skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Take a look at the Robot Operating System[1] and their tutorials[2]. Keep in mind though that very slowly ROS is transitioning to ROS2 which fixes some major problems caused by ageing. Most notably the switch from ROS messages to the Data Distribution Service (DDS) which is very popular in robotics.

ROS has a large amount of packages available for popular robots and integrates well with many simulation environments also. This will save you a massive amount of time learning and from being overwhelmed with the massive amount of things that go into even making a simple robot work. Download a bunch of packages and focus on just the part/parts you are learning right now. You will also see lots of great examples of how robotics software is written. Whether it is DDS, ROS messages, or LCM it is generally structured into a collections of nodes that interact with each other.

As far as hardware, even having personal projects with a simple line following robot should be enough to get a foot in the door. Where I worked previously preferred to hire people who were software engineers first, or at least keep the team balanced and I learned on the job. Simulation to real training has had some recent breakthroughs also, see "Learning Dexterity" by OpenAI[3] so it is increasingly possible to do effective work in simulation.

[1]: http://www.ros.org/

[2]: http://wiki.ros.org/ROS/Tutorials

[3]: https://blog.openai.com/learning-dexterity/
Interestingly enough, such issues are becoming more common. It's not just about devices being less reliable, but e.g. thin provisioning being used more widely etc.
As always, such shortages are largely contrived. If you aren't finding the talent you want, you need to raise the salary that you're offering. Per Stack Overflow's salary survey, the median Chicago full stack dev with a bachelors and 5 years experience only makes $90K per year.
Thanks a ton for testing it quite exhaustively! Would really appreciate it if you can share the second image.

I spent a lot of time working on a hack for 'normalizing' white on black and black on white backgrounds and also between choosing adaptive vs gaussian thresholds dynamically during preprocessing.

Here is an example with white on black and black on white variations of Nike logo that works as intended.

http://compute.vision/nouns/index.html?barnacles=https://s3....

http://compute.vision/nouns/index.html?barnacles=https://s3....

Edit: Grammar
Well, maybe it isn’t worth spending another 20B on a new particle accelerator, but if so how should we continue? Smashing particles together at high energies is at least a proven strategy that has yielded results in the past and I personally don’t know how we would do high energy physics without them? Maybe we could think of finding ways to investigate naturally occurring particles at those high energies (e.g. via cosmic radiation) but that seems more sci-fi than reality and also won’t cost less than 20B I would argue.

Also, not making progress for 40 years is not really long, we just tend to view everything relative to our own lifespan and we were also pretty spoiled with the marvelous discoveries we made in the last 100 years, but it’s entirely possible that we have now worked out all the “easy” stuff and that making further progress will take 1000s of years (though I think that’s unlikely).
It's mentioned at the end of the article.

> Oliver Sacks, who died in 2015, was the author of many books, including “Musicophilia,” “Gratitude,” and “The River of Consciousness.” A final collection of his essays, “Everything in Its Place,” will be published in April.
Understanding the LMAX Disruptor
Peter Gärdenfors – The Geometry of Meaning [video]
In my experience it tends to both extremes...
RxJava vs. Reactor
Introduction to Object.fromEntries – ECMAScript 2019
Different does not mean "non-social" or "dehumanizing." Obviously communication involving new technologies will be different from previous modes. Why does that mean it is strictly worse? Some things are lost, but other things are gained by the change.
Yeah, which is one of the reasons PostgreSQL went with buffered I/O, not to have to deal with this complexity. And it served us pretty well over time, I think.
>the borrowing/ownership semantics of rust (at the time I looked at it) felt needlessly over complicated.

Taking a wild guess here, but it sounds like you maybe referring to issues addressed by Non-Lexical Lifetimes (NLL)?

Reference: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2094-nll....

NLL are a part of Rust 2018 Edition.

Three complementary books are the best resources:

- The Official book: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/

- The Rust By Example book : https://doc.rust-lang.org/rust-by-example/

- Programming Rust (O'Reilly) : https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Rust-Fast-Systems-Develop...
This is because of the removal of the fat runtime and green threads about 5 years ago. Since there was no blessed way to do high concurrency in the language any more, some code started using normal threads, some code (tokio) started using normal callbacks. Callbacks in rust are tricky because of the type system. Around a year ago, async/await became possible due to the development of the Pin idea. async with the await! macro is usable now, but the rust community has been bikeshedding over built-in await syntax and last time I looked that discussion was still raging.

So you can write scalable servers using normal threads, normal callbacks, and async with the await! macro, but not the final async/await syntax because the community hasn’t even finished deciding what it is. Porting code between these approaches is also not particularily easy. I have seen example code for rust networking libraries that uses all of the different approaches, but mixing the different approaches is also difficult. So that’s probably why people say it’s not ready even though you can write code right now that will work just fine. The “final” way of writing it isn’t ready yet, and if you write one of the current forms, porting to the final form will be a pain.
Why was 'The History of' removed from the title? There is a current Prophet synthesizer, and there have been many models of the Prophet in the past, so removing 'The History of' makes it sound like it's just a video about the current one.

It's a bit of a moot point because this link didn't seem to catch the interest of many people, but I really think there are some of these title edits which are of distinctly dubious value. The existing title was fine - it wasn't confusing, it wasn't too long, it wasn't click-baity.
Let the universe provide the high energy particles. Biuld big detectors, not accelerators.

And telescopes to study objects like quazars that too are just sitting there demoing high energy physics 24/7.
after learning common lisp and smalltalk i realized that almost none of the languages that were created after added anything new to the language. this doesn't make lisp the best language, but certainly one that's good enough, and the only thing holding it back today is lack of popularity, not lack of ability.

i feel that newer languages add a more complex syntax without necessarily simplifying the the process. though here i feel that ruby and python have a rather nice syntax, and it's debatable which is actually easier to read.

for my part, i like the minimalistic syntax of either lisp or smalltalk, because they make it easier to reason about the code once you get used to it because there are not so many syntactic elements that i need to keep track of. but both do take some getting used to.

maybe ruby and python today feel easier to pick up because we start learning with rather complex syntax.
Along with raining podcasts. How do we fix this? Go back to Web?
About 300 hours of content are uploaded to YouTube per minute. That’s 1800 minutes per minute.

You can look at just the best 0.06% of YouTube, and never touch the back catalog.
Give up. There’s too much content, you obviously can’t handle it all.

Just acknowledge this and just enjoy what you can.

A few years ago I thought I could get through my to-read list, then I realized I couldn’t and stopped worrying about it.
“In truth, it’s a newsletter about the design of walking.“

Oh my God, we don’t need this.
Germany (and France!) violating the same budget rules it insists everyone else follows is indeed a damning indictment of what the EU truly is. But Germany isn't a winner from the Eurozone. I don't understand why everyone keeps thinking that. Germans are suffering under it and allow themselves to suffer because they see unifying Europe as a form of penance for World War 2.

Think about it - German "competitiveness" is just another way to say that they work harder than everyone else. They save money that the ECB then gives to foreign governments through QE. They make things and send them to other parts of Europe. In return they get what are effectively IOUs from the other countries - TARGET2 balances that are supposed to imply a transfer of "real" euros (i.e. paper money) one day, but which are so huge those transfers will never actually happen. There are no realistic scenarios in which an equally sized flow of goods or services ever comes back to the poor Germans in return for their efforts: the only plausible outcome is that either the internal imbalances are written off for good by the EU authorities, or that other countries exit the Eurozone and the imbalances are written off amidst acrimony and bitterness. I cannot see any realistic path to Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, eastern Europe etc ever becoming as productive as the Germans are, let alone more productive as would be required to restore balance to the system, if only because the Germans never seem to give themselves pay rises.

In the end Germany will be the biggest loser of the EU project, simply because they put the most into it to start with.
Conclusions: Lisp is invariably implemented in terms of conses rather than vectors for a wide variety of reasons, which were discussed in detail in the preceding post. No one of these multiple reasons stands out as the "killer advantage". Vectors just turn out to be the death of a thousand complexities, whereas conses are simple, extremely flexible, and sufficiently efficient for the purpose. A great deal of additional insight can be gained by actually implementing Lisp both ways and experiencing the differences first hand.
Is there a Discord server for startups discussions?
If not, would anyone be interested to join, if I created one?
Still too complicated.

Go almost got it right [0]; and then blew it with opaque, mandatory preemptive threading.

[0] https://gitlab.com/sifoo/snigl#io
In almost 15 years I haven't seen either a hardware vendor or a software implementation of IPSEC that did not include NAT-Traversal. It's been a standard since 2005:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3947
The Time German and Russian WWI Soldiers Banded Together to Fight Wolves
Why would you use mspaint over aseprite?
https://explainshell.com/explain?cmd=rsync+--progress+-avr+-...

This is really well done, what a neat resource.
Maybe?

It sounds like you’re imaging errors propagating through citations. Paper X cites paper Y, which in turn cites paper Z, so if there is an error in Z, X and Y are—-or should be assumed to be--invalid.

It doesn’t work like that. A few citations may be “critical” but a lot of them provide context and credit. Jones et al. first identified this problem. Smith tested several obvious but ultimately unsuccessful approaches. Here, we use the same methods as Wu and Lee. Our results differ from Cantorovich because....

Errors in those papers might make sections of the citing paper superfluous or less interesting but they don’t invalidate it. For ideas and methods, it might not even matter what the ultimate result was....
Exposing the Wayland lie (2018)
My problem with Bach is that the best advice to a musician seems to be: Just play the notes.

Most other composers can benefit from creative interpretation.
I could not get this to work in Safari, but they do show up in Chrome.
YouTube Marketing Strategy 2019
The Five Cases of the Planar Vector Equation
Which is good practice anyway, just in case of an outage, or someone hacking your account, or whatever.

But I agree, too risky. Just stay away from Google. Cons outweigh the pros, for me personally. The only thing I used it for was sheets, docs and gmail. LibreOffice is more than adequate for me, and far better than the Google alternatives.
7,000 varieties of apples and the 18 you need to know about (2013)
I want to study OS dev. Linux seems to be pretty complicated. Which one from the list do you folks recommend to study?
History of Japan (video) (2016)
I've been programming in C and C++ since sometime around 1992 (and Pascal before that). For the last 3 years, I've been writing Rust professionally.

Here's my Rust advice for C and C++ programmers:

- Rust is a higher-level language than C. A C/C++ programmer could think of Rust as "C++ without most of the footguns and magic."

- Certain types of C/C++ code will translate very easily to Rust. For example, if your code mostly transforms bytes (or data structures) into other bytes (or data structures), then Rust will usually be fairly easy to learn. We could call this "mostly functional" C code, with only localized mutability, and with clear, hierarchical data structures. Examples: Most typical Unix CLI tools.

- Certain kinds of C and C++ will translate very badly to Rust. If you have a big web of mutable objects, all of which point to each other and update each other, then your first experience of Rust will probably be frustrating. Examples: doubly-linked lists, traditional GUIs, typical video games. You can do all these things in Rust, but you'll need to either re-architect them or use more advanced features. (See http://cglab.ca/~abeinges/blah/too-many-lists/book/ for doubly-linked lists, or https://kyren.github.io/2018/09/14/rustconf-talk.html for video games.)

- Async Rust is not ready for prime-time. We make limited use of async Rust at work. It's rock-solid and powerful, but it's missing critical ergonomic features and it demands a surprisingly high level of Rust knowledge. See https://areweasyncyet.rs/.

Two good Rust books are https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/book/ and http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920040385.do. "The Rust Programming Language" seems to work best for people coming from Ruby or JavaScript, but I've known several C/C++ programmers who preferred the O'Reilly book.

Honestly, if you're happy with C, there's no reason to switch to Rust. (Except, maybe, preventing exploits, if you worry about that.) If, however, you love certain parts of C++ and hate other parts of C++, then Rust might be worth a look. Anyway, that's my personal take. :-) Overall, I've been really enjoying Rust. It generates fast, reliable code and it fits the way I think.
Ask HN: What would it take to build a US version of the Shenzhen ecosystem?
Vectors are a lot of work for no gain. They make everything more complicated, especially if you want an efficient CDR operation, and there's just no reason for it. Yes, your code might compile a little faster, but Lisp code is generally compiled incrementally anyway, so compile cycles tend to be measured in milliseconds already. There's just no point in speeding it up any further.
Printing money to pay a debt is defaulting in any sense that would be understood by a layman. The loan has technically been paid, but in a way that voided the point of requesting payment (transfer of value).

Again, the fact that it's not considered that way says more about the finance industry than it does about ordinary terms like cash.
It really depends on the business model. There are some tools out there for some financial forecasting, but IMO, most are too specialized to do what you’re referring. Ultimately, things haven’t changed much. Most large corporations are still using these excel models to do the exact same thing.
Sure I think we’re already doing that, but I also think this makes it very difficult to observe results let alone make controlled experiments. I can’t recall any particle or fundamental force that was validated / found in this way, the only thing I can think of are tests of the theory of general relativity that use astronomical observations, but I don’t recall anything in the field of particle physics (it’s not my field though so I might just have missed it).
> But I don't see a conceivable way in which discoveries made by studying complex behavior closer to our scale will help solve quantum gravity or dark matter.

In the main I only see reason and balanced in this post, but this particular statement is a bit risky. Historically, big breakthroughs in the sciences happen when new measurement techniques become available or existing measurement techniques are refined to produce a "significantly" greater level of accuracy.

A breakthrough in our understanding of reality could come from anywhere that anyone pushes the bounds of what we can measure; which admittedly is probably the folk with the budget for a big particle accelerator, but one could imagine a path for almost anybody to make a contribution. One of the take-aways of the whole quantum vs classical business is that just because the evidence seems to be converging on a well respected model doesn't mean that the evidence is actually going to converge.
As someone who has made a good part of his living performing Bach for about 25 years now, I can tell you that your impression here is very, very much mistaken. Modern Bach performances are alive with "creative interpretation", both textual and musical.
> (a) how long before people start complaining about the new one

Very likely many years, or even never. People don't use large names because they like it, they always prefer small ones.

How much memory are we talking about?
I think one distinction often missed is if the programming language can share memory between threads natively (without copying) and if the language has stable nio & concurrency libraries to do this today on a live service. The only bottleneck we have is CPU, and because of litography/memory bandwidth it will never go away for transistor processors. I just called this "joint parallel" for my completely async. non-blocking HTTP server/client; meaning it can have many cores work "simultaneously" on the same memory, which is really rare in the async. world.
Paris seeks $14M from Airbnb for illegal adverts
When we compare eco-systems, we need to consider everything.

For cargo to win over cmake, it needs to finally support binary libraries.

For Rust to matter to .NET devs, it needs to support COM/UWP and mixed mode debugging on IDEs.

On Android, mixed mode debugging and just fitting in with the NDK/AS would also be quite productive.
Google Pixel Is 'Fastest-Growing US Smartphone Brand
Please feel free to delete my ill-advised comment. I apologize.
Folder Change 3.7.5 Crack Full Version
She is not claiming that high energy physics is foundational. The foundations of physics are the main theories on top of which the whole edifice is built. In physics, these foundations include the Theory of Relativity and the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

We know that the foundations are incomplete because the Standard Model cannot be combined with General Relativity, although there is overwhelming empirical evidence in favor of both. They also fail to predict Dark Energy and Dark Matter. So we know that there is something foundational we don't know. One of the hopes of finding out what this is is to gather more empirical data (also allowing one to put many hypothesis to the test along the way). On the side of the Standard Model, high particle physics provides the theoretical and experimental framework to gather more such empirical data, that being the purpose of the particle accelerators. The author is lamenting that these efforts did not produce the results we were hoping for, and that they did not lead to any breakthrough on the foundational mysteries.

I do not quite agree with your foundations of Computer Science. For me, these are the theoretical constructs that give sense to everything else, for example Turing Machines and the main results on Turing Machines. Perhaps also Lambda Calculus, or at least combinatory logic and so on.

Another example: in modern Biology, the concept of "imperfect replicator" is foundational. If you remove that piece, the whole edifice crumbles into stamp collecting.
EU council has apporved the current state of copyright mandate
My personal project Video Hub App is for sale for $3.50 per copy, but is also open source: https://github.com/whyboris/Video-Hub-App

Have 437 sales as of today (released 1 year ago) with many people opting to pay more than $3.50 -- though I'm funneling $3.50 from every sale to a GiveWell recommended charity.
Lots of high tech jobs come from war too. Great strides in physics came directly from war funding. Huge areas of tech (gps) came from the preparation for war.
a good comparison may be lego bricks. lisp and smalltalk syntax is like the basic bricks that can be used anywhere, whereas ruby, python and others have additional special parts that only have a single use.

while the basic bricks are much easier to understand, maybe it does take more skill to use them to build complex systems than if you have a lot of specialized parts...
Very cool. Maybe add malloc() and friends to missing functionality.
Making .Net AWS Lambda Functions Start 10x Faster Using LambdaNative
China s blockbuster the Wandering Earth is rich, gorgeous, and goofy
It didn't do so well on my most used Slack emoji http://imgs.fyi/img/78s9.png
Seemingly. It doesn't hurt their SEO (like ajaxing in the content would) and "forces" people to turn off blockers. Or clear out.

This sort of dickery just means we'll see a rise in NoScript users, or that functionality becoming baked in.
Blah-blah-blah; lower your standards and thus save enough money early. What’s new?
> Drop the Apple earbuds in the garbage and get TRN V80 in-ear-monitors for under $50.

Awesome recommendation. I ordered these ($40 on Amazon) based on your comment and they are great. I have been using 5 year old $50 Sony earbuds which are good, but these TRNs are amazing.

My only complaint is that they are pretty heavy so I'm not sure I could run in them. For my use that doesn't matter since I have BT earbuds for workouts.

Thanks again!
Your second point is a recurring thought I have every few weeks as I trudge through grad school and it's depressing to think about how much talent, even among undergrads, is ultimately used for consumer services or moving money around.
Depressing why? Oh I know. Because you are an elitist who believes that what can come from AI should only belong to those who can code it?

Or because your own lively hood is dependent on machine learning?

Whatever the case may be and my response is that I don't care. I firmly believe that this is a GOOD thing.

As developers we should be striving for a) open sourcing machine learning so that everyone can contribute to the good it can do and b) that we democratise the result of those efforts so that everyone can benefit from it for their own projects.

When time goes forward these efforts will translate into an NPM of machine learning. What would have taken a small team and a year to do, now just takes installing a plugin and having an API at the developers disposal. This is definitely a future that I cannot wait to see and it's within reach.

Out of the 3, AN (Narrow) I, AG (General) I and AS (Super) I. Artificial Narrow Intelligence is going to grow in prevalence in the next 10 years and the effects will be very good. I don't think it will kill jobs, merely make people much more productive.
I think this is nonsense - it’s only true if you believe the businesses should have existed without protecting user privacy. GDPR and such don’t require you to go out and buy any hardware, or pass through any other expensive compliance audits. PCI/DSS didn’t kill e-commerce, it just set a minimum bar for what companies SHOULD have already been doing.