skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I doubt it. It's a generic that anyone can manufacture and that invariably will squeeze profit margins to almost nothing. In the UK, many supermarkets sell their own brand aspirin and paracetamol for pennies, as loss leaders.
I think this is the key question. Is there a "dark matter" of concerned Google employees who would potentially mobilize if pushed too far, or is this just a vocal fringe element in a company with a 100,000 strong work force?
https://twitter.com/stylewarning/status/1052006872587202560?...
Aspirin generally and strongly reduces clotting. Bleeds are certainly not solely due to poor compliance -- any minor internal bleed is likely to become much more severe to a patient taking aspirin.
> though not leaked

It's a public tweet, in fact. Easy to find along with the rest of the author's opinions and explanations.

> An example of the reverse wasn't hard to find:

That quote is from James Damore's memo, and he has been interviewed by many media organizations, like The Guardian and Business Insider, so I don't see how you can claim he didn't have a chance to explain himself.
Thanks for pointing out the image part. I also do this with both Python and Mathematica all the time just like you, but haven't touched Racket in 10 years.
How #MeToo has impacted mentorship for women
As the author, I fully agree with this description!

The cost of abstraction should not be ignored, and that's why a lib like supdate sometimes makes sense before reaching out to Specter, lenses etc. (although I love those too!)
I've read this article a few times and every time he takes beef with Python:

x + (if is_true(): 1 else: 2)

I think he just got he syntax wrong, it's supposed to be:

x + (1 if is_true() else 2)

And basically can't follow the rest of the argument. I have yet to learn a Lisp. Honestly, what am I missing?
I don't agree.

> but all bets are off when next generation of hardware comes out

the sentinel trick reduces the number of checks, so should be independent of hardware.

> and a thousand man-hours spent on compiler/optimizer

I can't see a conventional compiler ever automatically doing the sentinel trick as it relies on knowing at least 1. whether multithreading will be happening 2. the size of the array, as the trick's likely increasingly pointless as it outgrows the cache, and possibly other stuff I can't think of.

I might also disagree on making things parallel - cache aware code can bring significant speedups on single threads so that first, then parallise.

disclaimer: I'm not Knuth/Terje Mathisen/Hennesy or Patterson.
College Board to Consider Sharing ‘Adversity Score’ with Pupils
Sounds like you might have a degree in communications?

Well written.

The comment I made, poorly spelled at that, had no name calling in it.

Saying something is filled with ego centrism* or is a garbled mush* is no different than pointing out the overuse of the word "I" in a text, or the poor argument structure of a faulty conclusion.

It lends weight and contributes to the discussion by describing the perspective and feel of the piece.

Again, it seems as if you don't like how I said something because it lacked respect. That, I can agree with and in the future reconsider how something is phrased.

Please, consider the brevity of my comment and it's efficient conveyance of my opinion on the piece versus something like this thread; overly detailed and descriptive for the single purpose of reconciling differing opinions on how one should comment on posts.

Appreciate the input, and the earnestness with which you address the want for civility.
I thought it was an article on satellite signal for tv
If you think that's bad, wait until you see how nit-picky people get in code reviews. I wouldn't be surprised if there were lint rules for swear words.

If you can't deal with criticism of your code, maybe working at a big tech firm isn't for you?
The macro system
> How about 3 fonts (serif, sans, and fixed) and color instead of monochrome? You're too quick to compromise :-)

Minimal Viable Picture :)

> Postscript could work, but if you picked something explicitly line oriented it would cause less confusion in revision control.

Agreed. But Postscript has a lot of existing unencumbered infrastructure code littering the net. With a new syntax, you need to overcome an activation energy problem. You would have to make sure that rendering and editing code existed that could be munged into a plug-in for everybody's favorite IDE. EMACS mode, anyone?

Also, maybe an independent tool that ran in a local web browser (not uploading code to random servers) would be a way to jump start things.
> 1. Every­thing is an expres­sion.

I am not sure this argument is given.

Immediately, I see there is a mismatch between what I want to program -- an objective, an algorithm, a procedure, a series of side effects that is outside the axioms of the programming language can support -- a mismatch between these objectives and this confinement of everything being an expression. An expression is a value. So to program in a language where everything is an expression is to map our idea into a (list of) value. This may be natural for programs that is seeking a value, but often not so. Even for programs that is seeking a value, the bulk of the program is to control the process of finding this value. There is no easy way or even correct way to map a process and side effects into a value. Math is logic or equivalency. To establish equivalency is to discard the effect of path or side effects. Therefore, to map the desired process and side effects into value, we have to add back the implicit knowledge of how these values are actually transformed. In stead of directly stating the transformation of values -- an imperative programming style -- we express that with dependency and relying on the understanding how these dependency is being resolved. The latter is very hard.

Of course, in practice, we have to give up on the fine control of our program to some extent and relying on the compiler implementation giving us desired result (the path and its side effects), then we only need worry about the value. When it works, it works great; when it does not work, we need either lower our expectations or give up the language, or transfer the burden/blame to compilers.

The argument for everything being an expression is the composability(although I thought the reason was ease and flexibility of writing compilers for it). This is similar to the argument that: if every object is a lego piece, then building something is easy. Well, it depends. First we need accept that lego pieces are all what we have. Second, we have to contend that what lego pieces can build is good for our needs. There are amazing lego projects, but they are nowhere I would find easy.
To be honest, I find it depressing that people needed to protest and complain en masse just to get permission to continue using devices they already own.
Why don't you copyright them before that company does it?
With a quick search, I found an example for SBCL below. I can't say anything about its quality cuz I dont do CL.

https://gist.github.com/burtonsamograd/f08f561264ff94391300
How High School Ruined Leisure
yes!

And that scene from Johnny Mnemonic was priceless for me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftzx_EdLV_s
How to see the future
On the consumer side Google wants to build billion user products (I’ve heard Google product managers say this). Products that cross that threshold like GMail, Chrome and Android don’t get cancelled. I’m not sure what the enterprise equivalent is to a billion users, perhaps a billion dollars? Regardless offerings like Google App Engine have been around for decades now.
Using an Atari ST as Unix/Linux Terminal
Same with the death of Java applets. There were a lot of neat educational Java applets, especially in STEM subjects. Some have been recreated in JavaScript, but a lot are gone.
Mathematica allows similar things to be done in its notebooks. Fun!
I would define Google’s troubles or decline in three parts:

1. Outrage over previous sexual misconduct
2. Outrage over Google seeking amoral revenue streams
3. Declination of perks

The first one is just the chickens coming to roost. The second two I’ve always felt we’re due to a transition in CFOs.
That isn't how YouTube's Content ID system works.

The vast majority of users don't have access to the system.

When a claim is filed against a video, it is assumed accurate until the appeal process is approved, and revenue is lost immediately.

Source: Ex YouTuber, 15m video views
There are an infinite variety of things that you don’t want. If you focus all your energy on those things, then you won’t have anything left to do the positive things you do want.

You have to turn that equation around. Even if all you know right now is the negative thing you don’t want, you have to figure out how to reframe that into the positive thing you do want. On,y then can you make positive progress towards that thing you want — and by the way, you will naturally avoid the things you don’t want by focusing on the things you do want.

Sure, examples of bad stuff can be instructive, but only so far as it helps you further clarify the good stuff you’re actually trying to achieve.
>Same thing with chess; play only with Grand masters (if you can find them) and after a few years of getting your ass kicked, you'll eventually get good.

Wouldn't the grand masters not enjoy beating you over and over again? That's why Go has a handicap system and why online games have matchmaking systems. I think it would be more courteous to try and play with people that could potentially learn something from you, instead of you only learning from them.
The Concept of “Race” Is a Lie
Those libs did not come out of nowhere, and the language did not rise from 1991 to the today without inherent qualities that draw people to it.

Python didn't have any specialty like PHP, or an accidental monopoly like JS. It didn't come with a killer app like Ruby. It hasn't been made by a giant company like Go.

It's pretty much a self-made language.
If they make it such a hassle to spend $100, what do you think their bonus policy is like?
Code compass: library recommendation based upon import2vec
Arduous Interfaces
Impossible Foods' next product is sausage
> "If that's true, then the benefits of daily aspirin clearly outweighs the costs."

Why add aspirin though? If you want to reduce the chance of cancer, eat less junk and more vegetables, legumes, and fruits.
Or more likely deafened them leading to a mass beaching event.
Firstly, who has more reason to research lie detectors and realise they don't work, a criminal or an innocent person? Clearly, it's the former, so you're using a "trick" that is weighted against innocent people.

Secondly, most criminal justice systems reward early confession with reduced sentences and plea bargaining. In such systems, presenting a suspect with fabricated evidence—which is what a "positive" lie detection report is—seems just as likely to induce a false confession as a real one.

If we allowed cops to plant evidence and falsify statements, we could probably get a lot more confessions. If we eliminated the "innocent" verdict at trial, or reintroduced trial by ordeal, we could do the same. But we don't do this because these are fundamentally unjust, and so is allowing law enforcement to claim they know people are guilty due to magic.
The "360" in System/360 meant "General Purpose" or "Scalable". That is, you could get it in many different sizes and expect that you could buy a bigger one in the future that is compatible with your old programs.

Contrast that to DEC, which had a PDP-8 that was comparable to the smallest 360 but cost about 1/5 as much. If you needed something better you needed to upgrade to the PDP-10 or PDP-11, neither of which was compatible with your PDP-8 programs. PDP-11 was wildly popular but it had no path to 32-bit, so DEC introduced the VAX architecture... Each need to go to an incompatible system was a chance to switch vendors, and that could be one reason IBM is still here and DEC isn't.

Today the x86, POWER, and ARM architectures have all had long rides of continuous improvement, so the scalability ideas of the 360 are mainstream.

RISC-V takes scalability to the next level, targeting various "backwater" areas such as storage controllers. Now that we have SSD's the processors in storage controllers can't keep up with the math to do RAID. Intel's "Rapid Storage Technology" doesn't seem like a scam anymore because there is so much excess power in the Intel architecture compared to the junk that is in contemporary storage controllers.

RISC-V could create a huge market for chips that are scaled down in the ways they need to be scaled down, but scaled up in the ways they need to be scaled up. For instance that storage controller might need to be wicked fast, but it doesn't need floating point and it doesn't need virtual memory. RISC-V lets you pick and choose features but still stick with the some toolset for building code; thus you could port some software between chips with different capabilities.
No kidding. We need to solve climate change now, not whenever strong AI is ready. If we wait several decades (or centuries...) to take action, the effects will be far more severe or possibly intractable. The climate system has memory and many of the processes are effectively irreversible —- once you put CO2 up in the atmosphere or melt an ice cap, going back is vastly more expensive and orders of magnitude slower.
We Went Inside the Chinese Telecom Giant That Trump Just Banned (HBO)
This. Many people forget that Content ID isn’t the DMCA
I'm not sure if this the question you're asking but in Ruby the program fails.

gsub! is a method of String that mutates the object (vs gsub which returns a new string)

freeze is a method that makes immutable the object it's called upon.

2.3.0 :001 > def replace_a_with_b(s)
2.3.0 :001?> s.gsub!("a", "b")
2.3.0 :001?> end
=> :replace_a_with_b
2.3.0 :002 > replace_a_with_b("abc")
=> "bbc"
2.3.0 :003 > replace_a_with_b("abc".freeze)
RuntimeError: can't modify frozen String
from (irb):20:in `gsub!'
from (irb):20:in `replace_a_with_b'
from (irb):23
from /home/me/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.3.0/bin/irb:11:in `<main>'
What if AGI is logically impossible because the human mind is more powerful than a Turing machine?

The only reason we discount this possibility is because we are attached to materialism, a philosophy that is self contradictory. Seems like a pretty shaky foundation for a multi-billion tech wager.
As others have pointed out, a default judgement implies the defendant basically doing nothing, which is the worst possible "defense".

This is what a lot of litigators bank on - send threatening letters (perhaps en-masse) to rake in the default judgements but then only proceed on appeal if it's worth the hassle.
Oof, that code-as-strings API guarantees I will never use it.
They're getting pretty annoying for viewers. Non-stop nags about trialing their subscriptions.
I wonder how changing technology might change system design tradeoffs and opportunities?

Better VR/AR, and event capture with lots of cameras, will blur the current gulf between "I saw it done" and "I saw a recording".

Medical simulation is improving and increasing. And some changes in medicine make it easier to simulate (arthroscopic, robotic). Changing optimal training mix.

Simulation big picture and long term... how will pilot training change, when even basic flight sim games are fully immersive environments with hands-on haptic controls? So how might medical training change, if a kid's "Operation" game includes AI patient interviews, playmate and automated-character resource management, and perhaps off-the-shelf haptics comparable to current med school sims?

Improving general education. This is more a social/political/systems change, but tech may help catalyze it. Let's see... a first-tier genetics course instructor says what they most wish their incoming students had learned, but haven't, from earlier undergraduate and pre-college bio courses, was simply a firm grasp of central dogma. Something that with good tooling, can be made accessible in early primary school. And I've talked with first-tier med students, who had no idea how big cells are, beyond "really really small". How might medical training change, if the education of its incoming students was failing less badly?

Apropos competency-based training, I years ago saw a proposal, I presume unimplemented, for a large-scale reentrant medical-training curriculum for India. Without having to start from scratch, an EMT could become a nurse, a nurse could train as a GP MD, an optometrist could level up to a non-surgical ophthalmologist, and so on. If our ability to do assessment improves, both simulation and non, then at least where there is a medical training shortage, perhaps there might be alternatives to quality control of training and practice being founded on institutional training-process controls.
Wow, that is so weird. I would have expected this to be entirely dominated by memory latency.

I'm also scratching my head trying to figure out why this only shows up with -O3. I would have expected the exact opposite, i.e. a bigger difference on lower optimization settings.
> However, the power in the lie detector comes from its name - "The Lie Detector" - and the common belief that it actually works.

Ha. It reminds me of this hilarious video clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrO_rAaiq0) from The Wire, S5E01, which Detective William "Bunk" Moreland interrogated DeShawn and made him believe the office copy machine was a lie detector. This plot itself was based on an false urban legend.

> [...] they are also not admissible in court, as the law understands that they don't actually work. But in an interrogation process [...] it is a good arrow in the quiver.

I think the first things come to my mind is: what types of psychological tricks are and aren't allowed in an interrogation process? Is it permissible to use a nonworking "lie detector" as an interrogation technique? What are the potential abuses of this trick, etc? These are some interesting things that can be argued and debated.

I don't have background knowledge any of these subjects I mentioned so I won't start a debate, other interesting may want to do so.

Anyway, interesting perspective. I appreciate your comment, which moved the question from the first layer: "does a polygraph work and whether we should use it", to the next layer: "a polygraph doesn't work, but should we use it anyway?"
I may not have made myself clear. I don’t want someone else to write a tree shaker for me, I want an intro project to understanding the internals of a performant Common Lisp compiler, and I want to do the work to write a tree shaker myself. I’ve seen a few implementations, but they all come with notes explaining that they’re sketchy and experimental. I mostly wanted to know how to push them past that point into being robust.
In what ways is RISC-V set up to do that better than e.g. ARM? Just the free ISA meaning different companies can specialize better on different segments, or are there novel technical design choices that enable that?
Bringing a lawsuit is not an option for the vast majority of people, but it seems this is the first option many people suggest. Situations like this are more of a problem with our laws that largely protect the interests of large corporations over individuals and really need to be changed.
If you can't criticise people's code without swearing maybe working on a professional environment isn't for you?
If you use a programming language with a package manager like npm, PIP, CPAN, Pub, Cargo, Bundler, etc. then every time you ask it to figure out what versions of your dependencies to use, you are effectively running a SAT solver.

In particular, pub — the package manager for Dart — explicitly uses the CDCL process described in the article:

https://medium.com/@nex3/pubgrub-2fb6470504f
If you're willing to overlook that Z3 is a more general SMT solver, it's a useful tool for one-off problems where raw brute-force is inefficient.

I used this to proof-of-concept an attack on Seahash[1]; this was the first time I'd ever used an SMT solver, but it was really very straightforward.

[1] https://gitlab.redox-os.org/redox-os/tfs/issues/5#note_9768
When do we get to the point where people start acknowledging how insane the entire concept of copyright is.
If Google builds a town in the U.S., they're still subject to state and federal laws, which have protections for tenants and requirements for due process. (If it's really a company town, then the company would be the municipal government.)
Finger: The First Social Software
Minecraft Earth Is Microsoft’s Shot at the Next Pokemon Go-Style AR Blockbuster
FWIW there’s a lot more to that hot coffee lawsuit that people tend to generalize. It’s worth reading up on it.
Pretty sure thats the plot of a Doctorow novel.
You see the inherent asymmetry of power in these massive platforms now. YouTube hasn't the slightest, tiniest imaginable incentive whatsoever to change their practices in any way here. This creator is just another meaningless bit of chaff in their grist mill of complete dominance over the web. People will get angry, retweet, do whatever, and YouTube will keep humming along. An unassailable behemoth whose total disregard for any form of fairness will never hurt it in any way.
Why Can't Some People Remember Their Dreams
SVG could work (if you can stomach XML). The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.
Personally, I'd prefer "fucking up" to go away, along with "rape" as a colorful equivalent of ruining/causing damage to someone or something.

It associates sex with violence and destruction.

A similar thing used to happen with "gay", which kids would use as an adjective for frustrating or annoying situations.

My preferences notwithstanding, it's still better to be clearer about what's happening. "Fucking up that variable" says very little about the cause of the problem, and its possible solution.
The copyright concept is fine. Creators should enjoy the ownership of the products of their labor.

The problem is with the youtube's implementation. There are no negative effects for the large players who falsely claim copyright.
Our algorithm ...

Unless I completely misunderstand what you write, the approach you describe is the standard way of setting up SMT-solvers by interaction between a SAT solver with a theory solver. I think it is called lazy SMT or DPLL(T) in [1] where this approach seems to have been described first. [2] is also an interesting description of the phenomenon.

[1] H. Ganzinger, G. Hagen, R. Nieuwenhuis, A. Oliveras, C. Tinelli, DPLL(T): Fast Decision Procedures. https://www.cs.upc.edu/~oliveras/espai/papers/dpllt.pdf

[1] R. Nieuwenhuis, A. Oliveras, C. Tinelli, Abstract DPLL and Abstract DPLL Modulo Theories. http://www.cs.upc.edu/~roberto/papers/lpar04.pdf
I would've loved it if it were PeerTube or something but the sad reality is that Twitch is the only platform that's even close to comparable to YouTube.
I agree with you. I wasn't going to say this because it seemed too much outside the original discussion.

School seems to have 3 roles: to gain skills, to certify skills, and to join a professional network.

In today's world more and more skills can be gained without school. We can join professional networks outside of college. I am starting to see we can certify outside of college. Therefore do we need college at all?
Common Way of Managing Dependencies of an iOS App
I'm not suggesting that people use vfork over posix_spawn --- I'm objecting specifically to the claim that it can't be used correctly. It can be. Emacs uses it, portably, and the sky doesn't come crashing down.
Copyright as a concept isn’t insane.

How it’s implemented in current law is though. And it’s getting worse. That’s the problem, not copyright itself.