skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>but centralized (as in there's only one)

I think that should be "global", especially since "centralized" means something significantly different in blockchain circles (and bs goes on to use it in that sense later in the article).
It looks that Miranda IM (initial release in February 2000) is still actively developed - https://www.miranda-ng.org/.
Because usually in the past, the big leap was not done by playing it safe, but by ignoring all the naysayers, disbelievers and those without imagination and doggedly doing the impossible only to discover that when push came to shove, solutions were found to previously impossible problems and when enterprising people put their heads together and do not consider failure an option, miracles can and do happen.

Playing it safe can net small incremental improvements, but it won't capture people's imagination and it won't energize the human spirit to reach to the very bottom of our abilities. Playing it safe won't unite a large group of fundamentally egoistic beings for a common cause.

I believe the biggest evolutionary leap that propelled humans to the top of the food chain is the enterprising human spirit, the pioneering drive, the irresistible urge to stick our fingers into the wallsockets of the universe. Sometimes we get shocked, and sometimes it hurts badly, but we strive becase we do not give up. We reach for the stars, and when we find ourselves in dire need because the cold, merciless and deadly vastness of space threatens our survival, we are pushed to find solutions that were deemed unthinkable otherwise. Perhaps the first shot only gets us to the moon, but we'd never reach it just plinking arrows. Early explorers set out into the unknown oceans knowing that they will likely not return. Many faced extreme hardship and regrettably died. But some survived and they wrote history as we know it. They were all ill-prepared, because they didn't even know what to prepare for. But it is their sacrifice that allowed us to discover new continents, to circumnavigate the world and connect pockets of humanity into an ever denser network of modern society.

There was a time when scientists were convinced that humans will not be able to breathe if travelling faster than 40 mph. There was a time when human flight was thought impossible. It took a bunch of people jumping off cliffs and plunging to their death to figure out the details. Those jumps were necessary. Not just for lessons learned ("this is not the way to do it" is a valuable lesson!) but each of those jumps pushed the envelope a bit further. Each pioneer got a bit closer to the light at the end of the tunnel. The light in some tunnels ends up beign a train, but some tunnels end up leading to the bright spark of revolution.

As much as logic dictates otherwise, we need dreamers who are irrational and fearless enough to go into the unkown. Without these dreamers, nobody will push the envelope. Most of them will be considered foolish, stupid and reckless in their time, but our history is built on the shoulders of those who succeeded against all odds.
> Other people also deserve a focus. They should also get it.

I think I understand where you're coming from, and I sympathize. I recognize the tension between competing ideals here.

Unfortunately I don't know of a solid, reasoned answer for why we should prefer one or the other. I'm left with just a sense of humility (regarding my command of metaphysics, logic, and empathy) and personal tastes.

My personal taste is that, at the moment, I'm feeling annoyed with so much focus on "girl power" at the expense of other social injustices. Which is why I was interested in knowing what other aggrieved groups were being neglected in the same way that women were in the scientific literature.

But honestly, I can't give a solid reason for why someone should prefer my take on it to an unwavering pro-women approach.
Doing it that way will at least prevent you from being disappointed due to missing features.
Vim plugins are nice and I definitely prefer them over basic input, but almost all of them don't even cover the basics.
How long were the lines? From my experience (as a pretty heavy emacs users, so not knocking it) when I have a 5K+ word paragraph, quite alot of operations become laggy when within that paragraph/line (regardless of whether visual-line-mode is on or off). Fontlock makes it, yet, worse.
I do understand the orbital mechanics of getting to Mars. It's the same as the orbital mechanics of getting to anywhere.

I assume you're talking about the Hohmann transfer [0], which is the most efficient path a ship could take. We're not optimizing for efficiency here, we're optimizing for delivery. You should also realize that while there is a specific moment of peak efficiency in launch times, you have a window on the order of months before a Hohmann transfer becomes less efficient than other methods. Once every 2 years sounds less drastic when it's 6 months out of those 2 years.

All that being said, the Hohmann transfer is a lot sketchier in practice than one would think. Neither Mars nor Earth has a perfectly circular orbit. It's often easier just to take the old-fashioned route.

Take a look at this chart [1] for an idea of the spread of trip length vs launch time.

[0] http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/charts/hohm...

[1] https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/images/porkchop_lg.gif
Comcast Internet in the United States. I technically have a VoIP phone because it made my internet cheaper than if I signed up for internet alone.
> the wealth of the wealthy is spread across the economy

So I keep being told, but it's pretty hard to see any evidence of this.
What I would give for a third party iMessage integration.

Similarly, if Android phones lose headphones jacks and expandable storage, there's no reason to stay on the platform anymore and be the outsider in the iMessage world when the hardware is otherwise equal these days.
Harvard doesn’t have an admissions problem. It’s a highly successful institution, that has lasted for hundreds of years and is not public.

Meaning - they clearly are doing something correct and are not beholden to what we feel is “fair”. They aren’t doing anything illegal, so there is no problem.

Perhaps it doesn’t jive with some sensibilities, but it’s not their responsibility to cater to anyone’s sensibilities. The institutions purpose is to grow and support its pupils. Then it’s pupils pay dividends back to the institution. Anything counter to that, really doesn’t make sense.
I just tried to install it on linux and it the estimated footprint by `pacman` was 400MB!
"The admissions lottery I envision—which would involve applicants who meet a certain academic threshold—would help universities faced with large numbers of qualified applicants, such as Harvard, admit students in a more equitable way."

The whole point to the modern university application process is they want more axis than academic achievement with which to evaluate prospective students. Did you play and do well in sports? Are you accomplished in any of the arts? Are you a chess master? Did you build a great robot winning several competitions? This is true student diversity, it's not just race and class - and it provides a differentiator between those who just studied and got a perfect SAT score and those with other accomplishments who also happen to have a near-perfect SAT score. The lottery system depicted here is unfair to those students who've gone beyond and accomplished things. We need to recognize accomplishments outside of the classroom are important.
I think that a lottery without a qualification threshold would contradict meritocracy. In contrast, I don't think a threshold-based lottery contradicts meritocracy. Rather it can be interpreted as a claim that meritocracy cannot be properly quantified beyond a certain precision (which in this case is the threshold). Even if you disagree with that premise, it's substantially different than the rejection of meritocracy altogether.

I also don't think it presupposes anything about what colleges want. What colleges want isn't relevant to a claim about what would be more fair. The paper this article is based on doesn't make an argument for how to force or persuade colleges to espouse the system. It only argues that this system is closer to a platonic ideal of admission fairness.
That's certainly true. But I'd rather have less helpful information than wrong information in a version number.

For example-- a single incrementing version number ostensibly conveys less meaning than semver. If I release 43 after 42, there's no way for the user to tell if the API has broken in between. They must read a changelog. Most importantly, the only way for author/user to make an incorrect assumption about that number is if 43 is _exactly_ the same as 42.

With semver we suddenly must care deeply whether the author got the user's expectations correct with regard to three seemingly separate categories of information. (And this with the current state of FLOSS documentation-- not sure if proprietary is any better in this regard.) What common practice tells me is that very few projects trust an author's assertion to the minimal level needed to automatically upgrade on a non-breaking bugfix release.

Here, we're even discussing the situation where there isn't even an author/user misunderstanding of the API. If the author screws up a release, that wrong information is encoded directly into the semantic version. That's objectively wrong information, where there would have been no wrong information at all if one had only used a single incrementing integer.

I'm not really arguing for a single incrementing integer, that's just an example to explain my point. What I would rather have is version information that conveys meaning reliably within the current universe of developer distrust of packages. I think that means something restrictive and modest like what "patch" does for patching-- e.g., mechanically do a job, warn if something looked slightly out of place, and bail otherwise.

I guess another way to say it is that I do not want to rely upon an author's opinion of their code at all. Instead I want a tool to tell me what it can, when it can, and then goad me into reading the code when it can't tell me any more.

Edit: clarification
Here you go: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/android-security-upd...
Leveraging Drones for PV Plant Inspections
shrug Believe what you want. I've run into many many operations and security people who share my opinion.
Since IPv4 space is starting to become a significant cost, they make up a large percentage of the price for the cheapest VPSs. This is why some providers have started offering NAT VPSs - ideal for backups, monitoring, etc. Since NAT IPv4 is not the norm, this is something they clearly advertise on their website, and hence something we can easily distinguish.

With IPv6, the information from the provider is usually limited to "IPv6: yes/no", if they even mention it. The actual IPv6 space varies wildly from /48 to /56 and /64 - some providers even offer just tunnels or 10 IPv6 addresses. Since this is usually not mentioned on their website, we can't actually distinguish between them either. :(
It depends on what you sign when you buy it. You may very well buy the right to drive the car but not the car itself (like a leasing where you don’t actually own the car until fully paid).
That's 1% wage growth after adjusting for inflation.
...Are you really trying to use “gophers” as a derogatory term?
Not in full generality. (Well, obviously you can write a whole Scheme interpreter in Python! But you can't write something that does in Python just what call/cc does in Scheme.)

Suppose you do the following:

(define a-continuation (call-with-current-continuation (lambda (c) c)))

The value of a-continuation at this point is a continuation object that, when called with argument x, sets a-continuation to x and returns to toplevel.

So if you now do, say,

(define (showfibs a b) (print a) (if (> a 1000) (a-continuation a) 1) (showfibs b (+ a b)))

and

(showfibs 0 1)

then you'll get 011235813213455891442333776109871597 as output, the new value of a-continuation will be 1597, and you'll be back at your top-level REPL prompt.

I don't think anything you can do with Python generators has such a pervasive ability to mess with control flow.
Create Your Own Spotify with a Raspberry Pi – Raspberry Pi Music Server Software
U.K. Company Sets a Record for World's Biggest 3D-Printed Rocket
I also still remember my ICQ number which I haven't used in at least 6 years. I concur.
This would destroy their business model which is predicated on getting into Harvard being an "expensive signal" of intelligence, industriousness, and future potential, which is why they will never do it. But I agree with the points in the article!
If there were a way to predict future recessions, and it was reliable, and it was well known to the point of being published on a public web page, then it wouldn't work. As soon as it predicted a future recession everyone would sell their long positions and the recession would happen almost instantly.

There have been ways of predicting market movements in the past that, kept secret by their discoverers, were later turned into trading empires before they stopped working. But there are no ways of predicting future market movements that both (A) work and (B) are on the front page of Hacker News.
Which is equally funny in that Don Quixote was trying to recreate stories he had read about outdated chivalry.
>If burning carbon to CO2 produces certain amount of energy (part of which then can be used to do useful work), then the reverse of that process, breaking up CO2 to carbon and oxygen, will require at least the amount of energy that was produced in burning it.

Except that you don't have to do the exact reverse of the process, you just have to extract it from the atmosphere (or emission point) and contain it somehow, which could be any number of mechanisms that may or may not require significant energy (beyond the cost of distillation).

Edit: Your argument is like saying that garbage collection (in the municipal sense) can never be economical because because it has to cost at least as much as making the products-to-be-disposed.
Some of Google/Amazon/Facebook/Apple have offices in Canada and they will probably pay you 2+x (not as much as in US but still good). I am not sure if they actually require a degree for experienced people like you though.
Justice and Rights in Europe Today
Who says that the threshold, as measured by e.g. SAT scores, is a good threshold for a good measure?
When I was in high school there were exactly 4 people in the country with perfect SAT scores. Now, according to the article, there are thousands. Maybe they could start there.

And just to stave off the criticisms - yes, they made the test much easier.
Not from externally imported data. That's a privilege escalation vulnerability when the kernel pulls that crap.
Alas there are no video-chat programs out there that actually work well : /
> Soon you'll have even more choice as a consumer.

And when will this start happening? It looks to me like the trend over at least the last 20 years has been the opposite of this.
The BBC was recently reorganised, and the one thing you won't find anywhere in the new Board is political diversity.

It's Tory through and through, and apparently unapologetically so.

See also:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/tim-holmes/is-question...

That's just one example from a list that is becoming worryingly long now.
Rambox have really annoyed me; they were promising spell checking since day 1 (which seems like an obvious feature in a chat product), strung people along and then created a premium, paid for version which implemented it.

Franz are also locking spell checking behind their premium product, which really does rub me up the wrong way. Charging people £35/year for a feature you get free with the open source framework you're using, seems wrong.
You're telling me what's actually happening, but that's not where we're disagreeing. I agree that's what happens. What I'm saying is that it's wrong. It goes against the spec of fsync. It all data is to be written, not merely all data written since the last call to fsync. Your example didn't show any contradiction in this reasoning.
Was watching one of Wolfram's Twitch streams and the front end is supposedly going to be 64 bit in the newest version (12 I think).
The problem of college admissions seems similar to the problem of selling tickets to a hot event. The free market solution to selling tickets to, say, a Red Sox game is to charge as much as you possible can until people stop buying tickets. But you get a problem. You make the less wealthy fans very unhappy because they have no choice in being able to attend. This has long term consequences. So the Red Sox, for instance, sell tickets for less than what the market would allow. Then you get the mad rush for the first come, first serve ticket sales.
Does anyone know how we could have several of our sales team all receiving/responding to Whatsapp messages?

We're in need for a tool which would allow any number of our sales agents the ability to acknowledge and respond to WhatsApp messages.

At the minute, we have one company number but only one person can be logged on at any time, any time someone else logs on it boots anyone else out.
It's hinted at in the article, but it's worth noting that Mandarin Chinese numbers are much simpler than their counterparts in most other languages. 1-10 are all monosyllabic and the system thereafter is pretty regular. Numbers are not as much of a mouthful as they are in English and probably easier to commit to memory.
Are you suggesting that our extinction lies beyond the realm of possibility? It may not be imminent -- which is debatable -- but it's our fate. Extinction seems like an unreal problem for us. We're not tuned into the right time scales for this sort of problem. We mostly struggle through the day. But it's a sign of maturity for our species to be thinking far into the future and contemplating our ultimate survival, not just on this planet but in our solar system, even if at the moment it seems like an arrogant and idle pursuit.
Predatory Publishers Want to Write Your Autobiography
It is, but people still use the "premature optimization" adage as an excuse to avoid thinking about performance at all.

As GP is saying, at any given complexity and readability level, you can write the code in a more and less performant way. Writing more efficient code takes just a) willingness to consider performance, and b) willingness to actually learn your toolset as you use it.
"identification of points of interest during conversations between driver-partners and riders"
Wait...what?! I hope this was an opt-in study.
All of those criteria are quantifiable and can be part of a threshold calculation.
This kind of comment is off topic and predictable, and predictably leads to dull (or worse) discussions. It seems like a fine sentiment (who wouldn't want everyone to be unburied?) but it's so general that it only serves to exclude those who happen to be featured here in this article, even if it's not meant that way.

This is one reason the guidelines ask us to increase substantiveness on controversial topics.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Sitejet Review – A Website Builder for Designers
OBIEE Developer – Florida
The true solution though, would be for people to wake up and realize that in most cases, those so-called "ivy-league" colleges set you up for nothing you couldn't have gotten elsewhere. That you're NOT in-fact better off at 22 with a 150,000$ debt, which you could've avoided by attending a different institute. That the quality of education in "less prestigeous" universities doesn't necessarily "fall" from that of Harvard's.

Edit: Addressing the comments about how it's all about joining that Alumni circle.

I've attended an ivy-league alumni dinner party recently (graduates from multiple "high profile", internationally acknowledged institutes). Save for several senior people with interesting stories, most others were working on their "next Lyft"/"next Airbnb"/"Facebook for %s"/"%s but with AI!" startups. Everybody had a suit and a nice lapel pin to show for it though. Some even wore a bow-tie, no less!

At some point it stops being a club of outstanding members of society, and instead, it becomes a "I took a huge loan to buy my way into this" club. Make of it what you will.
They were talking about happiness, you are talking about personal freedom. Two different things.

It's possible that people are most happy when minorities are done away with. Not exactly what I would prefer, but it's still possible.
Crowd Sourced Annotated Research Papers
No, I never, ever look at the source of the problem nor the solution. I've used vim for 15 years, but I don't have time for this, so I don't customize anything, and if somebody has a problem, the person is responsible for fixing it.

I'm not even waiting on people with Vim problems anymore during the lectures. I just go on, they will catch up.
> Don’t overlook the number of options available out of the box with the —lib parameter

Thanks! I honestly wasn't aware of that at all!

> it means TypeScript as a language will stay compatible with JavaScript

If Typescript's library was written in JS, then the elements that were needed can be compiled down and included with your code.

> If you need a feature JS doesn’t have, import it, or pick a browser or runtime API

I really appreciate standardization—that way everyone is on the same page with basic methods. I don't have to worry about learning multiple versions, or worry that code I'm reading is doing the same thing in a slightly incompatible way. Or listen to people arguing about those same minor differences :-)
Yes. I picked that particular flight to illustrate my point.

The budget airlines don't play games like the legacy airlines (or rather at least to not as heavy of a degree), which is refreshing.