skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This pattern is how I wrote the SDE solver in Python. That works great and is really useful and the reason why I teach closures.

The library we're building now though does something different. Something like this:

def network_rhs(fs, Network)
def rhs(y,t)
y2 = np.dot(Network, y)
r = empty_like(y)
for i, f in enumerate(fs):
r[i] = f(y2[i])
return r
return rhs

> what did you run into that was problematic?

For more complex model building the right hand side functions actually make use of fairly complex class hierarchies. That was the major stumbling block. But people also were using dictionaries and other non-numpy data structures and just generally idiomatic Python that is not always supported. Some of that stuff is inherently slow/bad design of course, but it still ended up killing the use of my solver for this project.

They are now rewriting in C++, which is absolutely a great choice for their case (and probably would have been viable for us too if we had had more people with a C/C++ background in the team).

> passing @numba.jit'd functions to scipy is in the Numba guide

I wanted to use scipy.root from numba. Not the other way around.

Now if all of the numerical Python community was standardized on numba, a lot of this would not be an issue. Scipys LowLevelCallable is a great step in the right direction. But fundamentally I don't see how you will ever get the different libraries to play together nicely in a performant way. It would require every API to expose numba jitable functions. Last I checked, the only functions you could call from within numba code were other numba functions and the handful of numpy features the numba authors implemented themselves (I remember waiting for dot and inv support). If I have an algorithm by a student implemented on a networkx graph as a data structure I can't just jit that. In Julia it automatically is.
> I can install whatever I want on my PC and I like it that way.

True on Android, too. And both platforms have OS vendor app stores.
For realistic impression we would need low-latency 8k displays per eye. I can't see it done with current or next gen phones.
Brazilian here as well. We have all those problems because there is a lack of opportunity for real growth. Most violence in the country is economically motivated (muggings and carjackings). Under the last three administrations, the government focused on handouts instead of investing in infrastructure (rail, ports, etc.). The handouts got so bad with no additional revenue that the government was becoming insolvent and the rating agencies downgraded the country. The first downgrade was a shot across the bow, but when the second downgrade happened, many international institutional investors had a legal requirement to liquidate their investments and vacate the country. At that point investments dried up and growth slowed to a crawl.

The PT is a cancer in the country and has set the country back 10-20 years at least.
I understand that it could reduce your security to the level of one-factor authentication. That's really easy to do. It is not reducing the security below what one-factor authentication provides, like the OP argued it did.
Pony lang says 1/0=0

I say neigh (sorry if you didn't catch that joke, I'm a little horse).

If x/0 =0 then, since division is inverse of multiplication x= 0*0 this fails to hold for any x not 0

But the story says there is no defined multiplicative inverse of zero (undefined) so that they are free to choose any value they want. And they choose 0.

This is unsatisfactory to me because it seems to break the intuitive pattern of x/n getting larger as n approaches zero from the positives. 1/4 .25< 1/3 .33 < 1/2 .5 < 1/1 1 >1/0 0 >1/-1 -1 < 1/-2 -.5 < 1/-3 -.333

You see that sign flip thingy happening around 1/0?

Maybe I am misunderstanding.
Netflix’s Travelers Has the Most Ethically Messed-Up Time Travel I’ve Ever Seen
A wrapped types library with the corresponding performance tradeoff is something I expect will be added to Pony at some point. There's definitely value in them for a variety of use cases.
Actually, bar/foo STILL has a gotcha which can throw exception, many developers doesn't think of this.

Just try INT_MIN/-1, can blow most "foolproof" divide logic away.
There is a deep result stating that for a field F there are only three possibilities for what the dimension of its algebraic closure can be as an F-vector space: it can be 1, if F is algebraically closed, it can be 2, as happens for R and other real closed fields, or it can be infinite, as it happens for Q, but there is no other option!
You missed the part where he defines division as a/c = a * inverse(c) for all c != 0
Let f(x) = 1/x, then (from a mathematician’s perspective) the limit of f(x) as x->0 doesn’t converge and is representeted as being infinite, definitely not zero.

As the denominator gets smaller, the result is bigger and bigger and bigger. The closer the denominator gets to zero the larger the result. Why would we want to pick an answer that is small when instead it should be larger than any number?

One might argue that 1/0 should be MAXINT or IEEE 754 plus infinity due to the limitations of our hardware, but I’ve never wanted 1/0 to result in zero in any program I’ve ever written.

I would prefer that it be treated as an error or possibly some reserved value that behaves like INF while still being an integer in the programming language.
ConsumerReports.com is reliable.

TheWireCutter.com is reasonably reliable and are up-front about their use of affiliate links.

At least some of the mainstream consumer periodicals are reasonably reliable, like PC World and MacWorld.

You could do a MetaFilter-like combination of those review sites.

But Amazon.com is notoriously unreliable for reviews. As is most any other e-commerce platform or shopping site with integrated reviews.
They're arguing about whether it's Paul Graham but I need to read a lot of comments to determine whether that's the consensus or it's a joke.
To follow one of the more common patterns for identifying a class of functions, it could have been named after one of the early pioneers in the field. But yeah, it would be hard to do worse than random variable, which is illogical and misleading.

I found this doc on the origins of the name (author also agrees it's terrible): http://www.glennshafer.com/assets/downloads/talks164_The-inv...

Sounds like it got mangled as work was being translated back and forth between Russian, English, French, and German.
Anything can be made to suit an agenda when taken out of context.

I read the tweet before reading the article. And I understood his intent of the word "attack" immediately.
I had a friend in São Paulo that was mugged twice in the same day.
Apologies, I realise my comment was a bit snarky. Pony looks like a really neat language: I'll be interested to see what you do with it.

Unfortunately LLVM considers division overflow undefined:
http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#id109

If it's any use, you can see what Julia ended up doing here:
https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/8188
The JPEG committee is “exploring Blockchain” – to put DRM into JPEG
A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence [pdf]
Three years ago, when I found out about Julia (and quickly fell in love with the language), I not happy at all about the 1-based indices and column-major storage, and at the time, a lot of the responses I got were along the lines of "Julia is for mathematicians, and 1-based indexing and column major are just fine for us". Now, Julia is able to have indices with any base that you want, and can handle row-major storage as well (thanks to Tim Holy's great work). Why is anybody concerned about this anymore? Julia can do whatever you want, you shouldn't be stuck with languages that can ONLY do 0-based indexing.
This is such a ridiculous idea that would work very well, because we're talking about addicts (and ignoring the possible moral hazard - government giving a drug out).

No intervention is going to motivate a dope-sick zombie to get to a hospital as much as the promise of being relieved of it - "can I talk you into coming in for counseling? there's going to be heroin and a nurse with steady hands."

And you entirely cut off the illegal sales market, because the government is never going to provide this service to a non-addict - there's no price at which a dealer survives this market and sells to your kid.

An addict should prefer it to the black market, because they don't have to worry about a fentanyl overdose.

If addicts are being produced out of legal opioids and switching to heroin, then this catches them before they are entirely beyond help.

All in all, this is excellent fiscally as well, because it prevents money flowing out in the dark out of the country (instead, legal imports to doctors) - and possibly, cheaper than ambulances every other week until the inevitable happens.
Give me a break ...
But the point is you keep the structure of a field for everything that already has it, right? No structure is taken away. All statements valid on any subset of the reals are still valid without modification under this new definition. The algebraic structure is still a field obeying the same axioms. There are just some new valid statements too.
He didn't cover that in the article, or at least not in a way that actually supports his point. Since there is no multiplicative inverse of 0, division by 0 is undefined behavior. Trying to remediate that by refuting the "proof" that it's undefined while still asserting that we can define it as something else is mathematically incoherent.

If you want to see why it doesn't work from a number of different angles, read through the /r/math thread[1] or the Wolfram MathWorld blurb [2].

The formal problem comes down to one of uniqueness of elements. If you define division by zero in a field, you must end up in a place where it follows that every element is equal to every element. Then you only have one element - 0. So really we should be stating that division by zero is undefined behavior in fields with at least one nonzero element.

But again - we can neatly sidestep all of this, because trying to defend your choice of undefined behavior in a programming language based on the abstractions of field axioms is silly. In the actual world we don't even deal with real numbers computationally, let alone the particular nuances of whether or not our programming language implements number systems composing a field or any other algebraic structure.

__________________________

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/3b5i6p/can_you_divide...

2. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DivisionbyZero.html
> programmers write programs to solve real problems, and real problems define 1/0=undefined

Saying that is easy and common. Can you come up with a contrived example?
> Ext4 is still supported, just not with encryption.

It's a terrible idea to not turn on hard drive encryption. Anyone who gets their hands on the machine can read and write to the drive by booting it with a thumb drive.
For me the biggest game changer with vue-cli 3 is the inbuilt multi page support (not sure if it was present before). Rarely have I encountered any apps with a single page and this used to require all sorts of hacks before. But now it is as simple as adding a 'pages' entry in vue.config.js
More "pervasively" than merely typically. The x87 registers still exist in a technical sense, but except for compatibility in legacy binaries those instructions are never used.
Hi I'm on the Pony core team and spent some time explaining the reasoning to Hillel. He hasn't written any Pony but I did walk him through how we ended up where we currently are.

I will be writing up a post about why we made this decision.
I worked as a seasonal firefighter for 6 years as I paid my way through college, at the time it was called California Dept. of Forestry (CDF) now California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection (or Cal Fire). I worked alongside the very hardworking inmate handcrews many times, their work like mine was difficult and risky yet we both chose to be there.

I made great money for my skill/expertise at the time, there isn't much I could have done with my summers that would have benefited me more, so there was a strong incentive for me to go back every summer, even given the inherent risks. I think an argument could be made that for many inmates, the benefit of a reduced sentence is similarly worth the risk, the payout in accrued daily/hourly time is just another bonus.

The article mentions not being able to be employed as a firefighter once they are released. This is (or at least was) false, there is (was) no requirement for an EMT and I personally worked with a former inmate as a firefighter and he's a captain now. I've talked to these guys/gals several times and they were all very happy and proud to be there, they had to be on their best behavior to stay and it was certainly a privilege for them.

Seriously though, these guys/gals work HARD! They are called handcrews because they use hand tools (chainsaws, axes, Pulaskis, McLeods, etc.) to cut fireline, this is by far the hardest thing I have ever done and they do it for hours in hot and smokey conditions. When we would see an inmate crew coming, it made our day and we were all very thankful for them.

Note, my hourly pay wasn't actually great, but during fires I racked up tons of overtime. It probably isn't too much different than locking an McDonald's employee in for weeks at a time, but having to pay them for the entire time they were there.
> The whole problem is one of formalization. "Undefined", as it's used in mathematics, is very much informal. It is used to say that a certain expression, 1/0, while "grammatically" correct, is meaningless. Formal systems simply cannot do that: the expression 1/0 must either be ill-formed (can be done with dependent types but is often inconvenient) or it must mean something in the semantic domain of the language. Different formal system define what that something is, but whatever it is, it is no longer "undefined" in the informal sense.

We're substantially in agreement here. This circles back to my core thesis - there is no point in defending the implementation of something mathematically undefined in a programming language by retreating to the formal axioms of fields (or any other algebraic structure, for that matter).

Your other point about 1/0 = x for whatever you'd like x to be is something I mentioned in my comment. The extended real number system does something similar by defining arithmetic of positive and negative infinities. But the extended real number system is not a field. It's a fine and useful system, but you insert pathologies into the real field by trying to accept infinity as a real number. Likewise if you want 1/0 to be equal 42, that's fine. But you're going to "infect" everything that 42 touches in the process. You won't compromise arithmetic, but you will compromise the definition of a field.

What I'm getting at is that 1) mathematically speaking, the author's entire preamble about division by 0 is both incorrect and irrelevant, 2) we should not be trying to justify implementation behavior in systems which cannot use real numbers through the wizardry of field theorems.
How about FlatBuffers, making the file format and in-memory format one and the same?

https://google.github.io/flatbuffers/
I didn't take it as snarky. I was genuinely surprised. Thank you. If you intended it to be snarky, I didn't notice.

And thank you for the additional info, I've updated the issue I opened accordingly:

https://github.com/ponylang/ponyc/issues/2858
Krypt.co looks pretty nice, I have a Yubikey and andOTP but I hate either getting up to fetch the hardware key or fumbling about for the right TOTP code, so the soft-approve by Krypton looks like the most convenient option, and reasonably secure, to boot.
Building a better README
The problem is, protobuf isn't just a serialization protocol, it's also a bunch of generated model code you have to start using in your application. You don't just serialize your domain model to protobuf, you tell protoc to build you some classes that become your model.

Which means if you aren't careful, you can't easily move to anything else for serialization, ever again. Your code now uses protobuf-specific objects everywhere, because that's what protobuf encourages. I'm currently in a codebase where countless method signatures (which should be serialization-agnostic) take or return `Message`-derived objects because, that's what we get when we read in a request or emit a response, and using those types everywhere was just so tempting.

And now, we have new requirements that introduce some dynamism to our data model, in a way protobuf doesn't provide, so we're trying to move away from protobuf, and it's turning out to require a rewrite of practically everything because these protobuf classes are our data model, so everything depends on them.

What I've come to prefer is for serialization to be implemented a the boundaries of your service, with your models at least somewhat isolated from any given serialization technique. Protobuf is a foot-gun here because it blends these roles in a way that's hard to get away from.
I choose to judge people by their actions. Their actions are not up for debate. They are working against the US military and law enforcement community through their actions, while the American born Bezos is impartial in assisting US government. That's a huge difference and will be attributed to their national origin by many American born citizens. Those two CEOs are not be eligible to run our country as president under the constitution, but they are running two of our most powerful institutions as president and using those institutions to weaken US military readiness. At some point soon, this becomes a national security matter.
Brazil is the example I use to explain to people why I'm in favor of the 2nd amendment and Stand Your Ground laws.

When owning a gun is criminal, only criminals will have guns and everyone else will be unable to defend themselves. If ordinary citizens had guns, at least in their own home, the criminals would think twice about breaking and entering because they won't know which homes are armed.
Um, it was known at least as far back as the AMD K5 (which has something like 300+ bits of Pi) that argument reduction on x86 didn't have enough bits of Pi.
I compromise your SMS. I initiate password recovery, and tell Vanguard "I forgot my password -- but look! It's still me! I can receive SMS challenges!"
At some point you hit the cap of what people can possibly spend.

Depressed earnings in all but a tiny sector, and incredibly inflated house prices.

Perpetual growth is unsustainable in this manner, but is expected by investors.

I hope the market corrects. Not for my sake (I live in Sweden and have no US desires) but for those who hope to have a life and family near their ancestral home.

I am not preaching to the choir of HN, people on this site generally have it a lot better than the people who also live in the places that are huge tech hubs.
Running Linux without encrypting the drive is a big security risk. Anyone who can get their hands on the machine has full read and write access to the hard drive by booting with a thumb drive. Any company that uses Dropbox for Business and has employees who use Linux will be putting a security hole in their business if they decrypt their hard drives in order to use Dropbox. (Possibly including Dropbox, if any of their employees use Linux.)
Not questioning your story a bit, I'm sure it's true. But shouldn't we all be a little concerned that CNN is posting a story as fact without verification or even talking to the person making the claims? The article even implies heavily that they've talked to you.

That scares me.
I agree with you. I think the observations in the Medium post are more apt about newcomers to the Stack Overflow platform than about minorities and women per se.
I’m not clear on why you being the author is supposed to matter. There’s a direct, unambiguous quote (of your own writing) that disagrees with what you are saying here. I don’t care who wrote it, only that your opinions here in the comments are not consistent with the actual linked post.

Authors can have inconsistent opinions, and can sometimes try to retroactively reinterpret something they wrote to serve a different purpose later on. That is happening here. It’s not a big deal; I’m just saying for this reason I don’t agree with your claims about my comments, nor your overall comments about numba (even after re-reading your link and comments and deliberately reflecting on them).
It should be true for every y that is allowed in the denominator.

That is how fractions are handled in higher math. (Either called "localization" or "ring of fractions").
Monsanto ordered to pay $289M in California Roundup cancer trial
I say that while the issues described in the article are real and not unimportant, I got triggered by the offendedness and the virtue signalling of it all.

For one, it's a text based medium. I find it unlikely that people can express their racism and misogyny when people are primarily identified by username and an abstract icon. But OK, all answers and questions are written in a context, and generalisations might be made that might be detectable. But truly "offended"? I think not.

There is a tension between being a tool for professionals or a helping community for beginners - and yes, the balance was initially very skewed, but not so much any more.

I also find the writing style with terse questions in FAQ-style (no K TXH BYE) kind of refreshing, actually.
Nope, I'd disagree. Zero isn't an approximation of some epsilon, it's really just zero. It makes sense for the output sign to match the input sign.
Sigh. Okay let me rephrase. The thing normally called "privilege escalation", where software that is executing on a machine escapes a sandbox or gets into kernel mode, is not a problem on ATMs.

That page is talking about pressing keys to exploit software flaws in already-privileged software, which is an extremely separate topic.
D2 receptors are undoubtedly tied to many forms of psychosis, but their being the root cause is not yet proven.
Abstract "censorship" always has a concrete and more purposeful justification. And that justification is always aligned with the rules of the time, or said censorship could not have happened. So it's not particularly enlightening to follow the logic of that justification!

This obviously only could have occurred because it made sense in Google land. So yes, no meaningful discussion can happen with someone who insists on that paradigm, just like no meaningful discussion can occur with Google itself - it followed its rules, and therefore acted correctly.

Back to the big picture (and putting aside whether Portugal's block list is itself censorship). Here we've got a Free app which advocates breaking the law - essentially political speech analogous to a poster advocating ways of dodging the draft. And it has been made significantly harder to obtain, due to the deliberate choice of a powerful organization. Yes this does certainly sound like censorship to me!

Not that there's much legal remedy, or seemingly even a public-relations-based one any more. So really it's that for those of us who believe in the Internet (ie unfettered end to end communications), but perhaps have been giving Google a MITM-pass due to technological constraints, this is just another example for why we need to collectively wise up and get the fuck away from Google.
Misleading label from HN - article is amp from Market Watch, not actually google.com.

Ideally, HN would point at the original.

Personally, my phone Adblock prevents google from spying on my traffic in general, but these cached amp links get tracked by google.
Intervals in interval arithmetic can rapidly go to infinity even when the problem is relatively well behaved (in matrix inversion, for example) and standard floating point arithmetic produces a useful answer.
That's a SMS password reset mechanism, e.g. one-factor authentication, not two-factor authentication.