skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
When making something new where you're not sure of the value yet, I've found that you can get 80% of the benefits of unit tests with around 20% of the tests you'd write to get "full coverage."

My main goal is to at least have the code run in an expected way and produce an expected result. This doesn't catch everything, but it does seem to catch enough problems to be worth it for the time invested.

Edit: I should mention that I also add tests to cover something when I experience a failure, so it at least won't happen again.
Mine do.
Yes, Chrome 69 has a bug with Kerberos:

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=872665
I mean it's an April fools joke. But considering the fact that it's on a public road, and easily accessible, there may be an argument there. Like I'm allowed to hit crossing buttons, and all that equipment is owned by the city, and powered by their electricity.

Point is there is probably no law on the books making it illegal, it's perfectly reasonable for a citizen to assume (after reading the law; consulting with a lawyer) that they are allowed to do that because no one said otherwise (as long as they are safe about it). It's not like the law explicitly makes hitting crossing buttons legal.

But the city probably would pass an ordnance pretty quickly. That part is definitely wrong.
> while foo.com and www.foo.com are controlled by the same people

Sometimes. Far from always.

In some environments, `www` may be under an entirely different administrative domain, with lesser authority than the top level domain which is delegating web services to the `www` group by way of creating a dns record and/or adding an http(s) redirect to the parent domain.

Having some string values arbitrarily considered trivial is dangerous.

See:
lbl.gov has address 128.3.41.146
vs
www.lbl.gov has address 35.196.135.136

The root domain points to hosts at the lab. The subdomain has been delegated off to Google.
The obvious difference is that that's higher up in the hierarchy rather than lower in it. www.example.com and example.com are controlled by the same entity; example.com and example.foo may well not be.
Bill Gates reviews “21 Lessons for the 21st Century”
I would love to, but Firefox just feels more clunky. Not sure what it is, but the scrolling doesn't feel native to me (MacOS, Magic Trackpad and Logitech Mouse)
From one of the comments there:

http://www.pool.ntp.org vs http://pool.ntp.org ?

One takes you to the website about the project, the other goes to a random ntp server.
Clicking the Generate A Password button, I was given the following 'strong' password: Aka.07535,7

Returning to the Check Strength tab and pasting that in the box turns the box orange, not green, indicating it's not really a strong password. This is conflicting information and should probably be looked at.

A password of eleven characters' length might not even be the weakest this service provides. It was merely one I was given.
LinkedIn Top Startups 2018: The 50 most sought-after startups in the U.S
> Pagerduty is a great service.

Well, they're good at alerting. They're not great at incident revie/. The interface makes it pretty difficult to look at, say, "what are all the incidents I got paged for related to this schedule".

In general, the interface is pretty painful to use for large organizations. This is a fairly common theme, though....
> If I were solving this, I'd instead push to eliminate "www" altogether, not sweep it under the rug. It was useful circa 1996, when users might plausibly be using something other than the WWW with a browser.

No, it was useful when abstracting machine identity from domain names such that there was a many-to-many relationship was less common, so “www” was the most specific domain name element for the server being accessed. (And a system that needed more than one server might have a homepage on “www”, and various subsites and apps on “www1”, “www2”, etc.)

OTOH, there may be places that still allocate servers that way for simplicity.
The accompanying video from 3Blue1Brown is nice too. Thanks for posting this - it's hard to find good learning material on quaternions. Even after this they're still a bit mysterious to me.
Fed rate hikes don't affect the US dollar the way we think
Yeah, you need some salt if you eat unprocessed food. Sorry.
Yes, you can!

Setting up UI under WSL is a bit of a pain, because there's nothing out of the box - so you need to set up X on Windows, or use VNC or RDP. RDP is the easiest by far right now - just install xrdp in WSL, edit the config so that it uses a different port, and connect to localhost from Windows. The result looks like this:

https://i.imgur.com/DSmLjUM.png
USB? USB 3.1 is 16X slower than PCIE and maybe 100X slower than DIMM. USB is not an OCP recommended peripherals interface, it's for consumer removable products.

Then again, I'm not entirely sure about the requirement for a high speed interface in AI. I'm assuming a fast interface is needed as the amount of data ingested is typically large
The scarier scenario is being on the witness stand while the prosecutor presents the same list to a jury of yokels.
In the article it mentions that they studied using probiotics after antibiotics and it actually did more harm than good.
Dataset search: Making it easier to discover datasets
FREE 10GB HOSTING NO CC INSTANT SETUP
Well, might as well drop then entire stuff after the domain.com/{dump all this out} (the file path) since non-techy people don't really care about it. All they care is about clicking links and navigating...

/end sarcasm
Hacked how?
I can question trump legitimacy and the elections fairness, but I know without question that the ‘resistance’ inside the White House is composed of people who were not elected by the American public. Whatever one thinks of trump legitimacy, you have to, by definition, think less of this coup’s legitimacy. Nobody voted for them, and as such they have no right to dictate American policy on any matter.
> This: Every character in the URL bar unrelated to the apex name is a deadly distraction.

I'm not convinced. When your tools lie you (as this does), you are LESS likely to notice a problem when you're busy. Another way to view this approach is:

> Every character in the URL bar different from the actual URL is a deadly lie.

Distraction is a problem, I totally agree, but other methods like Firefox's color-shading seem to work just fine.
While I can understand some of the benefits of functional programming within a single sub-system, or within academic research, I struggle to understand how pure functional programming can address the need for the large amounts of state information and abstraction layers required for a large scale system. I work with systems where (large/numerous) sub components require very specialized domain knowledge to understand internally, so multiple levels of black-box abstraction are required to integrate/interact with the sub components. Additionally, both the client systems and the sub components may have huge amounts of persistent state information.

Could you suggest any resources that might help me understand how this can be accomplished in a pure functional paradigm? Something that assumes only a casual understanding of functional programming would be especially helpful.
Well, this BS abbreviation is amusing.

Really, I'd love to have a look at a good bu..s..t in AI reading list :)
Note that this seems to mean "zero extra cost over existing solutions in C", not "zero extra cost over C++ exceptions" (though I guess they try to make that argument also): C++ exceptions have no runtime cost at all unless you throw an exception (which is supposed to be rare), but when that happens the cost is unpredictable (as the required tables might never have even been loaded to RAM). This solution is fast and deterministic during an error condition, but certainly has overhead during the success path: they argue in the paper that this overhead isn't as bad as you might expect--as one might expect a pipeline stall caused by a check on "did an error occur?", which doesn't happen due to speculative execution--but the reality is it still uses at least a couple extra instructions for every function call that can fail (which rapidly becomes "all function calls"). To avoid burning an extra register (or making functions return aggregates), what they are proposing is: "for at least AArch64, ARM, x86 and x64, that the discriminant be returned via the CPU's carry flag. This is because compilers can often fold the setting or clearing of the CPU's carry flag into the ordering of other operations, thus making this a zero runtime overhead choice of discriminant." (with a footnote stating "As it is a single bit being branched upon, status register update pipeline stalls should not occur."). It seems like the key part of the argument is that "Adding explicit checks for whether an exception has been thrown to the successful code path is now usually free of cost on such CPUs, as stalls in other parts of the pipeline will block the CPU, thus leaving idle spare CPU execution units." (and so saying "we had spare capacity before we were wasting, so now we are filling it)... I guess I would feel more comfortable with benchmarks (as I could have sworn someone did benchmarks on similar schemes a few years ago, due to Rust, and showed what I considered to be a non-trivial overhead) :/. (Also, don't CPUs normally execute other hyperthreads during those stalls? I would want to know not just "my program isn't being extra limited if on an otherwise idle machine", but have a concept of what total system impact this change would have.)
My off-the-top-of-my-head mistake. Linear Algebra.
Imagination. Sounds connect with you deeply, and even deeper than visuals. You can sing and make melodies without physical movements, without moving your lips, just in your mind. Your inner voice that you "hear" when you think is an artist that grows through immersion, exposure to things.

The real difficulty is translating that into physical movements through your body, making it real, this can only be done through practice.

If you listen to good musicians amd really like what you hear, they basically talk to your inner artist on the same skill level.
I found the opposite, that article is really irritating to read, I gave up a few pages down.
And based on my experience it's US$3.49 for the next 8? days, temporarily dropped from a regular $6.99.
As with any style guide, many things are subjective, and the only correct answer is the one that your team applies consistently, whatever that may be.

Overall, these look like a great set of standards to follow. A few items that I think deserve additional attention:

> Use a collective name or, less ideally, a plural form. For example (in order of preference) staff and employees.

I fully agree with using plural names. Plural makes a lot of sense IMO because tables contain multiple things. An employees table contains many employees.

However, I disagree with using the collective name. There is too much ambiguity: the collective name doesn't always exist, doesn't always mean the exact same thing, and there are often multiple options for the collective term. Simply converting it to plural by appending an s (if possible) makes things more consistent and easier to quickly see, and can furthermore help with things like automatically naming tables / deducing table names.

Often times code exists that represents a single row in a table (e.g. we might have an Employee class that represents a single employee). Singular here makes sense to me because it represents a single row. To then find the table corresponding to this class (or vis-versa), it's simply a matter of pluralizing. If our table was instead "staff", this would be harder to see at a glance.

I'm curious why they advocate collective names--having trouble thinking of any advantages to this. Does anyone have any arguments in favor of collective names?

> Where possible avoid simply using id as the primary identifier for the table.

This is one of the biggest things you can do for SQL readablitiy IMHO. It's so much easier to quickly see what's going on when columns aren't simply named "id". If I see a column called "userID", I can quickly figure out that it's a userID with much less context than I would need if all I saw was ID.

One additional rule I would add, and this is perhaps a bit controversial: always declare columns as NOT NULL if possible, using a sane "empty default value" such as an empty string or 0. If I wanted to find all users without a name, it's much easier to do "SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = ''". This won't match NULLs--if we don't declare NOT NULL, then we must do "SELECT * FROM users WHERE name='' OR NAME IS NULL". Easy to forget this--better to have the extra safety of NOT NULL to prevent mistakes like this. A good rule of thumb IMO is "declare columns as NOT NULL unless you specifically need to allow null".
Did not Neumann put quantum mechanics on a firmer mathematical footing?

Heaviside reformulated Maxwells work in electodynamics into the form it has been used ever since, and had major role in developing vector analysis which is like indispensable in Physics now.
Malware on USB Drives Shipped with Schneider Solar Products
I've generally found Michael Pollan's advice to be a good rule of thumb: eat food, not too much, mostly plants. Assuming anything more narrow runs the risk of being speculation.
I disagree with the idea that the DPRK is not capable of such attacks. They've demonstrated they are capable of creating nuclear weapons and ICBMs, I don't think it's such a stretch to say they are capable of APT attacks. Especially when you consider that the DPRK gets a lot of support from China, which also engages in cyber attacks. It wouldn't be difficult to send DPRK citizens to China to be educated and instructed in computer technology. More difficult, but still possible, is covertly sending north koreans to various western institutions to receive an education in cyber security. Recall that Kim Jung Un himself was educated in Switzerland.

There's also the possibility that the APT group is partially or completely composed of foreigners hired to engage in these attacks on behalf of the DPRK. I know one of the people on Operation Blockbuster believed that this was "contracted out" to some clandestine group. This would explain the attackers being multi-lingual. It would also explain why many of their attacks focus on financial institutions and theft. This focus has been proposed as a way for the DPRK to get international currency to make purchases and evade sanctions, but it would also make sense for a group that is in it for the money.
Sorry, I was a bit vague. Queries are fine, but you cannot, say, use a scikit-learn model trained on user activity.
A slight change in performance characteristics can also lead to cascading failures. Pure functions don't help with that. That aside, even functional programs need to have side effects (other than heating up the CPU). Referential transparency doesn't help when the state of your monad is a little bit weird and that causes some corner of your code to kill the DB.
I can tell the difference between Glenn Gould and Murray Perahia and so can anyone with a pulse. YouTube fucking it up means nothing.
Doesn't Safari on macos do this?
Why Apple and Google don't care about your college degree
I realize it is an important distinction, I'm glad you do as well.

Just as ftp.mysite.com is not mysite.com and mysite.com in not mysite.io and http://mysite.com is not https://mysite.com. You get the point.

They are all different and important in my opinion. Any argument that hiding the "www." part makes it easier for the user is equally applicable (and wrong) to ".com"
Only supposed "trivial" subdomains are hidden, such as www. and m.

Anything else is still shown. fake-original.blogger.com will still show up as fake-original.blogger.com because fake-original. isn't a trivial subdomain.

I still think it's a stupid move, though. It's a simplification that is incredibly unnecessary and may be harmful when dealing with the rare site that doesn't treat www.domain.com and domain.com as the same.
More targeted solutions:

Flag websites that look like phishing URLs - websites that contain domain names of popular websites in their subdomains or other parts of the URI. But initially, don't do anything. it could be harmless. AMP has domain names in the URI, right?

But, as soon as the user starts typing into a text-entry field (especially a password one), you bring a pop-up warning them that this might be a phishing site.
MasterClass Has Celebrity Instructors and $136M. Will Students Show Up?
Can anyone quantify technical debt? Best case is something resembling a medical diagnosis.
It's not a shoddy implementation on Citibank's part. Google are just fucking the web over so we all have to fit their structure.

This is standard incumbent behaviour, they are drawing up the moat bridge, inch by inch.
>It is certainly not the best.

What is the better alternative? Git checkout makes reverting to a previous version fast and convinient, and git's protocol seems more efficient than transmitting the files via scp or similar since most of the files are already there.

I guess I could have a build server rsync the files over, but that seems like a lot of complexity for little gain.
>there's a difference between "www.example.com" and "example.com"

Can you link to a site where these two are different?
Thank you very much. I'd been digging but hadn't found this yet.
Hi, I'm the guy who coded that part of VSCodeVim, and I specifically made it work for that case. gd and ctrl minus should always work to go to definition and back. It's possible you tried it when it wasn't working as well as it does now.
Selling it after was a good idea - I built my own iPod Video by fixing broken iPods for friends, and didn't need the Nano in the end. After a few years I gave it to a kid at church in Shenzhen.

However, I did find a way to convert UBS KeyClub points into cash. They're a loyalty-card system similar to frequent flyer miles, and are worth 1 CHF per point. When my friends visited Geneva, we planned to spend the points in the Manora restaurant. But it was shut! After some thought, we found a store willing to accept the points, bought a suitcase, and returned it immediately for a cash refund. Then we had cash to buy a cheese fondue!

The exchange rate was even better when I could exchange points for iTunes songs - the songs were worth 1.40 CHF. So that's how I collected a lot of legal music in the early days of the iTunes Music Store.
Great idea! Hey, since these are non-technical users, why don't we just eliminate those pesky hard-to-use computers and just put the whole thing inside their TV? Y'know, kinda like 23 years ago... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_TV
I believe that from the minimal perspective, you are right. I actively lift weights/run though so I try to hit around .75-1g/lb daily for recovery (and vanity) purposes.
Do you think it's really an addition or something that was in there already they could market as a probiotic?

Like how a lot of things became "gluten free" despite not containing gluten to begin with.
> The 99.9% of people who don't even know the difference between www and non-www will never directly benefit from seeing www, ever.

You don't need to know the difference to be able to read the URL off, potentially to someone who does.

It's not impossible (though it's not a good idea) for “example.com” and “www.example.com” to both host web content, and whether or not they know or care about the meaning of the domain name, someone accessing one should be able to, in the event they have a problem, be able to read off which one they are accessing to the person trying to help them resolve the problem.
The reactions to the outage on Twitter are hilarious and make me glad this happened:

“@okcupid how am I supposed to get my daily dose of crushing rejection and emotional humiliation if your site is down????”

“Okcupid stops working over lunch hour, NYC wonders if we're committed to the people in our phones from now on, panic in the streets”

“@okcupid How can I continue to be ignored by the females of the world if they don't know where I am to ignore me?! #panic #freakout”
The better answer is the enemy has changed.

In the past, security focused on multiple users of the same machine. Users should be safeguarded from each other. Applications are installed system wide by a knowledgeable sysadmin and can be trusted.

But this threat model was completely dated. Today, most machines have 1 user. But the applications are either cheaply written with no respect for other applications, or are actively harming the user by stealing his data, and the average user is his own sysadmin but really doesn't want to do the job or knows how. Additionally, DRM means the machine tries to defend itself from its owner, preferring multinationals instead.

The windows XP and standard unix security model defend against the old threat model. Android, iPhone and Vista + defend against the new model.
This kind of anti-safety sentiment isn't based on a real consideration of user needs, just a victim-blaming machismo. Reminds me of mongodb shipping exposed to the internet by default.

(You can of course buy shoes with metal plates in them to prevent injury, they're called "safety boots" and are mandatory in some workplaces)
Aren't there ranges within the levels? I know of people receiving offers of more than $320k at T5 and equivalents beyond Google.
the parent might actually need an eyetest...
Decimals do that job with less characters.
Esport “killer games” aren't right for Olympics, says IOC
Iunno. I'm finding that VSCode is rapidly approaching parity with IntelliJ in terms of features that I actually use, while at the same time being quite noticeably faster and less buggy.
Why not add them to a company's charter? I guess it would scare away potential investors, but maybe other investors would be attracted by them.
Startups accrue so much financial debt, adding some technical debt on top doesn't really make a difference.
5 Platforms for Musicians to Make More Money – The Blogging Musician
Coinbase Crypto ETFs and Ethereum Futures Are Coming
This is the problem. Better to just switch to Firefox now and be done with it. Hopefully it'll send a message.
You just bought into the fallacy -- jobs (and buying stuff) are only good when they're satisfying a legit demand, not one artificially created by the stimulus policy. To the extent that that the desire to provide that job or purchase that item is artificial, the "prosperity" indicated by that action is likewise artificial.

If I put a gun to your head and forced you to buy a sofa, that's not the same kind of prosperity as when you independently judged that you needed a sofa and freely bought one. The same basic dynamic is going on when I conceal it slightly by forcing other people to give me money so I can subsidize your sofa purchase.
It's a free dating service. They have a responsibility to respect their users' data privacy, but the rest kind of doesn't matter. Eventual stability is more profitable than eventual release if you're not a Bank or making self driving cars.
Pug template engine
> Before it meant you had to show your ID and banking info to a "reputable" corporation for them to make a cert for you.

No, it didn't. DV certs never meant that (EV certs did and still do, but LE doesn't offer EV and EV isn't and never was necessary for the padlock.)
Whenever I hear people trashing entire generations, or any entire group of people, I always ask, "What has this group ever done to deserve such misrepresentation and derision?" Often, there's no substantial answer.
> ...in order to write effective tests, a programmer had to know all of the ways that a piece of software could fail in order to write tests for those cases

That's impossible. You reason about the problem as best as you can and create tests appropriately; and then if there are edge cases/failures in production, you go back and add those to the test suite.