skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Being the early riser has an extra penalty when your coworkers have later schedules, since it's acceptable to ask people to stay late, but not to arrive early. You will attend meetings when you'd normally be commuting. Plus, if an emergency occurs at the end of the day, everyone else's 9 or 10 hour day becomes your 12 or 13 hour day. If this happens often, you should try to find a workplace that doesn't make a habit of discovering critical problems at 4pm. It turns out they exist!

You can also alleviate the problem by doing something between waking up and working. I run in the mornings before I head to work, and it provides an extra daily boost. I admit that I prefer running in the afternoons (when it's not 4 degrees out) but life is full of constraints!
Hey, at least no one hacked into a mainframe.
I've tried different sleeping times and 7 hours seems to the one that suit me the most. Obviously this is not an exact science and I guess that as long as you have between 6 to 8 hours sleep, it's ok.

Regarding my relationship, we've got a very close one, but obviously we do thing on our side in the evening. Sometime I'll reading or gaming and she'll doing something else. But we like to keep the "going to bed together" and "having breakfast together" as much as possible. It's just more quality time added to our relationship.
Make sure your product is better than your competitor's. You shouldn't be scared of a customer doing a fair comparison of your product against someone else's.
I think the presented design is broken in C++ example. Point should remain a structure (it would be even more efficient in a runtime) and a new object, say Brush, should be responsible for drawing on some Canvas. Then you could see the benefits of OO like drawing on different types of Canvas with different Brushes using the same Points.
Reminded me of Scala's creator Martin Odersky discussing what it is to be a functional language, on his article "A Postfunctional Language": http://www.scala-lang.org/node/4960
Interesting that convergence V focus is the problem. That's the same thing that random-dot stereograms have, although it's worth there as you have no cue as to the right convergence depth.
This[1] paper discussing "DSSP", the systems programming language of Setun computers is a very interesting read. It's rare that languages have design goals sufficiently similar to those of Forth to allow direct comparison.

[1] http://www.forth.org.ru/~dssp/msdos_e/papers/daf.txt
What would happen if devices had personalities? Ben Bashford thinks it through
I started programming when I entered college as a comp sci major. I highly recommend the first edition of the "pickaxe" book AKA Programming Ruby by Hunt and Thomas. It's a book that gives a good intro to programming without being an intro to programming book.
We're progressively teaching our son (3yo) to stay in bed in the morning during the week-end, and it's actually working great.

One thing I found as well is that it's easier for me to put an alarm clock slightly before he wakes up, vs. being woken up by him!
If you need a place to stay, I can lend you a futon and a spot in my kitchen.

(Hn-spam@ordisante.com)

It's not a place to make work connections but rather a chance to meet interesting people.
Hi there,

I'll give you my 2 cents worth as I definitely felt the same way and even more so when I went out to work.

A CS degree is probably not required for most work out there. Even though some put it as a requirement to narrow the criteria, more often than not, you won't use the skills you learnt for the degree on your job.

Having said that, Computer Science is not about teaching your programming skills nor equipping you with skills where you can immediately use them. All those sorting algorithms that come with programming languages - they were written and optimized by people with a good understanding of CS concepts (note: they may or may not have a degree).

The algorithms in CS are motivated by real problems. The algorithms came about when researchers faced certain issues(i.e. a faster algorithm is needed etc). The degree just teaches you the techniques that people used in the past - and gives insight on how you can create your own or improve one of the existing ones. The undergraduate degrees merely expose you to the techniques but in reality, you will most likely call some function or routine if you want to do it.

And that's just the algorithms part of CS. There's a whole world of optimizing this and that, how to design a fault-tolerant distributed computing system, etc. Again, you may or may not use this. But to invent/create something like Google BigTable or Google File System etc, it is always handy to have the CS knowledge at hand.

Added note:
Of course, you can do this all by yourself but with a professor in front of you (who hopefully is willing to help), you can question the hell out of him/her to get the concepts right. And assignments and tests help train your understanding of these concepts.
Governments will find it easy to target any commercial or centralized system. P2P and open source couldn't have arrived sooner.
Well, you would never say "$2M" to mean $2,000, so either one works and it's really just a matter of house style.
M&A Case Studies: Feedburner
Surely 3d only makes any sense if you can move around the environment - a holo-deck.

3d movies, where we're all sat down in a fixed chair makes absolutely no sense. It's a gimmick that adds nothing - apart from headaches, crappy dark image and occasional crude "THIS IS 3D" in your face 'effects'. Sitting in a chair looking at a screen we already see 3D. We have all the cues necessary for our brains to reconstruct the scene.

Didn't work in the 50s, didn't work in the 80s, didn't work in 2010s. I guess every generation has some people who think it's a great idea to try it again.
In the context, the two words are essentially synonyms; they mean that you favour neither side. Go look up the definitions rather than imposing your own artificial distinction.

The definitions at dictionary.com support my original claim.

And the point with Godwin's law is that if you need to resort to absurd comparisons with Hitler or the Holocaust, then you obviously don't have much of an argument.

If you want to fabricate some new phony norm, please give it a unique name rather than misappropriating a name from a completely unrelated phenomena.

Your point above seems to be that one time, somewhere, a TV program took a ridiculous stand on an issue[1], therefore the whole media artifice is ridiculously biased and crumbling... or something.

My point is that this was one particularly egregious instance that is part of a larger pattern. Go read some media criticism: the idea that media organizations are obsessed with "balance" and "neutrality" to the detriment of actual truth telling is not something I invented.

[1] Note - not a neutral stance, because they gave holocaust deniers disproportionate airtime in comparison to the weight of evidence.

So, now, in order to be neutral, you have to evaluate competing claims based on evidence...
If you do not like the theory, have you considered changing from the university to an FH? (Edit: explanation for non-German readers: a kind of school where studies are more concrete and slightly shorter than at a university)
Did Google just reduce the demand for Demand Media's IPO?
The Cause and Effect of Google's H.264 Decision
Using Google's own tools to create domain blacklists
Both, actually.

A computer engineering professor once told me that OO was about instantiation. In procedural code, you would have only one point, probably held in a global variable. My C code would look OO to him.

Chris Okasaki once wrote a programming language for one of his CS classes. For whatever reason, he chose to make indentation mandatory, and he got rid of semicolons and curly brackets. The result strongly suggests that beginners are more influenced by such syntactic sugar, rather than by deeper properties, like type inference. http://okasaki.blogspot.com/2008/02/in-praise-of-mandatory-i...
Most films don't use the 3d well though. It's like if sound was added, but instead of using it give viewers dialogue with inflection, directors mostly used it to add in wacky sound effects for slapstick comedy. However, the fact that it's generally abused now doesn't mean it won't be used well later.
>"just raise your prices to levels they won't pay."

That suggests that one can be bought for a bigger cut from the scam. It is not consistent with holding an absolute ethical standard. A price is a line in the sand, not a strategic withdrawal.

Promptly and professionally declining all future work is the simplest approach. The explanation need only be "due to other obligations."
> didn't work in 2010s

Hah! You wish. For example, Avatar made more than $2,000,000,000. That's $2 billion. And a huge part of the Avatar revenue comes from its 3D sales. Maybe it didn't work for you, but it sure worked for most people who went to see it.
No thanks. I'll leave such questions to the pointy-headed meta-academics. I'm a practical philosopher, and I pick the epistemological tools which best fit the job-at-hand, and which give me the most bang for my buck.
Startup Recruiting Hacks
Testing code that's testing itself
More Ideas Than Time, but More Time Than Focus
Ten Quotes That Indicate Your Arrogance is Showing
Yup, I wake at 330 every morning and have a good 3 hours to hack on a side project before work.
Doing sloppy work is probably more harmful than having worked for a shady business.
Here's one way to solve it: include in the glasses dynamic focusing. We're already wearing glasses.

I'm not sure how it would work, but the idea is to change the dioptry to the inverse of the distance of what's supposedly on the screen, so that our eyes need to focus at the same distance as the converging, effectively nullifying the inverse focus.
Yes. Writing one line of code that works is easy. Anyone can do it.

Writing two lines of code that works is also easy. Anyone can do it.

Writing ten thousands lines of codes, however, is complex and hard. A good software developer can manage, or tame, this complexity.

Programming is deceivingly simple. That's what makes it so hard.
The State of Financial Engineering
Musical Escher
Our company is based off of India. So, they can't really sue me, but I don't want things to turn ugly. I'll probably let them be. If possible write a few posts on an anonymous blog to create awareness.

I've been telling these guys that I don't work on illegitimate stuff from the start. And they were like: "yeah, fleecing people who are the most vulnerable sucks, totally". The only regret that I have, is that I have unknowingly helped a few bad guys.
Allocate Time for Innovation
American Spotify time bomb: How to avoid getting blown up
Uh, one of the projects the lab I was in was working on was the True3D display: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/true3d/ which handled both accommodation and vergence. This research is almost 8 years old at this point and I don't know the exact progress on it but there are people who are working on it and it is possible to overcome.
I used this in high school when I had to write reports. Instead of trying to work on them late and winding up chatting with my friends rather than working, I got up at 4:30. It wasn't fun, but I got those papers written because there was absolutely no way for me to distract myself that early. Procrastinating meant I wouldn't get that sweet, sweet 15 minutes of sleep before school. I handed in every single one of those reports on time.

That said, I don't recommend this approach for anything requiring creativity. They were mostly fact based, so creativity was less of a concern. My mood suffered because of poor sleep, but that was already an issue due to high school's early start time. Still, it's a good way to get mindless tasks done.
Which is more likely, that 3D makes no sense to most people, or that you're one of the few which has problems watching 3D movies? I do know a few friends which thought Avatar 3D was "nothing special", but most of us thought it was great in 3D, easily worth the reduced light.

I agree that a lot of bad 3D movies are put out there now, and I think the current hype will fade. But I have no doubt that the technology has advanced far enough that 3D is here to stay this time.
I guess if it were a computer program instead of an article it could be considered exaggeration.
Not a bad idea. You could do it with one person in the theater, but you can take it one step further.

Have a camera facing the eye that can tell what the person is focusing on. (High end video cameras already have this.)

Have an adaptive lense in the glasses to vary rapidly change the focal plane from where they eye things it is to the screen. You then build software that blurs the image outside of their focal plane. Granted there are limits on this aproach, but people get used to glasses that have a fixed shift in the focal plain fairly quickly so it should be possible.

Now I don't see how you could extrapilate that to a theater full of people, but you can build a system that works for 1 person.
IBM celebrates 100 years of invention and breakthroughs
Precisely Why I Despise Bean Counters
Why Google Still Needs to Buy a Groupon Clone
Some furniture and houses are still made of wood.
I was referring to massive skyscrapers made with steel skeletons. In much of the world (where wood is expensive or hard to find), reinforced concrete (with steel) is a popular choice instead. Furniture is often steel/iron skeleton with a fabric/wood layer over it.
RoboGuice: DI for Android
I had this feeling with some poorly made 3D movies. But I only occasionally had that feeling while watching Avatar.
But if the page containing the form isn't served through SSL, it's subject to alteration by a man in the middle --- which is what actually happened in this case. And users who don't "view source" every single time have no way to notice the difference before logging in (and precious little after, if the logger quickly resubmits to the real McCoy).
Yes, but the same could be done in C: just make several compilation units, one per Canvas (or put several canvas in the same files, if they are small enough).

Now if you thought of using a Canvas without determining a which one before hand, then you need subtype polymorphism, a much more significant feature, of which I do see the benefits.
Hmm, on a practical level, 50um loss may not be that bad :-) Take, plutonium, which was the most valuable substance I could think of, it's around $4K a gram (http://www.crystalair.com/story.php?id=200701023), so the cost of this loss is about 20 cents.
Everything is hard on a world-class level. Even programming and Math is hard on a world-class level.
Writing 3D engines like John Carmack does is hard. Solving million dollar math problems, or coming up with unexpected theories is very-very hard.
Creating a natural language translation system, a speech recognition system is hard. Winning the Netflix prize is hard.
Programming the same kind of relatively simple webapp over and over again is probably easy; and I agree that compared to that understanding what the customer wants is usually much harder.
So the claim (which sounds reasonable) is that there is a mismatch between the plane on which each eye is focused and the convergence angle between the eyes and we are unaccustomed to this in real life.

Why doesn't this also cause discomfort in a conventional 2D movie in which the focal plane and the convergence angle stay the same (both at the screen plane) but our brains expect the convergence angle to change as items from different distances in the movie image come into focus in the movie?
"I don't believe your research."

$> sudo science

"I believe you now."
I want to do this. Currently not possible due to the fact that I have to drive my wife to school on the way to work but we are moving soon to were we can take public transport.

Winter kills my internal clock, I feel so much better when I wake after the sun is up than right before it. But around where I live currently, that's rather late.
How to Change Kindle Fonts, Disfluency and Memory Retention
> I suppose my question is whether you can add all the features that make functional languages powerful while also retaining static typing.

Of course you can. Look at Scala. (And on other platforms, F#, ML, and Haskell.)
Your customer tells you: "Yeah, the game is really fun, but a bit slow. It should run smoothly for the player, even though the internet connection is unreliable."

A well-defined problem. But which one was hard: Stating or solving it?

The attempt of artificially separating the "crafting skill" programming from the rest of software development (which is blurry enough) is an ongoing effort since decades, and still annoying.
Except there are studies coming out about the harm to developing eyes and such. The point is that we're not meant for 3D. 3D though is a great way theaters try to "add value" to movies forcing us to pay more. Tangled was playing ONLY in 3D in theaters around me xept for like 1 showing. Guess which is the only showing I could take my daughter to. She would throw the glasses off in 15 minutes due to headache an thats the end of the movie for her. Was that worth an extra 10 bucks a ticket?

Like any new tech, makers want to convince us this tech is the way to go. So study more, and give us the old school alternatives.
Yellowstone Has Bulged as Magma Pocket Swells
The concept was good, but overwhelmed by typos.
But given a choice, would moviegoers pick the 2D version over the 3D version?

In a universe where Avatar 3D never existed, would the 2D version alone have sold as much? Remember, they would have also been able to deliver the movie earlier (I don't know how much, but making a 3D movie can't be free - at least not yet).

I'm reasonably certain that there are only a very small number of people who saw Avatar for the sole reason of it being 3D (in other words, if the 2D version was the only option, they would have skipped it).
VP's are shown to average $1,000,000 on the same page. But that's only for companies which actually make it to IPO. And while $1,000,000 is a lot of money when it's yours, that's not FYM in Europe or the US.
The password reset experience
No offense to sound engineers, but Murch is not the foremost authority on the brain, the eyes, and whatever else goes into our processing of 3D. Further he hasn't offered any sort of proof, merely conjecture about why he thinks 3D should get off his lawn.

Sure, the current technology has some weaknesses, but as others have said, many found it awfully compelling in Avatar (many good reviews, and $2B in revenue).
I happen to dislike the idea of most films and (horror!) tv and games using 3D, and at the same time I enjoyed 3D Avatar like a child.

About the "small" thing, I sat at the 4th row (?) and the image was fine.
Academic publishing is a scam
Many, many, many years ago only really tough guys had tattoos, almost exclusively sailors and former or current prisoners.

Today teenage girls go to the tattoo shop together with their moms. If you get a tattoo today, it just means you want to be like everyone else.

This has had the unintended side effect of prisoners having to tattoo their faces to show they are harder edged folks then your average teen. And this in turn makes it harder form them to a get a job once they are out of prison, because previously you could just wear long sleeves and that would do the job most of the time.

Also back in the day if you had tattoos, with nothing else, a lot of people would actually think better not mess with that dude. Today, it means nothing.

But according to my anthropology professor, most civilizations thought the ages. had body modifications well beyond what we're doing today.
datagrids will always remain in hot demand. Just check what jqgrid offers and always make it easier and simpler
Interesting, although I'm skeptical about it working in reality. Won't this be foiled by someone just dumbing down their language skills?
Save Face and Avoid Becoming an Entrepreneurial Bully
When I started to get up early in the mornings I found it pretty hard. So I devised a plan to help me out.

I have three lights on timers. The first is a short string of blue lights, the second is a longer string of blue lights and the last is a 40watt bulb pointed indirectly at the wall.

First the short string turns on about 30 minutes before I have to get up, then the longer string 15 minutes later, and lastly the the white light.

I also have two alarms, the first is the radio followed by the oh so annoying standard alarm sound.

Most days I wake up with the white light and the radio. The alarm sound is my drop dead, get the heck out of bed, notification. If it goes off I need to get moving.

It's my own personal sunrise.
>> For more than it received from the former bidder.

> Only if you accept his completely fictitious stock valuation

It's about what those who sell are willing to accept. They accepted, they did consider that a better offer.

> Do you think it's reasonable for a man to ask 20 women to marry him

That's obviously a wrong analogy for his search for a company ready to be sold.
What would you ask from the creators of the very first PC virus?
Nothing like an un-biased view of how "3D" will never work from a guy who has built his career off of making sound-systems.
I was a web developer at The Motley Fool (fool.com). I learned that even a company whose credo was fiscal responsibility is not immune to hype (but it was an awesome place to work). I wish I knew then that stock options are not guaranteed riches in the future.
The strategy code has for instantiating things sounds orthogonal to OO-ness to me.
Scheme has mutable variables, and introduced lexical closures in the 70's. You don't need any tricks with mutable boxes, you can just update an integer in the outer scope and it works fine. Scheme doesn't have an object system built in, but the closures make it easy to roll your own.
There's always that one guy at every job who talks about "high-level" "software engineering" topics but can't code for crap. It's so common I suspect causation. The idea that identifying problems is more difficult than solving them is as facile as suggesting play dates between children is more difficult than Beethoven.
Pretty good and thorough article. It's a relatively straightforward issue, and yet there are so many different solutions out there...
> Have a camera facing the eye that can tell what the person is focusing on.

Sorry I was a bit terse, but that's what I meant by "detected focus."

> You then build software that blurs the image outside of their focal plane.

That's not it exactly. The problem you're trying to solve is that, when the viewer is focused at one depth but is viewing a flat image at another depth, it will already appear blurry to him. You can't fix that with extra blurring. The fix is to distort the original image, much like corrective lenses.

And BTW, I suspect that you can't perform this correction for even a single viewer in the audience unless you're tracking his location and orientation.
Let your client know that you're swamped with other work. Then write, don't call, the Attorney General. Put it in writing that once you figured out what was going on you did what you could to put a stop to it.
But that is more difficult than making assumptions based on his age.
Why would business success translate into literary skill?

I'm work in the hard sciences, and those sentences sounds fine to me :)
Started when I was about 16, making mutators for Unreal Tournament 2003 using its scripting language. I was doing HTML before this but this was my first foray into logical programs. One of my mutators was an honourable mention in Epic’s Make Something Unreal Contest at the time.

I’m more of a designer than developer now but I still appreciate what I’ve learned during that time, makes it easier to communicate ideas with hackers easier.