be snarky. Even if you're 100% right, that's no reason to be a jerk; in fact it does double harm because now you've discredited the truth.

Please don't post like this to Hacker News.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I would argue it isn’t even valid. Words have meaning in context, not isolation. There were lots of examples of words misused from their most exact dictionary definition given in this thread, which I’ll leave as an exercise to scroll up if you want to read. This was instead a pointless pedantic rant by a few folks.
Honest question. What is so annoying about that code? It's handling (in an application-specific manner) the special case of dividing by zero (which the `/` operator doesn't handle). I'm not sure of any other way to handle this.
It's already against the site guidelines, as I pointed out at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17740980.
Glyphosate and Roundup are poisons and Monsanto pretty much knows it. Let me give you a few facts and a bit of history to make my case.

There has been a lot of studies about Glyphosate nocivity around the years, but the three most significant are the ones led by the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

The controversy began with a report published by the IARC, an intergovernmental agency under the authority of the WHO of the United Nations. According to this report, the carcinogenicity of Glyphosate is 'probable'.

This result was contradicted in November 2015 by a study published by the EFSA. In the face of uncertainty, many Member States refused to renew the authorization of Glyphosate, which was due to expire on 30 June 2016. Pending a new study, this time by the ECHA, the European Commission has only extended the product's registration until 15 December 2017.

This new study was published in March 2017. Like EFSA, it rejects the potential carcinogenicity of Glyphosate.

However, the potential dangerousness of Glyphosate is not ruled out. But why you asked, my good friend?

As many scientists, NGOs and politicians denounce, the IARC, EFSA and ECHA reports are not comparable. While the first one decides on marketed products, such as Roundup, the other two only study Glyphosate alone, without the adjuvants that reinforce its effects. Moreover, when IARC bases its analysis on public studies, EFSA and ECHA work mainly on data directly transmitted by industry, including Monsanto, which would make their conclusions questionable.

Yes, two of the most cited studies saying Glyphosate and Roundup are safe use data directly gave by Monsanto itself! And wait, there is more...

Christopher Portier, an American scientist, denounces those facts in an open letter sent on 29 May 2017 to Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, and relayed by numerous media. "Both EFSA and ECHA have failed to identify all statistically significant cases of increased cancer incidence in rodent studies," he writes. He also states that, using Monsato own data, he has detected "eight cases of significant increase in the incidence of different tumors", which appear in neither of the two publications. Mr Portier therefore 'respectfully' asks EFSA and ECHA to 'conduct their own analysis' and 'amend their conclusions accordingly'. To base his results, the American researcher relied on data used and published by EFSA, which until now had remained confidential.

If you still do not believe that, at least, the precautionary principle should apply here and that both Roundup and Glyphosate should be banned, I don't know what you need.

Sources:

https://www.touteleurope.eu/actualite/pourquoi-le-Glyphosate...

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
The people running Monsanto are buffered - if not always protected entirely - by numerous laws from facing the consequences of their actions, precisely because they take those actions in the context of a corporate entity.

If I poison my neighbour and I'm caught, I'm going to jail. (In the US I may face the death penalty.)

If I'm working inside a corporate and my decisions poison [unknown power of ten] people and cause [unknown but significant] number of serious and possibly fatal illnesses, I am protected by the profit motive - possibly forever, and in the best case until such time as there's a legal case which the corporate loses, and then loses again, definitively, on appeal.

This is not hypothetical. There are many historical examples - not least the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industries, the car industry, and many, many more.

It's a curious situation, and not a very satisfactory one.

We really should not be allowing the pursuit of profit as an excuse for collectively harmful activities.
Grokking Elixir
I thought you were Stefan Esser (https://twitter.com/i0n1c) for a sec
Lehman looks hard at taking firm private (2008)
It's striking given the housing shortage and homeless problems how quickly things could be improved just by giving permission to build stuff.
Thanks for the reply. Good points to check out.
Short sellers artificially devalue Tesla’s price (and many companies that ate shorted) and thats part of the game. Tesla is actually structured as a financial company, especially with SCTY being combined. The easiest way to destabalize a financial company is destroy counterparty trust. There was a video about the Tesla shorts doing this to other smaller less well known firms. Both media blitzs by Shorts and Musk are questionable but thats how it works.
Police in Germany rescue man being chased by baby squirrel
Then you lose some security though, because I think Heroku uses large IPs ranges [1]. There seems to be no way to allow database access from a private IP address, other than using expensive proxying addons. That means you probably have to open up your database to 0.0.0.0/0, which is not good at all.

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15512360/get-a-finite-li...
You may not be able to afford an attorney willing or able to face down David Boies or whatever landshark the publisher suing you hired. Settling may be your only feasible option.
Grid tells boxes where to go. Flex tells content how to take up space.

Technically the window is a box with content, and technically your content can be split into a grid of boxes, so grid and flex can kind of do each other's jobs if you force them. But if your content isn't really boxes or your grid is really content, consider using the other.
Thanks for pasting it as normal text. Code style for textual content is especially bad on mobile.
Performance. Concurrency. In Google/Kotlins case compatibility with existing Android APIs and a very low adoption cost.
Bulma is my go to css framework these days, after semantic ui and bootstrap before that, mainly because no jquery/js dependence.
I've seen seagulls break mollusks that way too.
If you check out http://jonls.dk/redshift/ you will note that they provide a sample configuration in what appears to be toml where each option is annotated example

; Global settings for redshift
[redshift]
; Set the day and night screen temperatures
temp-day=5700
temp-night=3500

There are all of 9 settings in the default config with lots of explanations.

The level of challenge required to copy some text into a text file with the syntax

[section]
settingname=value

and change the values relevant to you is very modest.

People are prone to overestimate the difficulty of anything without a gui in fact its often like this.

Incidentally there appear to be a number of different guis for example on kde you could use

https://phabricator.kde.org/source/plasma-redshift-control/

To see the how this looks see

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/widgets-linux-plasma-applets/

This post sums of peoples misperception of linux perfectly.
Devil's advocate: IANAL but my understanding is that the kind of safe harbors that exist in other areas of IP law, e.g. that network providers are not responsible for copyright violations, either do not apply to export controls or have not been subject to sufficient legal review to establish a precedent that would protect Google from export control liability from software that is hosted by customers on their infrastructure where the customer has not undertaken the necessary measures to implement the export controls required by law.

If you think the law is unjust, then target the law, don't target the companies which err on the side of legal caution. After all, certainly we'd prefer for companies to err on the side of regulators in many other cases...
I took classes with Doug Comer in college and I also maintained part of the Xinu lab while I was at Purdue. Great to see the impact it has had on OS education outside of Purdue!
Software is licensed, not sold. Generally speaking if the license indicates it's nontransferable (which it almost always does), the software is not subject to first-sale doctrine and is illegal to sell.
Does this work on macOS? The source code seems to be including X11 headers, so I guess it would require XQuartz or something to make it work? Has anyone got sct to work on macOS?

Redshift works just fine on macOS. I've been using it and I like it more than f.lux because one can write scripts around it.
Absolutely that was a possibility, but felt Bulma was a cleaner approach.
The thinking is that right now no one knows what the best API model for this should be. But, they do know that if the drivers today expose low-level features intended for ray-tracing, those features will be locked-in to be supported for ever and ever. After some real-world experience has been built up it will make sense to open up the model.
With how fast stuff frameworks and libraries are becoming old/invalid we are all fooling ourselves if we think code we are writing today won’t be looked at with some disdain 5+ years from now.
My current project at work is transitioning a backbone app > react. The app was originally jquery and a team before me moved the whole thing to backbone. There are comments throughout about how good the B.B. stuff is, how solid this new architecture will be. Now I am here three years later replacing it, with no illusions about the longevity of what I am writing.
Upon reflection, that is truly a great analysis! I just read Larry Sanger's Everipedia proposal, and believe that the concept of trust revocation would be a useful addition.

Would you be interested in fleshing it out as an Everipedia page? If you're not editing Everipedia yet, I can help you with that. Anonymously,if you like. Or I could write the page, with your permission and perhaps input.
The pilot example probably isn't the best one.If a plane with that design was nonetheless deemed airworthy by the FAA, pilots would absolutely be expected to know the correct operating procedures for that plane.

Look at the "unusual" choice of averaging inputs from the pilot and co-pilot that helped lead to AF 447. It's very reasonable to argue it's bad design, but it was the responsibility of the pilots to know how it worked.
which software engineers (at least in the US) do not yet have

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair
I think saying that “f x” is in any sense more mathematical than “f(x)” is stupid. Ask a mathematician and you may find they prefer “fx”, “f(x)”, “f[x]”, “xf”, “f.x”, “x.f” (does this make oop mathematical then?), or something else entirely. Perhaps they just write f and never mention x.

Using lots of operators is certainly something that could be seen as more mathematical but then I guess that makes APL much more mathematical than Haskell and ocaml and c++ and perl combined. I don’t think that counts as mathematical but it is a difference of style.

For specifying signatures this is surely a style thing. In type theory, types are normally put right next to the values and so in this respect Haskell and ocaml are not mathematical. I say this is a style thing as one can write types separately from variables, next to them, or not at all.

For “types not being a namespace” I’ll give you that criticism for Haskell (but also for C) and maybe for ocaml but recall the common idiom of calling all types “t” and putting them in their own modules with relevant functions. I don’t see how this is more mathematical.

My general complaint is that these aren’t differences on a more/less “mathematical” spectrum. The only mathematical things are that ocaml/Haskell are closer to lots of the fashionable PLT research than C and that research is certainly mathematical. Also Haskell people tend to fetishise category theory and abstract algebra so lots of the code that’s written is sort-of mathematical. Haskell also suffers from readability problems mainly due to the people who write Haskell and what they like rather than the language itself.
I agree with you, but I wonder how much of (imo tiresome) antics are part of an intentional strategy. Deserved or not, Musk has an enormous fanbase because of his showmanship/public persona/whatever. My hunch is that this is net positive among Tesla's potential customers and probably has been net positive in terms of attracting capital as well.

The latter is becoming somewhat more debatable lately though given Musk's somewhat erratic behavior I think. Personally as an investor, Musk's behavior looks uncomfortably to me like how Enron's CEO was behaving near the end (though I would object to any other serious comparisons between Enron and Tesla as businesses).
I think that's because for most applications where bodily harm is a possibility you generally (in my experience) have hardware protections that will prevent the software from doing anything stupid. Take an elevator for instance, even if the software controller is bugged (or hacked) and decides that it should drop the cabin from the top floor to the ground level at full speed there are hardware protections (security brakes, limitations on the engine itself etc...) that will take over and make sure nobody gets hurt. Therefore in order for something to go completely wrong you need both a software and hardware failure. The main flaw in Therac-25 was arguably that no such protection was present, the hardware should have been designed in order to make the bogus configuration impossible to achieve solely in software.

I think unfortunately this is going to change with the advent of "AI" and related technologies, such as autonomous driving (we've already had a few cases related to self-driving cars after all). When the total enumerable set of possible configurations become too great to exhaustively "whitelist" we won't be able to have foolproof hardware designs anymore. In these situations software bugs can be absolutely devastating.
Airports where TSA doesn't have you remove liquids from you bag
What's your Redshift setting for daytime?

Do you or anyone else have a third setting for bedtime like f.lux has (say for 1 or 2 hours prior to bedtime)? If yes, how do you simulate this third setting and how do transition smoothly from the evening setting to the bedtime setting?
I have DeathRallyWin_10.exe lying around from 2011, and those hashes match mine.
... or by scrapping the permitting mechanism altogether
"Hanging chads were a result of a previous rush to faulty technology."

Not quite.

The hanging chads happened because those election administrators didn't follow procedures and simply clean out the machines (turn over, shake vigorously), allowing the wells to fill up with chads, preventing new votes.

Otherwise punch card ballot tabulation is rather robust and reliable.
I do, because they are full of nonsense, and I am like a moth to the buglight with that kind of thing.
This is a good summary of a large portion of code written in academia. "Didn't know how to program," "wrote it for myself," and "just trying to get a result." I've heard that a billion times. Not such a big deal if it's just for yourself and not shared with the world. Unfortunately in larger academic collaborations these mentalities end up slowing down research more than enabling it. (And if you intend on making your research public, the "collaboration" should be seen as anyone who views your github.)

Academics are great at finding "local optima," but rarely do they see beyond their next result, and then others have the onerous task of trying to verify the previous results or worse still using the previous work to build towards "larger" results.
great tear down, thanks
Just because you’re a developer doesn’t mean you want to dick around with everything much less blogging. The stereotype is obnoxious.

Developers use Medium for the same reasons other people do.
I’m from California and am also a (former) tax lawyer. There is a limited ability to inherit property tax basis. It only applies to children (or grandchildren, if all children are deceased at the time of the grandparent’s death).

It can’t be used to pass off property whenever you wish — only when you die. Given how long people generally live, this means that the people inheriting properties are usually already homeowners themselves, and in many cases already senior citizens.
Are you sure about that whole "buffer" argument? Can you back it up with sources? I'm not sure that's correct.
Fulfill: Safer, more cosmopolitan string interpolation
Those languages dont have many of the features that both apple and google were going for when creating these languages, so why would they use them? For example, python isnt statically typed, nor is it typically compiled. Can you do these things? Yes. But it isnt the normal way its done, and is bolted on as an afterthought. This is just a superficial example but it goes much deeper. They have a set of needs and these languages fulfill them. Google didnt even make Kotlin, so why is that ego?
There are billions in fines of evidence that they don't care about the law and are willing to ignore it as long it benefits them. They are "legally cautious" purely strategically.
> But it can't decrease brightness

Who said that? You can always decrease brightness on a Linux laptop since the first gnome, I myself have gnome3 installed on 2 laptops and the brightness buttons are working perfectly fine.
The jury system might have had this power in the past, before plea deals et cetera
Dementia-friendly music player
No. The contextual interpretation says that the above-mentioned study doesn't prove Roundup is harmful because the same results would be observed with any detergent, to which we are regularly exposed without suffering any harm.

Therefore, Roundup might or might not be harmful, but the study doesn't tell us much about it.
Doom Eternal looks to be a good followup as well.
I think this only applies where people have even heard of OCaml, Lisp, Paul Graham...etc. Most people will just think you're the crazy person off in left-field and not respect you for looking outside the box. Of course your mileage will vary. I think you have to remember that the average dev just thinks of software as a job, while someone on HN gets into the theory and philosophy of coding.
This is approximately where I land on this. The privacy of employees takes a back seat, way in the back, behind the luggage, to the privacy of the information customers vouchsafe with the company. So, I'm always a bit itchy about moralizing against employee surveillance (in technology I mean, not, like, whether Walmart shift workers take too many breaks!).
Secure Programming Practices in C++ – Patricia Aas
The hottest new board games from Gen Con 2018
Integrating Physical Devices with IOTA – Using RFID with IOTA
You've made a couple of points here.

With regard to the Pizzagate incident, using the same set of arguments, I can claim that fringe leftist publications resulted in the Congressional baseball shooting where people were actually hurt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh...

So are you arguing that all those groups he participated in should be banned? That's what it sounds like.

Are you willing to ban Bernie for incitement?

> It is rather audacious to me that you seem to assert that speech in social platforms that are owned and operated in the US with US citizens talking to each other is somehow separate from the rule of law of the US government. The internet was essentially created by the US government. The notion that internet companies somehow supersede individual governments is- dangerous.

It is not the job of private companies to enforce the law. That's the government's job. And there's a reason for that. You do not get to be judge, jury, and executioner because you have some superiority complex.

If the government took action, we can have a substantive discussion over the merits of the case ... but it's irrelevant, because they didn't.

> The decision of social platforms to enforce their policies in this matter is in part in response to the will of their stakeholders, but also to insulate themselves from anything remotely close to being a party to defamation.

It doesn't matter what reason they had for doing it. They may not even have had a reason. It is their right to do it ... but just because you can, doesn't mean you should. That was my point. It's a poor decision.

> If you've gotten this far in this thread, please spend some time with Alex Jones' greatest hits and give me your honest opinion of its merit.

What merit does the WWE ( https://www.wwe.com/ ) have?

He's the equivalent in the talk show space. It's entertainment.

Do some people take it seriously? I'm sure they do. Some people take the WWE seriously too and think that it's real. So what?

Even if the content has no merit whatsoever, so what? Again, we're not talking about the government censoring him. That's when merit would come into play. It's a private party.

They can absolutely do it. And they shouldn't, because censorship is bad. Really, really bad.

And let's not pretend like their censorship is targeted at only undesirables. Well, I suppose it is, but it depends on who is pointing the finger. These same shitty companies censor perfectly legitimate content in China, because $$$. Not cool.

All these private companies that banned him, they all categorize content. They can easily have a nutjob category and if I want to watch that, it's my business. I don't need the social engineering, thanks.

Also, social engineering usually backfires. I hear Alex Jones has a really popular app and website now due to all the publicity?
Small Dogs Aim High When They Pee
Nothing stops someone from spinning up a Heroku bash terminal and trying to access your internal DB either so it’s not markedly worse than pure Heroku.
Yeah, even at the Amazon tier level nobody is looking for jobs by looking at language expertise...they're looking at algorithms and system design ability. They probably dont' care about what languages you already know.
Multicore has been around the corner for years if i recall correctly.
> a good law firm could probably make something out of it

But that's what I'm saying. If there is a possibility of legal action there will be enough legal bureaucracy to make sure there is something to show in court and avoid responsibility, but not to actually address the problem.
4 oranges * 700 people = 2800

add some buffer oranges

Try to do all the squeezing within an hour, as buffer on time.

3000 oranges / 60 minutes = 50 oranges per minute to process

Using a standing orange press - chop orange in half. Put halve into press, push press down, open it up, pop orange out. repeat.

So perhaps 1 orange every 5 seconds. (Batch cut a bunch up initially). Approx 12 oranges a minute, lets say 10 oranges a minute for an employee.

So 5 employees can press 50 oranges a minute.

Add an extra employee as buffer.

So 3000 oranges, 1 hour, and 6 employees.
Blind Loyalty/How a social network is redefining the future of corporate culture
Google didn't write Kotlin. Maybe they're aiming for glory with Go or Dart, but their adoption of Kotlin feels much more like humility than ego-ism to me.