skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Is it just me that has a hard time understanding the racial aggregation thing. They claim to have split Iowa and Texas results by race and age. And found that Texas did better than Iowa for whites blacks and hispanics - but then aggregating the results ala USNews, Iowa comes out on top

I am struggling to imagine which category is the flip category. If iowa is not doing better for white black or hispanic, which racial category is somlatge as to flip the average?
I use PayPal when buying from small unsophisticated-looking mom and pop ecommerce sites that I don’t trust to have integrated credit card payments in a reasonably secure manner.
I'd love to see something with the approximate structure of JSON, but less JavaScript-bound syntax. EDN has caught my eye, but then again I've always been fonder of Lisp-y syntax as a whole.
macOS Mojave Drains Battery Like Never Before
This is only for anonymous memory, obviously it doesn't affect file-backed memory.
Another perspective in similar veins would be the rise of AutoML. Given its absurdly high computational cost, I'd think only enterprises with massive computational power at their disposal would be able to use it.
It could even be a gzip bomb
Whenever functional programming in Python comes up, I like to plug Coconut[0], one of the languages mentioned in the link above.

It adds a lot of really nice functional idioms to Python, and all Python3 code is by definition valid Coconut (ie Coconut is a superset of Python3), so trying it out is very easy.

[0] http://coconut-lang.org/
Not sure about Michigan, but Florida has commissary co-working type spaces. Show up with your ingredients, cook, clean-up, peace out. Most of the co-working type commissarys are pay as you go (hourly) type deals. It's common amongst Farmer Market vendors.
The main point that people are missing is that experienced engineers don’t want to work with people who think like the author of this article.

Protocol Buffers are not wrong, they simply have constraints, advantages, and disadvantages.

No language, binary format, text format, etc is free from advantages and disadvantages. All of them have different use cases.

If you are building a system where your data can be described by protobufs, it may be a good choice. If your data structures don’t mash up well and you have to manipulate them heavily, protobufs may be a bad choice.

Instead of pointing out use cases where a different serialization format may be better than protobufs and use cases where protobufs are better, and why, the author is spouting dogma about how protobufs are bad for every use case.

Be wary of working with developers who prefer to argue about why they hate certain technologies instead of providing useful data and ways to solve problems. You don’t always have to solve a problem just because you are aware of it but don’t go shouting from the rooftops that a technology sucks for every use case under the planet when that’s obviously not the case. The author’s opinion is more of: I don’t like protobufs. Not: protobufs are wrong
Can you please cite your sources.

According to this article as long as you have about 11 people on a bus its more efficient.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/11/can-we-please...
Why isn't it an effective indicator for evaluating how much state taxpayers are getting for their contribution to the state schools? Can you elaborate on the difference between the two questions?
The transformer paper was quite influential in machine translation space. This resource [0] posted here a while back is a good place to learn and get a better idea how it works.

[0]: http://nlp.seas.harvard.edu/2018/04/03/attention.html
And you can maintain custody, so somebody isn't loaning out your shares.
Technology is not stoppable and if jobs are going to be lost they will be. Ultimately all tech has been absorbed into society.

But many also cynically use 'threats' of technology to scaremonger and try to keep wages low. This is incredibly exploitative. For instance this story itself is thin on details and talks up 90% without mentioning the actual numbers or details of the automation. Amazon bought Kiva and while the robots are used they continue to hire aggressively.

If McDonalds or anyone else can use robots efficiently today they will. No company is employing workers out of goodwill but because they need them. If one must worry current trends show the environment may create far more disruption than automation.
I’m guessing these laws are made by people who don’t eat at food trucks.
I don't really get why they wouldn't want food trucks to be near residential parks and such. I'm also curious if this would effectively ban residential area ice cream trucks.
Proper numeric types would like a word with you. (In particular, just look into how you would get infinity/NaN in there. Fun times.)

I mean, yes, you can do everything by just passing the string representation. Not exactly efficient, though. And most schema attempts in json are usually less than compelling.
> Because achievement is hard to measure.

Except that they already are measuring achievement. If you count expenditure as a positive, you assume your conclusion that spending is good.

> Which again depends on what you mean by achievement.

No, it does not. It is always worse to spend more for the same level of achievement. If your argument that achievement is mismeasured, that is a completely separate issue.
While oneof fields cannot be repeated, oneof fields can be arbitrary protos, so they can contain repeated fields. In other words, you can have a oneof, so in practice this isn't a restriction. If anything, its a(very minor) api wart.

That's right. Moreover, oneof repeated and repated oneof are two different types: in first, you have a list of X, or a list of Y, or a list of Z etc, and in the second, you have a list such that any element can be either X, Y or Z. Both can be cleanly expressed with existing API, so I see no reason to do any special treatment.
I never had strong feelings one way or the other on the SEC until recently. Now, from their unjustified behavior due to Elon's tweets (what's more important to our future as a planet, punishing someone for a gray area tweet they could have chosen to go either way on, or letting Elon continue to innovate at full capacity?) to ruining ICOs, I feel like we'd all be better off if the SEC was reduced by at least a factor of half along with the number of regulations they enforce.
Not hard to see why people wouldn't want food trucks in a residential area.
California also requires a commissary kitchen.
Care to compare market caps of those ultrasound manufacturers with that of Uber?
If your innovation requires a new monetary system, it is probably a Ponzi.
Endianness issues are something every programmer should be aware of when sending data over the wire. I'm sorry I didn't insert the htons, htonls in my C code.

In the Haskell code, endianness is handled by your Storable implementation (you define it after all, and can customize it however you want).

I agree my example is somewhat tongue in cheek. The point though is that most languages have standard libraries for dealing with binary data that are almost universally more straightforward than proto bufs.
If you "just" use Reg D, then you can't take money from non-accredited suckers so you'll raise far less money and your security token can't trade on any exchange (yet).
That's the core of the author's argument. Protobuffers optimize for something besides usability and maintainability, because Google cares more about incremental performance than developer-friendliness. Which is a fine thing to care about at Google's scale, but maybe others' calculations should be different.
Also, cap'n proto loses a whole lot of API and semantic weirdness the author complains about: implicit auto-assignment of fields, "repeated" etc. The overall design feels much cleaner, although there are still some surprises.
It's a relatively common name. I would say it might even be more common than the alternative of "code formatter". I do agree that the syntax of the language isn't changing, but it does seem like the phrase that has stuck.
9/11 in NY being a classic example of how that isn't what people tend to do.

A wild disaster - terrorist attack - the likes of which none of those people would have ever witnessed before. A couple of the world's tallest buildings collapse. Thousands dead. The exact details of the circumstances mostly unknown, along with the continued risk.

The New Yorkers that had to evacuate the greater area, post attack and collapse, proceeded to overwhelmingly behave with great calm. They didn't trample each other to death. They didn't behave crazily. They walked out of there, peacefully, covered in collapsed building dust.

One of the many iconic photos of that relative calm behavior:

https://i.imgur.com/EBCJm72.jpg
> every application has to be updated when a field is added, even if they do not use that field

This is when, in a protocol, you reach for the hammer called "extensibility."

In this case (decoding to native structs), you'd probably have your FooMessage product-type have an "extensions" field, which is a list of zero or more FooExtensionStructs, where a FooExtensionStruct is a sum type of the known extensions to FooMessage.

Then, just make the semantics of your format such that a sum type can have a pragma in its IDL indicating that it isn't required to be decodable for the product-type containing it to be successfully decoded. I.e., the sum type becomes a (DecodeResult = Decoded(sum type) | Opaque(raw wire data)).

Opaque (unrecognized) extension data can't be manipulated by the program, but it can losslessly survive a trip back through the wire encoder. So you can choose to pass it through in your middleware, or not.

Boom: you've reinvented the "chunks" concept of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_File_Format, as seen in PNG and ELF.
C does not, but few compilers implement standard C. Most C compilers do have documentation on how structs are laid out and many options to change the behavior. Most C compilers document this.
I suspect it’s more like, 99% of the population is indifferent, a small number of people care a lot (in this case, it’s probably restaurant owners), and elected officials do what the small number wants because they’re the only ones voicing any sort of opinion. (And they probably donate to campaigns.)
> [1]: Garbage collection is simulating a computer with an infinite amount of memory.

But that definition also applies to virtual memory. On any modern OS, you can simulate a computer with an infinite amount of memory in C and C++ by just never calling free(). It'll even work pretty well for programs with small working sets, as the kernel will start paging out unused memory to swap.

I think any definition of garbage collection needs to specify that it is a form of memory management: it can automatically determine what memory will be used later so that it can recycle memory that will not.
Which language are you talking about? C++ proto is built around CodedInputStream which is what it sounds like. You can use it with or without the generated message code.

https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/referenc...
Vasili Arkhipov also helped to prevent nuclear war in 1962:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov

Boris Yeltsin also had enough presence of mind not to launch a counter-attack to what was presumed to be a US first strike in the Norwegian Rocket Incident:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident

Unfortunately, there are too many close calls involving large scale nuclear conflict that are publicly known:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid...

Who knows what the actual number is. Now throw in the ramifications of climate change like political instability, infrastructure strain, resource scarcity, and refugee migrations into the mix. Not blowing ourselves up will really be a challenge, something we as a species have to get right every single day...forever. Let's hope it's not our Great Filter.
Barracuda firewalls are similar: mostly vanilla Linux with a little magic.
My cynical reaction is that restaurants back them to get rid of competition.
State Attorneys Urge FCC to Combat Neighborhood Spoofing
I'm confused by your comment, would you care to elaborate? Your anecdote has you moving from (the article's) rank 41 in quality to rank 6. You comment that the rank 6 state is much better than the rank 41 in education quality. However, you find their ranking hard to believe?
I might be missing something, but it seems like a fairly high quality README file. What do you feel is wrong with it?
so, just for fun, here's a way to do that check without double unmarshalling and allocating maps and such for everything under your struct (also does a check for extra fields, but you could pull that out if you want):

type Post struct {
Title string `json:"title"`
}

func (v *Post) UnmarshalJSON(b []byte) error {
dec := json.NewDecoder(bytes.NewReader(b))
required := map[string]struct{}{
"title": struct{}{},
}
tok, err := dec.Token()
if err != nil {
return err
}
if d, ok := tok.(json.Delim); !ok || d != '{' {
return errors.New("Expected object")
}
for {
tok, err := dec.Token()
if err != nil {
return err
}
if d, ok := tok.(json.Delim); ok && d == '}' {
break
}
switch tok {
case "title":
delete(required, "title")
err := dec.Decode(&v.Title)
if err != nil {
return err
}
default:
(*v) = Post{}
return errors.New(fmt.Sprintf("Unexpected field %s", tok))
}
}

if len(required) > 0 {
(*v) = Post{}
return errors.New(fmt.Sprintf("Missing %v required fields", len(required)))
}
return nil
}
> I don’t generally find writing Rust to be significantly harder than using a GC’d language. I’ve been trying to figure out why that is.

That's quite surprising! Here's some examples of where things would be easier to write if Rust had a GC:

1. Any sort of lock free algorithm. This is a big one - hazard pointers and the like are much harder than letting the GC clean up.

2. Data structures which may contain "back" pointers (e.g. parent pointers in a tree).

3. Data structures which may be cyclic. For example the classic LRU cache is best implemented with a cyclic linked list which is hard to express in Rust.

4. Any sort of refactoring that may adjust ownership. E.g. going from T to Rc<T>. GC requires fewer choices so these refactorings are easier.

Surely this pain is real, even if Rustaceans think it's worth tolerating?

In fairness precious resource cleanup (file descriptors, etc) is easier without a GC.
Some people don't like other congregating in front of their stores and not buying anything but the most vocal opponent are restaurants. They feel like by paying substantial money for a restaurant lease, they shouldn't be subject to competition that can operate with far lower costs / standards. Think about if you owned a nice Mexican restaurant and then a taco truck parked outside during your rush hour. They have almost none of the fixed costs that you do and could undercut you pretty easily.

I'm not convinced it's worth regulating their hours/locations, but I do sympathize a bit with the brutal economics of restaurants.
If the companies in OIN really wanted to help stop misuse of software patents why not just donate the patents to the public domain? The OIN itself seems to be either a patent cartel or a distraction.

> “Microsoft’s participation in OIN adds to our strong community, which through its breadth and depth has reduced patent risk in core technologies, and unequivocally signals for all companies who are using OSS but have yet to join OIN that the litmus test for authentic behavior in the OSS community includes OIN participation.”

Companies are the ones creating patent risk by using the patent system to attack others. If you want to keep your secret sauce secret, then use trade secrets. They've basically signed non-agression pacts with themselves. Open Source has nothing to do with this outside of projects that dual license (which basically means that the code is not F/OSS).

> “Microsoft sees open source as a key innovation engine, and for the past several years we have increased our involvement in, and contributions to, the open source community,” said Erich Andersen, Corporate Vice President and Chief IP Counsel

Yeah, that sounds like "microsoft sees the value in leveraging the free time of thousands of developers as we can rope them in, now that many other companies have forged the way while directly trying not to be crushed by us".

> Funded by Google, IBM, NEC, Philips, Red Hat, Sony, SUSE, and Toyota, OIN has more than 2,650 community members and owns more than 1,300 global patents and applications.

Yeah, somehow none of those companies strike as companies that want patent wars to actually end.

More optimistically, maybe this is a step in the right direction, a few steps before software patents are abolished all together.
I don't think the SEC takes the money from people - the SEC tells them to give it back to investors.
Hmmm, I suppose I objectively agree with some of the points the author made, but as someone who works with protocol buffers daily, those issues never actually come to be problematic in practice. In fact, I have nothing but positive things to say about protocol buffers and find them pleasant to work with. Definitely a step up from sending raw JSON down the wire.

Granted, the application I'm working on is fairly boring/vanilla so maybe I don't feel the pain points that come from going off the beaten path.
Hypothetically it might have caused a "blockchain winter" scenario where investors refused to invest in anything, even legit stuff like Filecoin.
Remember that cabinet officers and military personnel take an oath to uphold the constitution of the US and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" Fealty to country supercedes following orders, always.
Webinar: Blockchain Hacking for Investigating Cryptocurrencies
It is for me. Why wouldn't you want a food truck parked outside the neighborhood park? Walk down to the park and pick up some dinner instead of hopping in a car and driving 10 minutes to apple/chilis/etc.
Recent algorithms, like zstd or lz4 can do the same compression ratio as gzip for a fraction of the cost. Hopefully they will be replacing gzip over the coming decade.
C++ is a legacy language when it comes to data representation. Its ideas on what constitutes 'data' are from a different era. That is not a criticism of C++ or its utility. It is just a fact that data representation has changed a lot since the time of C++s development.

Products and coproduct types are not academic wankery.
The increasing size of the unskilled labor pool? Could that be it?
Why short over 50 years? What would you say about 20 or 30 years, and why?
I'm of two minds they are either:

A. A clever way of effectively outlawing something without saying as much (because the legislator understands the implications but has cover as they are "merely keeping them out of residential neighborhoods")

B. The unintended consequences of a legislator not understanding the ramifications of their own [well intentioned?] proposal
They'd probably benefit by making it easier to enforce, so I agree that they should absolutely do this. This assumes easy enforcement is what they are looking for.
I take it you've read his book then? Could you point out specifically what's wrong with his evidence?

It seemed pretty convincing to me, since there were multiple independent lines of evidence that all pointed to the same conclusion.
I've had a 1-800 number for several years. The receiver of the call pays a fee for the call, not the caller.

Some enterprising VoIP companies would PAY callers a small amount for their 1-800 number traffic.

So I would receive robotic "political messages" or 20 minute voicemails (until I cut it down to 3) of static or other randomness. Somebody was making millions of calls and collecting their fractions of cents per minute.

But a few years ago, these calls stopped entirely.

What happened? My guess is that telecoms stopped peering with these 'enterprising' VoIP companies. The business model is still there, but nobody is bothering with it anymore.

Why can't we do the same for spoofers and the heavily accented "James Morrison" ?
First Unexplained Wealth Order in UK against wife of jailed Azerbaijan banker
This is the upgrade of U2F Zero (https://u2fzero.com). We're working on Solo since August, but we Conor started his project more than 1 year ago.
I don't think GraphQL is over-hyped at all. Maybe it's flawed, but the design is absolutely on the right traack. GraphQL completely changes how you work with APIs in a front end.

I work on React apps, and by using GraphQL, a component's data requirements can now be entirely declarative. For example, a component can do this (simplified):

<Query query=`{
posts(limit: 10) {
title, creator { name }
}
}`>
{({data, loading, error}) => {
return <ul>
{data.posts.map((title, {creator}) => <li>
{title} by {creator.name}
</li>)}
</ul>
}}
</Query>

The component knows what it needs to render, so it declares that. With TypeScript, you can get type-safety all the way from the backend to the frontend, which means your IDE (e.g. VS Code) can correctly autocomplete, say, "creator." and suggest "name". It's rather magical.

I work on a product called Sanity [1], which evolves GraphQL one step further. It's a Firebase-like data store with schemas and joins, and a structured data model. Without implementing anything on the server end, you can run queries like these:

*[_type == "post" && published] {
title,
creator -> { name },
topPosts: *[creator.id == ^.creator._ref] {
_id, title
} | order(viewCount desc)[0..10],
photos: photo -> {url}
} | order(_createdAt desc)[0..100]

This doesn't just follow a child object (creator), it also joins with an unrelated set of objects (topPosts, which finds the top 10 most viewed posts created by the same user) as well as joining a bunch of 1:1 relations. I'm totally biased, but I think it's a game-changer when it comes to writing web apps, because you can just dump the whole query in a React component, no state management or API writing required.

[1] https://www.sanity.io/
From 2010 to 2013, I worked at an Apple Retail store in the East Bay of California and handled phone repairs for the latter two.

The amount of fraud was ridiculous. We would get at least a dozen attempts at replacing phones (and sometimes laptops) that were clearly tampered with. You would have people coming in with up to four appointments at a time, each time with a phone that had the same issue -- it wouldn't power on. Why? Because they short circuited the logic board on purpose.

If we rejected a claim for tampering, they would pretty much go right out the store and (this is what one of the loss prevention people told me at the time) someone would swap out the internal serial number sticker for one that was more likely to be not blacklisted, and try again at another store in the region the next day.

This happened every single day I worked there. I vividly remember one extra aggressive person trying to bully us into a replacement for half an hour after the store had already closed who had already been refused on six separate occasions from different stores in the market.

This fraud doesn't just happen in China, it's everywhere.