skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're not even counting the right thing. How many orders of magnitude off you are isn't even the most important problem with your analysis.
Just so we're clear, the NYT article is only about Obama choosing not to veto a resolution condemning Israel.

Not sure what I said that was crazy?
are you familiar with the concept of a panopticon? When you are being watched/tracked to think you are - then your behavior changes - this is generally not wanted as far as a positive sum game is concerned.
That's what they said in 1988 when I started my career. Seriously, the same sort as the article writer were saying the exact same thing in the 1990's. Nothing has changed. They were wrong then and are wrong now.

Someday, they may be right, but that doesn't make their "analysis" any more valid. Broken clock and all that, don't ya know.
Your quoting is a bit confusing, as "`cmd...`" and "$(cmd...)" are similar,, while backtick-dollar-paranthesis is just asking for trouble... ;)

I take it fish didn't / doesn't support either?
Medgadget’s Best Medical Technologies of 2018
Indeed, and for that reason I'd be very cautious when attempting to memoize a function with floating-point inputs.
A lot of them aren’t.
You should never trust journalists with your data.

If you don't want to reveal how you look, don't meet them in person or cover yourself up.
I’m partial to the Fulcrum + Lever combo. Played well, it’s powerful enough to move the world.

Tangentially related anecdote on the Power 9: a play tester claimed he had a card so powerful, he could win all his games with it. It was the Time Twister, which initially stated that “opponent loses next turn” (it meant, of course, that the other player had to skip the next turn).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Nine
There are several firms that I personally know of that use alternative languages for building production systems around AI. My two largest clients have systems built in Typescript and Java. If you are going to work in this field you have to know Python as it is a common language for practitioners, but the language choice for production systems is driven by many factors. Python is almost never an appropriate choice for building production systems. Even in cases where we use Python for models, the models are exported to a different language for integration with the deployed application. In many cases there are substantial benefits to building models in the language that will used for building the final application as well. As with all technical choices, the needs of the project should be the ultimate basis for making a selection -- not fanboi attachments to particular languages.
I'm unable to read the article on my phone (ad?) so I apologize if it is answered there, but why is this a long lasting problem? My past two or three (not sure) workplaces have had to failover to alternate providers for office traffic when something broke in the primary, and both had contracts in place and the technical infrastructure to do so in relatively short order. (I don't want to ignore the pre- and intra- effort by ops, I'm just saying it paid off)

Is this outage just breaking those places that didn't have such things (as a result of insufficient budget or skill)? Is there some now-regrettable contract(s) that prevented that from being in place?

Why is a system that saves lives working without the backup that systems that dont dictate life are? While I understand that govt has both budget and hiring issues, i've worked in state govt and there are definitely some highly competant admins to be found, so I wouldn't assume that is the problem without word from someone with more detailed knowledge into this particular problem.
What's wrong with WinDbg?
Zsh + OMZ is a slow, unconfigurable mess. If you are new to Zsh, avoid OMZ. If you are experienced with Zsh, you already know to avoid it.

Fish "just works", and you won't have any lag. It is a delightful beginner experience, too.

A Zsh veteran could probably replicate parts of the Fish experience in Zsh, but ultimately they are different tools. I use Fish at home for casual shell stuff, but I write shell scripts in Zsh, and I use Zsh at work whenever possible.
I believe the OP is referring to the fact that you have to relocate their first to find out if you qualified. In other words there is a risk involved. What does that have to do with quality of life metrics?
I work using C++17 for high performance applications, and I can relate to a lot of these gripes. I think it's a fair point that C++ is unreasonably complex as a language, and it's been a serious problem in the community for a long time.

One part that really struck me as odd is the focus on non-optimized performance. To me, this is an important consideration, but not nearly as important as optimized performance. Using techniques like ranges can definitely slow down debug performance, but much of the time it _dramatically increases_ optimized performance vs. naive techniques.

How do ranges speed up optimized builds? One of the best techniques for very high performance code is separation of specifying the algorithm and scheduling the computation. What I mean by this is techniques like [eigen](http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Main_Page) and [halide](http://halide-lang.org) where you can control _what_ gets done and _how_ it gets done separately. Being able to modify execution orders like this is critical for ensuring that you're using your single-core parallelism and cache space in an efficient way. This sort of control is exactly what you get out of range view transformers.
I think it's pretty clear that the editor isn't intended for people who aren't enthusiasts and just want an editor to get work done.
When I’m working on process or productivity improvements nothing is as valuable to me as sitting and watching a just barely or almost senior dev try to puzzle through my documentation and using my work.

I don’t know how to accomplish that in a remote situation. It might be possible, but it would take more introspection on my part to understand what I’m looking for exactly and the tooling overhead puts in jeopardy the organic nature of walking up to someone, saying hey check this out and taking notes.
I've analyzed some failed LED bulbs, and what fails is the power supply. The LEDs themselves were likely still good, but especially the cheaper bulbs have inadequate cooling and very cheap & crappy power supplies.
Nowadays you can listen to audio books in your car. I haven't done this, I'm curious how safe that is.
Ask HN: If you could recommend only one ML resource?
I have hundreds of self-improvement and technology books on my reading list, and it's so overwhelming that I default to reading none of them. The same is true for online articles, movies, documentaries, talks, podcasts, online courses, etc. Analysis paralysis is real.

I want to understand what ML is all about, and I want to commit to going through and mastering a single self-contained resource about ML (book, website, online course, video lectures, etc).

I prefer breadth over depth, and I'm looking for something that's not too intimidating to complete beginners. The less prior knowledge required, the better.

Hopefully answers below can reach a consensus, otherwise I'm back to square one.
I don't believe any other game is as joyous as Vintage Cube draft on Magic Online, but part of that is sentimentality, I will admit.
A friend texted me that his POS systems that rely on CenturyLink in Nevada have been down for two days. The stores can only do transactions in cash.

Makes you think twice about the cashless utopia the HN crowd imagines.
Yeah, I really appreciate Eric's ability to explain the feature. It really needs a tutorial like this, not just standard docs.

That said, I think it's too complex for a portion of our team to grasp. So now what - do we use it, and alienate them? Or stay in the "dark ages"?
context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18775352
They'll take my copper phoneline away when they pry it from my cold dead fingers
Just got a phone message from my ISP. They want to "upgrade" me to fiber/voip. Hell no. I can stream movies with what I've got. My landline works without adding another wall wart, and without depending on AC power to my house. I don't need to buy a backup battery. I can use my own bought-and-paid-for ADSL2+ modem, without paying another $10 a month to rent their box. I don't need another hole drilled in my wall. I don't need to wait for the installer to show up. I've already got my house wired up the way I want. I've got my home network configured the way I want, with my own firewall box, hubs, etc. Why should I take a day out of my life to change things, if I'm not interested in the higher speed of fiber?

Other old fogies who want to chime in, feel free. For you kids who want to know what a "landline" is, go look it up.
You write this as if you hadn't kicked this weird subthread off with the argument that iOS was problematic because nobody can audit it. "No one outside Apple can audit their products". That is simultaneously false and inconsistent with the comment you just wrote.
That fact about natural gas was one of the most surprising things to me. I realise the Netherlands is right next to some huge oil and gas fields, but surely burning gas to heat greenhouses filled with tomatoes in a cold climate, can't make sense compared to just importing those vegetables from countries where they grow naturally? Shipping fuel isn't that expensive?

Is this some weird side effect of the tariffs and CAP? It's cheaper for Europe to burn fossil fuels and build robots to grow tomatoes in cold climates with expensive labour, than import them from warm climates with cheap labour?
Rock Concert in Tel Aviv, Israel on 2nd January, 2019
Noooooooo it's erlang with Ruby syntax, powerful meta programming, ad-hoc polymorphism and many other things...
What are you talking about? Google 'explosively pumped flux compression generator'. LANL wrote a paper on how to do this in the '70s and did real world tests. You output to the antenna or right into the grid.

If I recall correctly they mostly used RDX.
Will their suffering be balanced out by the reduction in suffering their competitors experience? Should we value jobs that simply move suffering around?
Makes me think we should be investing in redundancies (one of which is cash, but also in our electronic networks).
As a former equity vol trader turned software engineer, my lessons:

* derivatives are a leaky abstraction. Understand how the underlying securities work all the way down

* read the docs!
Free SEO report of your website (tool)
1) I would argue that the pipe operator is *more erlangey than ruby-ey. It is crazily enough possibly the most useful syntactic sugar feature I've ever seen, especially coupled with labelled IO.inspect. I've never had to go down to the debugger, and reverting the inspect is nearly instantaneous.

2) my number one wish-that-will-never happen for elixir would be the inverse of the mutability issue, variables should be immutable by default but have a sigil or postfix (like !) that lets you make it mutable. Of course, as it is, this is trivially implementable as a credo linter feature.

3) I think generally the biggest problem with macros is the risk of nonlocal side effects in your code, and elixir does a nice job of containing it lexically.
Well, it doesn't help that Borland focused on compiler performance (i have Borland C++ 5.0 and i use it for a lot of my C coding since i write in C89+a few extensions that are supported anyway, because it takes around a second for a full rebuild for my code and is practically instant for a partial build - and that is for a singlethreaded compiler, for comparison the same code takes 4 seconds on a parallel build in gcc with make -j8). I don't know of any other (non-toy) compiler that focused on that. 15-16 years ago i used the free BC5.5 command line tools exclusively because on the crappy computer i had at the time (Pentium MMX at 200MHz with 32MB of RAM) it was the only that was fast enough to work with.

I've also played a lot with Borland C++ Builder and the compile times for C++ (pre-C++98) are comparable (that is, practically instant).
I would love to use Elixir day to day. As the author points out, it's an enjoyable language. I highly recommend every developer to try it out, especially if you've never done any functional programming before.

It has one of the best communities around.
Less manual math when figuring out the true size of an element with margin, border, padding, and sizing applied.
Meh. Aras is comparing apples to apples, so I don't see how it matters.
That sounds like a horribly toxic company. As expected of Oracle.
Starting at 1 is good for non-programmers, who IMO could benefit the most from switching to Fish. I would love to see a distro using Fish as the default shell for non-root users.
>That's just outright ignoring all science and engineering applications outside of academia/academic research.

What % of scientific code do you think is written outside the areas this paper surveyed? Having been on both sides, I find that the majority of numerical code, especially anything more complex than simple math (which is almost always written poorly outside academic areas), is written/developed by academics, and the results adopted as libs in engineering.
This is cute, albeit a terrible idea in practice. It's also misleading to compare it favorably to CLOS and come up with statements like "a framework that brings C to the level of other high level programming languages and beyond". It's a bad idea to examine CLOS in isolation and try to replicate its features, without understanding - or ignoring - how it fits in with the rest of Common Lisp and how the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. CLOS is extremely powerful because there is tremendous synergy with the interactive, image-based development style that CL is designed around.

You focus on CLOS in isolation and you not only end up missing the point completely but also end up with a frankenstein monstrosity that can be very destructive. This also reminds me of Alan Kay talking about how most OO languages completely missed the point unlike Lisp that got it: Late binding.
There's another discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18777794. Since that article adds new information, we'll leave it up instead of marking it a dupe.
SNIP sounds cool, and makes sense as well: Systems for Neural Information Processing
I also do that, often with loops.

for ((i=0;i<4;++i)); do (./ad-hoc-operation >out-$i.log 2>&1 ) & done

Can be anything from image processing, video transcoding, file decompression, file system analysis - anything I think may complete faster with some concurrency.
Cryptography 1 by Stanford on Coursera is really good too : https://www.coursera.org/learn/crypto
I'm not sure why anyone today would start a greenfield project in C++ instead of D, rust or Nim. Maybe in niches where C++ is deeply rooted, like games.
The train signals are big physical objects right there on the tracks, visible to the engineers. A bandit on the railroad has as much information about the positions of the other trains as a legitimate operator. (This is because of the fail-safes in place for when the central control system gets something wrong.)
There's herds upon herds who do not realise that "profound insight" because of a lack of transparency. So when truth is being unleashed about e.g. Facebook, it allows for people to be waken up.

(FWIW, it has worked for me, though yes it was annoying.)
even I am curious to know as well. some things I have found are fish is very fast, comes with syntax highlighting and auto suggestions from history.

one thing I have noticed is, some packages (I can't remember which, perhaps it was virtualenvwrapper?) come with tools which work with bash or zsh. I have rarely seen fish being mentioned.

edit: it was gcloud sdk and it added command line completions:

# The next line enables shell command completion for gcloud.
if [ -f /Users/avi/code/google-cloud-sdk/completion.zsh.inc ]; then
source '/Users/avi/code/google-cloud-sdk/completion.zsh.inc'
fi
> Cognitive load is important

This, to me, is a very powerful statement that points to the major change between old C++ and the current model (which is IMO is a monster). It may have gained a lot in the process, but at a huge cost to conciseness and clarify of written code. And this may be fatal for a general purpose language.

Maybe as other languages with focus on cleanliness and clarity (Pythons, Kotlins and Haskells of this world) become fast and powerful enough for large projects the use case for simple and clear C++ code decreases. Then C++ can still provide benefit for, say, intermediate representations. But this complexity increase may be one of the last nails into its coffin as a general purpose language. My 2c.
Difference being that the fork is copy on write, so it can be quite a bit faster and need no initialization. Not to mention not needing to quote quotes and escape escapes.
The NYT article is more about him questioning why we should do it, he seemed to understand what mutual defense is, just that he didn't want to commit to it. If you recall the parable of the elephant and the mouse, Trump doesn't see the value of the mouse and thus doesn't wanna commit to helping it without question. at least that's what I gleaned from the article.

There is a difference between being "a source of chaos" and actual sabotage of alliances.

1) Still doesn't seem that unfair of a demand.

2) You gotta admit that he had a point that using Russia as a source for oil kinda undermines independence. We ran into the same thing in the 70's, it sucked.

3) Classic Trump. but not sabotage.
In many ways the '++' in 'C++' comes from giving the compiler more information to work with. You can opt to trust the compiler much more than in C, and the idea is that you gain time at develop-time and hopefully run-time with the tradeoff of losing it at compile-time.

At least, that's how I've usually understood it. And the example you mention seems like a complaint with C++20's Ranges in particular. I guess I'd fall into the, "but can't you just ignore the parts you don't like?" camp.

This post is written in the context of game engines, but I see a lot of the same 'OG C' arguments made when people in embedded development resist giving C++ a try.

We're all writing resource-constrained applications that work on tight time budgets, and none of us feel comfortable throwing up our hands and 'trusting the compiler' in that sort of atmosphere. But C isn't getting any younger, and it's hard to do polymorphism without getting hack-y.

Now, who's turn is it to advocate Rust?
There is no broadcast on platforms like Facebook. Users always have the features to control what they see. As for "deplatforming", that means censorship and the history of it shows that it doesn't work in the long run. Those views don't go away and the totalitarianism required to implement it invariably destroys itself, making millions miserable along the way.
I was a long time zsh user too until a few months ago, when i tried to configure zsh line completion for a new tool. After a few hours of reading and trying I looked at how this other new she'll did it. Found the doc clear and the implementation clean, was able to solve my problem in no time. Havn't looked back although I'm not a big fan of breaking sh compatibility for many futile things, I welcome the simpler design.
>Their premise is that if folks in academia are having a hard time with it, then perhaps the training and tooling around floating point needs some reconsideration

There's been 50+ years of this reconsideration. Some problems are simply hard, and perhaps nothing will make it easier than to simply learn the nuances.

For some domains, there are some solutions, like BigInt to avoid overflow, but each comes with other tradeoffs.

For general floating-point, it's mathematically quite likely there is no better tradeoff. You cannot stuff infinite values into finite space.
Since the current post adds information, we'll leave it up instead of marking it as a dupe, and have moved most of the non-time-sensitive comments here.
Sysadmins and networking subreddits were tracking this as well.

https://www.reddit.com/r/networking/comments/a9z6tb/centuryl...

Some areas were fully out. While others (like Denver) saw partial outages/packet-loss as exit nodes depending on the dest were having problems.
Some Limits of Science and Evolutionary Processes [pdf]
Tesla just reached profitability last quarter, and is likely to turn a profit this quarter as well. They might not even need to raise more capital if they keep up with Model 3 demand coming from the US, Europe, and China next year.

This is a far cry from bankrupt in March.
There is research showing that suicide rates increase with greater access to easy methods(ie. guns). My guess would be that murders work much the same way. Planning and executing a murder is difficult, signing up for a website and sending bitcoin is easy. I suspect that murder appearing more accessible encourages more people to pursue it. Obviously a scammer won't pull off an actual hit, but I worry that the person paying might be more willing to pursue other methods after months of thinking about it and being led on by the scammer.
> In which world is it okay to compile a trivial 5-line example three times slower than a full database engine

Well, as explained in the article, those 5 lines generate hundred thousands of lines of code behind the scene.

And you don't use C++ for fun, you use it because you have a serious performance problem. And in that case you'll wait the compile times, because there is no alternative.

Let's not even go into link time code generation or profile guided optimizations, which increase compilation times by another order of magnitude.
Why is it centralized??
I think generally the issue of when to use <- and when to use -> and when to use = is one of the few things about the language that makes my head spin.
True, though HN title does not mention Kathleen Wilson-Thompson. The original title and body do.
In literally every possible way.
This comment is a moving target. You edited it between when I received a copy via HN Replies and when I came here to respond. At the moment it reads, in its entirety:

> You're not even counting the right thing. How many orders of magnitude off you are isn't even the most important problem with your analysis.

It's more than a little disingenuous of you to say that without saying what the most important problem is. How exactly did you expect me to respond to this?
FWIW yash is an impressive and mature project that seems to overlap with the goals of mrsh:

https://yash.osdn.jp/index.html.en

Yash, yet another shell, is a POSIX-compliant command line shell written in C99 (ISO/IEC 9899:1999). Yash is intended to be the most POSIX-compliant shell in the world while supporting features for daily interactive and scripting use.

I've installed the Ubuntu package and poked around at it a bit. Its source code seems well-written, and it even contains its own line editing library (i.e. the functionality of GNU readline).

It looks like it's still being developed, and magicant is the original author: https://github.com/magicant/yash

I mentioned it here (and just added a proper link): https://github.com/oilshell/oil/wiki/ExternalResources

I wrote some notes about POSIX here: http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2018/01/28.html#limit-to-posix
No need to do an integer redirection. i < 0.95 would have sufficed.
> Using techniques like ranges [...] _dramatically increases_ optimized performance vs. naive techniques.

This claim will require some evidence. In my experience, it's extremely common for novice engineers to trade orders of magnitude in build time overhead chasing negligible runtime performance improvements.