skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I second this - as someone who learned Qwerty as most Americans do, then learned about alternative keyboard layouts and ended up learning Dvorak, then finally settled on Colemak. In each of them I was able to type 120+wpm, and 140wpm+ in Qwerty and Colemak, so I consider myself a proficient typist.

Dvorak offered no benefit to me. I firmly believe that any differences or gain that people attribute to Dvorak is attributed to finally learning how to properly type. Many people make this switch from a misguided thought that Dvorak will help them type faster (it will - but only because you relearn how to type) or that it is more ergonomic (I firmly believe that it isn't - but you're likely using proper finger movements now and thus it will be more comfortable).

Colemak is noticeably more ergonomic and doesn't mess up as many default keybinds. I much prefer typing in Colemak than Qwerty, although I type in both to retain my ability to type in Qwerty lest I find myself having to use someone elses' computer.

It takes a few minutes for the wires to switch over - but it's totally possible to retain one's ability to type in either layout. For those wanting to try a new layout but are scared of forgetting the original - just make sure to practice in both!

E: Since another user below also mentioned the context switching being difficult for a year - my context switching takes about 5~8 minutes and I've been using Colemak for about 2-3 years. I use Colemak while at home and Qwerty while in the office. So I spend roughly equal amounts of time in both. It doesn't seem to matter how much time I've spent "not typing" between the context switch. Colemak at 8pm at night, Qwerty at 8am the next day? Still need a few minutes before the brain swaps over. It's a little weird but I've grown accustomed to the "warmup period" I guess, but I know a few people who don't seem to have this problem at all.
> Is the artist advertising a similar face value and adding fees on to create a higher purchase price, like Ticketmaster? If not, then I expect the vast majority would probably end up at Ticketmaster because of a lower advertised price, even if it's the same at checkout.

Lets try to ceteris paribus it. I have no doubt the price shennanings Ticketmaster does have an extractive effect, but given the same price for TM and the artist, who would choose TM? And if the artist is cheaper because there is no middleman?

Of course TM would punish any artist doing that, thats why I say they must have leverage.

In the end I might be wrong about this, but deception is a poor substitute for economic efficiency. The day one artist collects more money with no fuss, the house of cards falls down.
Actually it only seems to be a side effect of our test environment. Using a more realistic environment makes it not effective, sorry for the false alarm
The other computers thing rings very true.

I switched to dvorak in college for about two semesters, cause it seemed like it would make my typing faster. (I actually was a very good touch typist having taking a proper typing class in HS that cured my 4 finger self-learned typing habit).

It only took me a few days before I could actually touch type dvorak. I was really happy because it seemed dvorak was going to be great. But then I kept having to use lab computers, or friends machines and I just couldn't switch back to qwerty for a "session". This resulted in lots of hunt and pecking. If I used the machine for >15 minutes without switching the layout the qwerty would start to come back, then I wouldn't be able to use my own dvorak machine without another 10-15 minute struggle to switch back.

The result was that I never got as fast with dvorak as my previous qwerty speeds, and my qwerty skills were pretty much non-existent.

I think in my case learning the new layout wasn't the problem. The problem was learning to switch layouts quickly and despite struggling with the problem for nearly a year I eventually concluded that it was going to take me years to learn the skill of switching at will. So one weekend after spending 1/2 a day sharing a machine with my boss I switched my keyboard layout back to qwerty.

Although, similarly I use the exact same keyboard model at home and at work because I discovered switching between physical keyboards affects my accuracy (and therefore speed). Its not really the base character set (a-z) that is the problem, its all symbolic stuff that I type as part of programming.
What is your experience when you have to use the QWERTY layout? Is it a frustrating experience or can you use it just fine given that Colemak is more similar to it than Dvorak?
Another approach is to start with designing a logical data model first before the database schema or software. This helps avoid the trap of focusing too much on the implementation details of any particular technology.
Optimized architecture: 100Gbit/sec per server, TLS-based video streaming
My impression, back then, was that The Semantic Web would be the sort of thing that you could create a real, general, AI upon. But populating the SW accurately, and maintaining it, was far too large a task for a small group of people and required too much coordination for a large group of people. You'd need a real, general, AI to manage it. So you can't create it without the AI, and you don't need it if you've already got the AI.
I like the lessons here.

But just to provide a contrarian perspective on #4, one of my previous jobs was at a company that did both, where we have dev department that built the software, and a growing and profitable consulting arm that helped customers customize and use our system.

A better example is Microsoft, many of its enterprise solutions, like..cough..SharePoint, is supported by an army of consultants hand-holding their customers on non-trivial use cases.

The larger clients tend to be less willing to adapt their internal processes to a new solution, and in many cases it'll require special customization or hand-holding/training to make a sale. On the plus side, they also tend to be able to afford those kind of things, you just have to charge them at a profitable price point.
It is actually surprisingly fussy to set up a formal proof for anything complex enough to be interesting to a mathematician (for computer assisted verification). People take big leaps that are often quite awful to actually prove. I think you are right though, this area will definitely be very important and make big strides.
-1 refactor this
I'm rather uninformed about the nuts and bolts of rendering: my dabbling in X includes getting things to more or less work as a user of an X desktop, with varying degrees of success since about 1997 but also a bit of wire protocol tweaking with ex11, an erlang x11 client protocol library, just enough so I could output images from an erlang program at 3 frames per second without the background color flashing I was getting with the wxWindow bindings. I debugged some crashes I was having, and added interfaces to set window titles and window dimensions via ICCCM standards.

But, with that meager background, it sounds like you may be describing GLX? Originally, that supported OpenGL over the network, although later versions stopped working, because it was hard/nobody cared enough.

Although, the spec says that GLX 1.4 only supports up to OpenGL 1.3; and my understanding is the newer versions of OpenGL are a lot easier to work with / better specified. And/or Vulkan is supposed to be cool? :)
My favorite takeaway from this is that I'm an ANGELIC TROUBLEMAKER (because much/most code is demonstrably terrible but I do have a fair amount of experience in greatly simplifying it), but other than that I find several points in the article to only be relevant in these times.

I've been through several boom/bust cycles and right now we're living in a boom period where:

* Programming demands a high hourly rate

* There are many programmers on the market, tending towards making them interchangeable cogs

* Income inequality is high, leading to a wide discrepancy between wealth and technical literacy

After the coming web2.0/mobile bust in a few years, these will likely no longer be true. I think what will make a good programmer then is the ability to map use cases (design) to abstractions and then to business logic in as little code as possible (preferably none at all). We're going to go back to a time more like the 1980s, when nontechnical people were able to get Real Work done with spreadsheets and DBMSs like Microsoft Access.

I looked at Airtable a bit and it has some interesting ideas but is no panacea. There are other interesting attempts in that space but almost everyone seems to be moving in the opposite direction towards large volumes of highly imperative, object oriented code which is prone to technical debt that requires a longterm support staff of technicians to maintain it. In other words maintaining is currently more lucrative than architecting, but that wasn't always true, and will likely not be true again in a few years.
I second this. Since I use a split keyboard with a trackball placed in the middle my hand and right arm problems are all gone.
Did you know Morrowind and Oblivion can be played on a portable?
Another +1 for Colemak. I tried both Dvorak and Colemak about 8 years ago. I hated Dvorak, mostly because it ruins ctrl+z/x/c/v shortcuts. Also, right pinky hurt from frequently typing 'l'. Colemak is awesome. Much easier to learn, works well with most keyboard shortcuts, and is has worked well for me ergonomically.
How to Write a 21st Century Proof: https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/proof.pdf

From page 6 with figure 1, to page 10 with figure 3, it's clear that even just changing to structured proofs over prose proofs can be helpful in catching errors. Of course the rest of the paper goes into detail about going even further... I don't know if Lamport's ideas have gained any more acceptance in the mathematics communities, but I'm doubtful. At least if memory serves the ABC papers were classic prose-style...
How would you suggest they fix it?
Very cool! What accuracy rate were you able to achieve?
This only addresses the easiest and least interesting problem to solve if it’s really a problem at all (I mean this doesn’t even show up on the Doctorow list of “meta crap” as an issue— like micro formats are ugly but they can do essentially the same thing). It just makes peoples lives miserable to use more XML for no benefit.
Cornell University Finds Professor Brian Wansink Guilty of Scientific Misconduct
I've been learning the [Workman](https://workmanlayout.org/) layout in the past few months. I'm using a split Ergodox board, and Dvorak didn't make much sense to me for what I wanted to do. Colemak was _almost_ there but had some really awkward movements that I wasn't enjoying. After a bit of time I now find Workman extremely comfortable, and very logical, particularly for writing prose. It has taken me longer to get the hang of coding on it, but by using a secondary layer on the Ergodox I've got some very comfortable bindings set up for my programming environment. If anyone's curious, here's my current layout (still very much WIP): https://configure.ergodox-ez.com/layouts/DZaM/latest/0

EDIT: Oh, and it hasn't slowed down my QWERTY typing at all, I still keep a standard board on my desk as well. The reason I took up the split board with Workman was because of RSI, and swapping between the two is a good way to vary the movement of my hands.
That leaves one poor performing toolkit, that has an excuse at least. Not hard to avoid apps written in it, in any case.

Qt, Wx, Java, and many others don't or no longer perform poorly. So why the surprise there is one more? Maybe some folks don't know they exist.
Amazon's Echo devices get redesign on the way to world domination
Related discussion from a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15351006
At least a third party can prevent link rot in this situation. Link rot in the standard web is really bad these days. We do have the internet archive that is trying to prevent it, but then you still need a tuple of (URL & access time) and you have to hope that one organization cached it.
I'm shocked that there's an ostensibly skill based slot machine.
Exactly you would never use electronic means to actually transmit information.
Probably a good way to get beat up by casino thugs I’d imagine.
I don't necessarily think that's true. You can allow policies that are more open to abuse at more local levels because you have more control to avoid those abuses. For instance, I think communism at the national level would be a disaster because it implies a level of government control that can and would be abused. At the family level, it _might_ be workable.
> Or simply: what do you gain from having addresses as separate entities

A single person has many addresses. That alone already requires the addresses to be another entity.
Danny has been collaborating with some people in the MIT Media Lab and Protocol Labs to get a non-profit, open-source, and distributed version of Freebase off the ground, called the Underlay. I know they're looking for passionate people to work with, so if you're interested you should reach out! https://underlay.mit.edu/
I worked on the Semantic Web, designing core data infrastructure, back when it was still hot. It disappeared because it had two fatal flaws: it was intrinsically non-scalable, both conceptually and technically.

First, there is no universal "semantic". The meaning of things is ambiguous, and given a broad enough pool of people and cultural contexts, it becomes nigh impossible to converge on a single consistent model for individual terms and concepts in practice. A weak form of this is very evident in global data interchange systems and implementations, and the Semantic Web took this bug factory and dialed it up to eleven. In short, the idea of the Semantic Web requires semantics to be axiomatic and in the real world they are inductive and deeply contextual. (Hence the data model rule of "store the physics, not the interpretation of the physics.") That said, it is often possible to build an adequate semantic model in sufficiently narrow domains -- you just can't generalize it to everything and everybody.

Second, implementation at scale requires an extremely large graph database, and graph database architectures tend to be extremely slow and non-scalable. They were back then and still are today. This is actually what killed the Semantic Web companies -- their systems became unusable at 10-100B edges but it was clear that you needed to have semantic graphs in the many trillions of edges before the idea even started to become interesting. Without an appropriate data infrastructure technology, the Semantic Web was just a nice idea. Organizations using semantic models today carefully restrict the models to keep the number of edges small enough that performance will be reasonable on the platforms available.

The Semantic Web disappeared because it is an AI-Complete problem in the abstract. This was not well understood by its proponents and the systems they designed to implement it were very, very far from AI-Complete.
Edit: never mind, it seems I confused deriving a proof with verifying it!
I would guess the odds of the machine are set up in such a way that it’s still not profitable to do this.
This is why I don't think of database as an interface. Instead, create functional interface with some business meaning (REST API, GraphQL, a Java interface - whatever suits a particular use case), which will be versioned and properly maintained with backward compatibility where possible (which is, I think, almost always possible). It doesn't cancel a proper DB design though, but helps a lot when you need to change it. Or move to another DB engine altogether.

You know, every problem can be solved with another level of abstraction. No sarcasm, I think it actually holds here.
Modern Code Review: A Case Study at Google [pdf]
see: monty hall problem

But anyway, mathematics is not any more unhealthy than any other field, but it does have toxicity like all others do as well.
I feel like you hit reply on the wrong comment?

Nowhere did I claim them to be hostile. I never expressed my thoughts on how they acquire business as good or bad.

All I did was state that "They're doing their best" isn't out of the goodness of their hearts, there's a biz decision behind it.

> Or you're just whining about them not open sourcing and giving away the farm?

Way to try and attack my character. Never said a word of what you're accusing.
So what should the book (following the example of "The Newtonian Casino") be called? I mean, what is actually nontrivial (pun intended) here?
How is this any different from what MemSQL is already doing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8dqzVlhFkA

EEVBlog and a few other YT channels go over debunking and the basic physics behind it.
The New Yorker claims credit for Torvalds' apology on behaviour
> Mathematics is very strict science with axioms and following theorems.

Mathematics textbooks would be intractably longer if they spelled out every step in explicit, formal detail. And then the proofs wouldn't make sense to people because the core ideas would be obscured by the formality! A typical mathematics proof is intended to be read by a thinking human assumed to have some level of mathematical sophistication and knowledge. These assumptions make proofs far more implicit than proofs in a formal language, which essentially only assumes that the "reader", i.e. the computer, can push symbols around and compare them.
Cortex project, horizontally scalable Prometheus, added to CNCF
If you've ever tried encoding proofs in a proof assistant such as Coq (which is what the INRIA folks used to encode the four color theorem and the Fiet-Thompson theorem), you'll realise just how painful it is --- I speak as someone who's done this for fun (and now for research. [my report is available here](https://github.com/bollu/dependence-analysis-coq/blob/master...)
Given a complete lack of an address system in rural areas, any structure is better than nothing.

If you're comparing address systems by how well local proximity can be inferred from a given address, then Lat/Long is the best system because it's global without language, national or political barriers, doesn't require formal naming, and has no arbitrary designations.

Open Location Codes are based on lat/long, but designed to use alphanumerics to make it easier to remember while also working interchangeably with lat/long and country designations.

Perhaps the developer page will help: https://plus.codes/developers
I'll give my own experience here.

I switched to Dvorak by using a model M with movable key caps back when I was a teenager. It really was one of the most frustrating experiences with muscle memory I have ever had--in fact it felt painful to receive continual mismatch of intent and results. I think it took me 2 weeks to write sentences without conscious pain, and about 3 months to get to a moderate speed.

Even so, I still type dvorak for more than a decade now.
My writing speed isn't really comparably faster with dvorak, but I do believe that it does reduce wrist strain. Ortholinear layouts further reduce some strain for me.

When it comes to QWERTY, I still use it plenty on touch screens, and as a touch typist, I can still do it if I'm on a cheap logitech rubber dome keyboard. Though after a short while I feel like muscles are strained in my hands on physical keyboards.

It is near impossible for me to type QWERTY on a mechanical keyboard or a macbook keyboard. The touch feel I have is so attuned to that layout (despite not having the legends on the key caps in dvorak) that I am continually making mistakes or reverting back to dvorak mid sentence.

I don't regret my decision at all, though my coworkers are intimidated by it.
Google says apps may scan Gmail accounts if they get user consent
Hello I'm in the same situation. I'm now very lonely and depressed because I've been working on my startup alone for 2 years with no support. I'm also stuck on a problem which is very hard to solve. You said in the parent comment that you wouldn't give up. How do you keep going when you feel so lonely and miserable and you have anxiety attacks because you fear that you will get nowhere in life?
No website would ask for the fee for SEO reasons.
Made more profit than Amazon this year. Down 3% after hours. Yet some shitty Canadian weed stock with $20M in revenue is worth $20B.

The market is full of literal retards.
Thank you for that tidbit of knowledge. Learned something tonight.
Formal proof assistants and interactive theorem prover for mathematics already exist. So do proof libraries. See: http://metamath.org/

They are not used because it's tedious to type and proof every step in the process. Mathematicians don't write all steps down. You also need build a library from ground up.

We could to the same for computer programs but we don't wan to do that either.
That's funny. It takes me about 3-4 months of being around someone regularly before I'm not constantly annoyed by them and everything that they say. I hide it pretty well.

I've had to learn the difficult way that my first impression of people is usually not an impression they deserve.
Wasn't this very issue what inspired Voevodsky to work on a Univalent foundations of mathematics, resulting in the HoTT Book (in collaboration with others)?
We sometimes have this use case at work where we want to discuss a potential idea and get feedback without merging anything. What we do is open a PR and decline it directly (I'm using bitbucket lingo). This way it can't be merged, and the discussion diverges from the particulars of the diff and focuses more on the idea and the architecture of the change
Hmm, this looks like Cassowary solver that was first used in 1940 as stated here: https://cassowary.readthedocs.io/en/latest/topics/theory.htm...

The only difference is that it is using Simplex method instead of gradient descent (as in article). Simplex and GD are slightly different methods of finding local minimums in systems of linear equations.
> XSLT provided a way of formatting XML in the browser.

Actually, that was XSL:FO.

XSLT is transformation, not formatting; of course you could translate to (X)HTML with embedded styles, or XSL:FO or something else that includes formatting, but XSLT doesn't do formatting itself.
You start by defining your types (including your database design), proceed to defining your APIs, and only then start writing your software. (Ok, and before any of that you define your problem.)

You can do it iteratively, but simply inverting the order is a recipe for a mess of spaghetti that nobody will be able to touch in a just a couple of months.
I don't know if the Chinese would think your joke is funny..
Yea, where would one find a machine like this? Doesn't really seem like a slot machine to me.
Accuracy is high enough!
Beats the stock turning into toilet paper.
I don't actually know the terms yet, I just assumed. I only learned of the acquisition from hackernews.
How to write a dating app bio that's actually good
But they don't give you an ISO to download for free, do they? Even Apple makes it a little awkward to get the actual OS installer (if you aren't already on a Mac running the App Store.app).
Around the World in Four Days: NASA Tracks Chelyabinsk Meteor Plume
vbezhenar is talking about verifying proofs not finding proofs.

Computers can easily verify that proof is correct once the proof is written down using formal semantics. Proof checkers already exist.