skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> and (1..) = c, whatever the heck that means

The 1..=c is Rust syntax for an inclusive range. Rust also has syntax for ranges that exclude the last value like Python’s range(1, c + 1), which is 1..(c + 1). Using that would make it look more like the other examples, though since the language has syntax for the idea “1 to c inclusive”, it makes sense to just use it.

For comparison Ruby uses a..z and a...z for inclusive and exclusive ranges respectively. I like that Rust’s inclusive range is more visually distinct, and I can see why they went for a symbol that implies the last element “equals” another value, but it does look unusual at first glance.
do you realize that people use bad words all the time in real life? saying a few bad words when you record yourself hours every day is not a big deal and almost everyone can look past it because other than some words he hasnt actually done anything

meanwhile you should probably pay attention to actual fascists out there in the world like in china and russia
> Why has Google/Apple decided to be puritanical with some things and not others.

Good question.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=learn+colors+sy...

What I want to know, is there a timeline of public statements by YouTube about ElsaGate? Last time I heard the first and last thing they said was to pat themselves on the back in advance over how thoroughly and trustworthily they will deal with this, and Disney said they'll work closely with them to make it all awesome, and then... nothing? Did I miss something, other than still being able to find EG videos in 5 seconds, over a year later?
branded physical token is "a thing from my bank", so something they are responsible for, that for my POV came from them, created and maintained by them, it's not connected to anything and it's a standalone object.

My phone is a connected device, monitoring me constantly outside my control, controlled by the most powerful data mining companies in the planet. I simply can't trust my phone. I can trust enough my physical offline devices and if it will be cracked sometime I'm completely not responsible for it, my bank is. While with my phone it's really easy to say "it's because of this or that, not our faults" where this or that can be anything from unupdated fw (by the vendor, of course), unsafe apps installed, ...
The actual justification for non-directly-observable metaphysics is Occam's Razor.
the topic of psychedelic drugs is truly fascinating, but I think Pollan's books "How to change your mind" is poor. I read most of it and felt angry and hollow after. I don't recommend a purchase.

Here's the review I left on Amazon (2 star):

"How tot change your mind" delivers and important core message, but it should have been an article or a podcast episode. Cutting the fluff offers vast room for lossless compression.

If you listen to the episode of Russ Robert's Econtalk (a podcast) with Pollan you'll know everything the book has to say.

Some takeaways:

When LSD and psilocybin (the active ingredient in magic mushrooms) were first studied by western science, there was a lot of hope for their potential use as medical treatment. Recreational use exploded and governments around the world banned the drugs, crudely throwing psychedelics in the same bucket as Heroin. Research stalled for 40 years but has recently picked up again. Partial legalization and increased medical use can be expected in the near future.

Psychedelics can move humans away from the "default mode" of consciousness and lead to ego dissolution. This is a trans formative experience for many.

Psychedelics harbor the potential for alleviation: Within the right medical setting (non-supervised usage is discouraged), the use of these substances can help addicts, those close to death and the depressed.

LSD and psilocybin are neither toxic or addictive.

According to some, it is possible to reach the enlightened states through a long term meditative practice, psychedelics can be seen as a shortcut.

---

What annoyed me about the book is that acronyms are spelled out repeatedly (for readers who don't pay attention?) while deeper explanations, especially regarding Timothy Leary are made too late in the book (e.g. only after the name has been mentioned several times - I am reminded of the frequent mentioning of John Galt in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged").

Numerous academic researchers are introduced, I'm fine with an elaboration on their respective academic affiliations and educational backgrounds - but spending a third of a page on the description of their physical appearance is disrespectful of the reader's time.

How others can refer to this book as "the best book they've ever read" is beyond me. I'm going to try to send the book back, I don't want it in my library.
As somebody who does a lot of writing and used to write news copy, this is a story I've been following for a while. In my mind it's easily the biggest story in journalism this year.

The internet has made everybody a publisher, from your cousin who thinks Elvis isn't dead to that MIT scientist with 17 degrees. And they're all online.

It's also created an instant feedback loop, where you instantly measure how "good" your publishing is by tracking clicks, page time metrics, and referrals.

It even provides a zero-overhead revenue model. The money's not what publishing used to be, but hey, you can tap into it without having to do much.

Finally, because of the previous items, it has destroyed traditional journalism. What do I see when I consume journalism today? I see fear. Everybody knows it's dead and internet eyeballs is the only thing that does anything. The person and their emotional connection over Twitter, FB, YouTube and the like is the brand, not the paper or magazine. Everybody knows that.

This means the old guard is gone, the people who used to sit in an office and tell you that your story was crap. They cost too much in overhead and nobody cares if your story was crap as long as you correct it the next day. (It's all self-correcting, right?)

So instead of news, we now have celebrities who give their personal impressions of how it all makes them feel. People reward or punish publishers by their ability to draw them into some event and make them feel one way or the other. This reporter (I use the term loosely) knew how to do a great job of that. He also knew that the emotional content far outweighed the rest of it. People loved him. His publisher loved him.

Until they didn't.

The only reason he was fired, the only reason BigNetCorp X would care if they're screwing you over or not, is because enough other people were able to raise a big enough rukus that it couldn't be ignored. He could have kept doing this for years as long as he was willing to scale his fabrications in accordance to how much of a PR stink people could have made.

While interesting as a stand-alone story, my feeling is that each of these just makes the next bunch more clever.

It's not a very good time to be alive for people who like journalism.
K-punk: The Collected and Unpublished Writings of Mark Fisher
Seriously? If you were at the Peckhamplex then you were 100 yards from three or four hipster joints, at least.
There is also Facebook's MyRocks which is MySQL frontend with RocksDB backend. It has lower write amplification than InnoDB, which is the main reason why it was created.
Oh yeah, no problem. If you don't like these tangerines over here, why don't you try a mandarin? Ok, fine then, don't like those - how about a valencia orange? No? How about just a regular orange?

Oh you're allergic to citrus? Too bad then.
The final word he used is "tetelestai", wish can be translated by paid in full.
The meaning is there.
A Full Hardware Guide to Deep Learning
He also abolished repudiation.
Weed was the original product from the Juul folks, back when the company was called Pax. Juul was a spin off from that company. The big attraction of Juul is to introduce teenagers to tobacco.
And apparently skipped typing class:)
The problem is, their solution just destroyed whoever used nude art or in general their bodies as a mean of expressing themselves while doing nothing to abusers (especially pornbots are still active just as before)
This is informative: https://opensource.com/article/18/3/behind-scenes-bitwarden

My impression is that Kyle cares more about spending time writing software than about hyping his company. ;-)

It's an unfortunate flaw in a founder, but not a fatal one if he hires people to do the communication that he doesn't want to be doing. It feels to me like he's moving in that direction.
> Were those Content ID or manual claims?

ContentID.

But I feel like that's good. It means that the audio is already in YouTube database, so YouTube could simply remove that audio from that claimant's "library" of protected works.
Corel Draw X9 2019 Crack Keygen [Activation and Serial] Free Download
The statue is overt sexual content. See my sidethread comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18745277 .
I was fine with MIPS (which Ubiquity uses as well) until I found out that Linux/MIPS doesn't support ASLR/DEP. [1]

[1] https://cyber-itl.org/assets/papers/2018/Linux_MIPS_missing_...
I see that it extracts files into `/tmp/...` inside the container first before running it. It'd be better if it could read the files directly from the image, say, like a self-executable squashfs image.
I created interface in react + unstated( frontend). I made design in Gravit Designer. Backend mock backend part is made in golang
Democracy presupposes an informed populace.
Can Huawei beat Samsung to release a 5G foldable phone?
I never knew how central a role Adam played in the group. Further, I was shocked to learn that he wasn't just the leader but a creative genius.
Designing Your Site Like It’s 1998
Only on paper unfortunately, however you can easily find small bits of information online, mostly about part of governments or single companies supporting many dictatorship even when their country formally combat them...

On "élites" consider a thing, if you are "Standard Oil" (that support nazis even during the first years of WWII) for you a government or another means nothing: you are needed by any parties and you'll be kept by both if you play your cards well, it's only a matter of business ability and timing. For instance actual "powerful&rich" automotive industry in Germany is property of the same families that finance nazis at their times, governments have changes, war etc does not change their business much, only vary a bit cash flow and volumes. Same in Italy, same in USA, same in Russian federation, Japan etc.

The only real problem for such subjects is a government really lead by citizen instead of by a kind of dictatorship, that's will really hurt their business. Dictatorship of any color for them are the same.
Unfortunately Nixey’s book is terrible. As a classisist she should know better than to regurgitate ideas from Gibbon, ignoring 200 years of scholarship. Instead she goes for sensationalism, “evil Christians destroying classical culture” and links to ISIS and such. Which isn’t needed because the period she describes is interesting enough on its own.

The book is so terrible a collection of reviews from historians can be found here: https://gegrammena.wordpress.com/2017/10/22/reactions-review... .

I especially like this article (https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2017/10/21/hunting-the-w...), focusing on how she misused a quote from Chrysostom by removing all context, which completely changed the meaning to fit her narrative. Not only that, she clearly didn’t read the original source but borrowed the interpretation from another author, who also misread it.
> Why is it illogical to say that a Maybe a -> b should be callable as if it were a -> b?

Fundamentally because it would require you to conjure up a value of type b from nowhere when the Maybe a is Nothing. If we view the function type as implication this would not be valid logically without some way of introducing that value of type b.

You could imagine some function from Nothing -> b that could rescue us. But since it only handles one case of the Maybe type, it is partial (meaning it could give undefined as an answer). There is basically two total functions that we could change it to:

* Maybe a -> b in which case we are back where we started.
* Unit -> b which essentially is just b, which can be summed up as meaning we need some kind of default value to be available at all times.

So to be able to call Maybe a -> b as a -> b you would need some default value available at all the call sites for a -> b

Now this is only "illogical" because we don't postulate a value of type b to be used as this default.

> It's like saying (+) works on integers, but not on 3

No, it's like saying (+) must work on all integers AND a special value nil that is not like any other integers, but somehow included in them and all other data types. We can't do anything with this nil value since it doesn't carry any data, so in the case of (+) we would essentially have to treat it as an identity element.

This is good though, since (+) has 0 as an identity element, so we can just treat nil as a 0 when we encounter (+). However, when we want to define multiplication we still need to treat nil as an identity element (since it still doesnt carry any data), except the identity element for multiplication is 1. This would be repeated for every new function that deals with integers.

So by mashing together Maybe and Integer we have managed to get a frankenstein data type with an extra element nil which sometimes means 0 and sometimes means 1.

Why not just decompose them into Maybe and Integer and supply the default argument with a simple convertion function like fromMaybe?

(FWIW, I actually agree with Hickey that using Maybe in api design is problematic and I've encountered what he's talking about. But while that might be an argument for where he wants to take Clojure, it's not an argument for dismissing type theory the way he does.)
Or in Haskell:

triples = [(a,b,c) | c <- [1..], a <- [1..c], b <- [a..c], a*a + b*b == c*c]
mapM_ print $ take 10 triples
How to contact Google?
I have nothing great to add, other than I found that post excellent and meritorious. I wish more people felt and thought like you do
.. Émile Zola ..
Isn't the equivalent metaphysics all those moments we have a theory of how to examine the world, so as to come to an accurate conclusion?

Metaphysics is required to make an inference -- it's the philosophical underpinning of things like science. Hence "meta-" "physics": the study of the study of physics.

Metaphysics is the glue that takes the language of mathematics to ontologies of physics. Mathematics is the modern rigorous language of metaphysics.

Assorted marketing campaigns have made the topic murky.

> Yeah, that's not metaphysics; it's pretty much just regular taxonomy (and, by the way, the term of art is labeling).

That literally is metaphysics. It's okay there's another word (or two?), but words are not exclusive in the way your logic implies.
I guess you want proof like a physicist can deliver proof. If that is your standard than most of history does not exist due to lack of proof. Which is a ridiculous position to hold of course.
They're making a good point about the comparison to the Reddit app. Their app is harmless.
You're describing RPC over HTTP. REST does rely on resources and does use a limited set of CRUD commands to operate over the resources, but REST also requires automatic discovery from a single starting resource/endpoint (see HATEOAS).
Of course, I meant for example if this consumer thought Coke is a bad monopoly that should be broken that would be a little bit illogical to me, because there's Pepsi and other soda.

Remember the great great parent just said that Opera is not a competitor to Chrome, which is really really an odd statement
Photo Wake-Up: 3D Character Animation from a Single Photo
But in fact the quality of the new questions go down, while the quality of answers is still better than elsewhere.

For sure good answers are more valuable than good questions.
Sure, but they're not responding because they're puritan idiots, they're responding because not doing so risks their business. Specifically, they risked being added to European block lists in use by almost all EU ISPs. Of course there are ways around this, but no business wants to tell its users to install Tor Browser Bundle to visit a website.
> "Now This" has multiple videos that if translated to German would come across as a teenager's propaganda attempt

“Now This” has nothing that doesn't come across as a teenager's propaganda attempt (or, perhaps more to the point, rehashing press releases from interested parties) in English, so I'm not to surprised you think it would come off that way translated to German.

Then again, if you asked Americans to name a respected news source, “Now This” wouldn't be a frequent response.
>The point is not that there were necessarily multiple movements that merged into one; rather, it is that there is no reason to rule it out.

Sure, no reason to rule it out, just many reasons to rule it improbable.
A former Tumblr-employee reported that this was a change that was already being developed (the NSFW-filter that is) for over a year, and was announced within the company in September. The child porn was merely a catalyst.

A good amount of advertisers don't like porn, so you can't monetize Tumblr as effective. Tumblr's investors want a return on investment, and the former approach allowing any legally permitted content didn't work for them, so they resorted to this. They surely did their research, and are betting that the ban on erotic material is the most effective way of increasing the revenue of Tumblr.
If your biggest project of the year that includes (or is at least supposed to include) the biggest creators on your platform becomes the most disliked video on your platform, you're bound to take notice.

Your marketing team is surely gonna attend a meeting or two to answer some questions about what the hell happened and how could a creation that's supposed to unite the platform become the most disliked one in its history.

Of course, you wouldn't want to go public with the internal drama, because why would you, that would only weakens your position. You can't minimize the damage either, it's a done deal. You can either accept the alienation of your audience or do something to fix the situation. Regardless of what choice they make, it is bound to become a point of no return.
Joe Rogan has had an incredible year.

Joe Rogan interviews Dr. Andrew Weil https://youtu.be/WjYYdMNUXF8

Joe Rogan interviews Elon Musk
https://youtu.be/ycPr5-27vSI

Joe Rogan interviews James Hetfield
https://youtu.be/5O6QPTawR14
He was trying to convince people to sacrifice their own lifestyle for the sake of the distant future.

Giving people a reason to think his efforts were a money-making scheme was just stupid.
Until a zero day exploit takes your browser, your VM you run your browser in (with confidence like yours you'd better run Qubes OS style) and just sniffs everything.

The "I know what I'm doing" doesn't hold up very well, statistically.
1Password can store 2FA and will auto-fill them on desktop and mobile.
You might want to try my project DeBroglie (https://boristhebrave.github.io/DeBroglie/).

It comes with a console application that runs WFC based on JSON config files, so you can experiment with generation without writing any code.
Not tobacco but nicotine. Just as despicable, slightly less deadly.
These are not JIT compilers. They are AOT compilers. Code gets immediately compiled to machine code - either automatically or on direct request by the user.
I'm a 'scientific programmer' who learned how to code basically trial by fire.

My background was mechanical engineering which didn't focus on coding at all other than needing to use/learn MATLAB for several classes. Went to grad school for HPC/CFD and there I was given access to our group's simulation code and was let loose to implement whatever routines I needed to simulate my problems. The shared components were the input/output system and the primary routine drivers (time-stepping and fluid dynamics algorithms and the like), and what I mostly worked with were different constitutive models which hooked into the system. Parallelization was implemented via MPI and was mostly complete, so my only job with respect to parallelization was to make sure that my algorithms would work in parallel.

I ended up taking several programming courses, but these were 100% focused on topics like parallelization with MPI, shared memory parallelization, and optimizing code, and a short stint in GPU programming. I learned nothing about code management or best practices. Oh, and this was all using Fortran and C, though now I'm working with C++ and Python, but that's because the newer libraries seem to be C++ and Python is just easy to glue everything together with.

My general programming knowledge isn't super great, but sometime this year I managed to download an open source iOS app and without any prior knowledge of Xcode or iOS programming/Swift was able to figure out how to implement something that was missing.

This is already a lot of words, but lately I've been thinking about getting out of academia and getting into actual software development cause I figure I kinda do that anyway. Obviously the easiest connections I could make would be to maybe work for companies like ANSYS that develop CFD software, but I feel like my programming knowledge is seriously lacking for that. You can give me a scientific paper that describes an algorithm to do a thing and I'd have no issue implementing it into some existing codebase but I read words written in this discussion like "code smell" and "CI" and I have no idea what these things are.

Anyway, can anyone recommend me some books to read and/or provide some advice and/or anecdotes on jumping ship from HPC/CFD/scientific programming into a general programming developer career?
in addition to Bad Blood and Shoe Dog that were mentioned numerous times already I would add "Rocket Men" by Robert Kurston. The story of Apollo 8. I'm not a space geek but the story is very interesting and well written. Audible book is very good.
andOTP is amazing, I thoroughly recommend it.
Brain has incredible energy saving measures. When you look through your eyes you process just few percent of the image. The rest is pretty much ignored because it usually isn't necessary for anything.

When you are trying to think through something it's really hard and tiresome not to default to stereotypes and what you already figured out earlier about similar thing.

Basically brain is as lazy as it can get away with.
Hi Mikekchar,

Thanks so much for your feedback. Addressing each point in turn:

1. UAT/Integration: this was just an "example process", one that you _might_ follow. YMMV and you could get better results doing things in a different order or with extra steps. The point was to show that each step on your process (whatever it is) is meeting reality and managing risk. I'm with you on this: you should _totally_ prepare for UAT ahead of doing it, because that preparation actually manages risk too - the risk of the users not knowing what to test, or not being available, or not understanding the functionality, or the data not being right etc.

2. On "Do the simplest thing... and refactor": this (and YAGNI) are great "rules of thumb" about how to develop. What I'm trying to do here is explain _why_ they are great. That is, explain how they attempt to manage risk on software projects. On the refactoring point, I cover this in a lot more detail in the section on "Complexity risk", which I'd really appreciate your feedback on.

It's here: https://github.com/risk-first/website/wiki/Complexity-Risk

I'll invite you to the project on github too

thanks,
Rob