skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
AJAX's origins are actually really cool. It started before XmlHttpRequest. If I recall correctly, when the user took an action that required a server response, the javascript would make a 1px by 1px iframe and load it to a specific URL with the important information in the query parameters. The response would look something like this

<html>
<head>
<script>
someGlobalFunction({
searchResults: [
{"name": "Joseph Paul"},
{"name": "Joe McCray"}
]
});
</script>
</head>
</html>

Then once the iframe was loaded, `someGlobalFunction` would handle the results and update the page.
What? "Jack got their jacket before saying goodnight" scans totally reasonably to me as commonly used English? I suspect the degree to which this sounds fine is colloquial.

But it's not that hard of a transition to make either. It might seem awkward for a bit, but it settles in pretty quickly.
The thou/you change is particularly relevant.

Anyone who complains about 'they' being improper usage who then uses 'you' rather than 'thou' as a singular can go die in a fire.
Great read! I recently read Bill Kilday’s book: Never lost again[1] which is a fantastic read if you want to learn more about the pre-google-maps and google earth days.

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062673041
I guess it's better if I give a concrete example of a conversation I recently observed.

Bob is gender neutral. Uses the 'they' pronoun. In a conversation with people, instead of saying "Bob helped me out with this problem", someone says "They helped me out with this problem", referring to Bob, and no one, including Bob, has any idea who they are referring to.
The Stack Exchange rule forbids calling them "they" and requires calling them the pronoun they wish to be called.

The original post is saying "I refer to people as they" and SE is saying that's a violation of the code of conduct.

So what do you think of that?
Language is a sensible thing, and draws all kinds of demarcations. A single word can shift the perception of a person. A circle might identify an outlier by just a slip of tongue.

If you are from another socioeconomic stratum (or somewhere else in the capital quadrant), you might never learn a certain language, that provides a common ground. There are unspeakable things, I can think of, that I would never ever bring up in a conversation with a random person.

These exclusions and inclusion have already been there, it seems like some fights are more naked now, uncovered, harsh and sometimes meaningless to someone not involved.

I was a top SO contributor and very much enjoyed the site - and still enjoy finding answers. I fear, I will be policed at some point for something - but maybe not, because I am usually agreeable - but who knows: only time will tell.

Edit: I am usually not that impartial, but there is a discourse (where this particular thread might belong to), where I am not able to take sides - because my gut feeling says: you cannot shift the responsibility you have, when you interact with another person, to some abstract law, entity, or something else - it has to be you, to show respect and to allow for a common room for everyone - which does not mean, that the room is just there of one.
Aren't they supposed also to be tools for the _owner_ (ie purchaser) rather than for companies to retain control of.
The binaries aren't preencrypted here, the dynamic nature is the whole point. There's nothing to unpack since you just reference the binary, and no added work for the debugger.

So when you say

> For example it appears to combat ROP they are additionally encrypting the code segment of the program and decrypting on an as needed basis. I am absolutely sure this would make debugging more difficult.

It's just not true.
> The moderator (whom you are ironically misgendering) was not attempting to burn political capital

One, thank you for pointing out the midgendering. Flagged it in my original comment.

They weren’t attempting to deploy political capital. But repeatedly flagging an issue for discussion is a political act. (This is, by the way, another cultural norm. The level of openness to challenging the organisation’s authority.)

On content, I agree with the author. But I disagree with OP’s claim that there is a growing wing of our culture seeking to punish people for thoughtcrime.

The analogy would be someone who brings up the office dress code at every meeting. Yes, it’s arbitrary. Yes, you’re just talking about the rule. And yes, at a certain point it will be perceived as a challenge. (Depending on the culture, one that is laughed off or responded to.)
It's not quite that simple: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150812/11395231925/lenov...
First of all, I want to remark that I'm a non-native english speaker. I have no issue with using singular "they". You are the owner of the language. Just tell me what to use. Avoiding misgendering is great. Yeah, I wanna do that.

The real issue is: TOEFL actively punishes people for using singular "they".

But we also tell everyone to use singular "they". If they don't, they will face a heavy backlash (e.g. being called bigots).

Here are the people we should be screaming at: https://www.ets.org/about/who/leadership/
Edit: Never mind
Regulated or deregulated — central bank fiat money created via debt instruments is inevitably self-destructive.

We are in a situation where essentially all global personal tax revenue goes directly or indirectly to pay commercial and central banks for the money supply to exist.

Destroy that — or be destroyed by it.

Everything else is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Gates appears to think providing that 23 GW with nuclear, at $10,000/kW, is better than providing backup combustion turbines at $400/kW.
It's amazing to me as an American how little need Europeans have for large American-style vehicles. I see Audi station wagons in Switzerland pulling horse trailers (with horses in them), doing 100mph on the freeway. In the US, anyone who pulls a horse trailer once a year would have a dualie diesel HD3500 with exhaust stacks, as their daily driver.
The Structure of Every Japanese Sentence
You say that like it's a bad thing. Getting rid of gendered language would eliminate so many misunderstandings and bigotries (both accidental and intentional) that it seems like the obvious choice, especially when you consider that future generations will be raised with it sounding natural.

But I don't think it's going to happen.
I think this thing https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/iaas/Content/FreeTier/resource...

some forum discussion https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/160260/oracle-cloud-fr...

seems ok though slowish I/O
This is one of two posts that made things click for me. This one clearly distinguishes Functors, Applicatives, and Monads visually so that I don't get hung up on the names every time I encounter them.

The other article that demonstrated the practical purpose or path to constructing Monads showed a number of them using nested procedural syntax formatted to look like do-notation. [I can't remember the title/link, if anyone knows please post.] It went through async/await, maybe or list and showed them rearranged with the 'monad'ic parts off to the right where semi-colons might be.

Do-notation just took that and flattened the nested structures. The appreciation that these different computational contexts could all be structured the same way while focusing on what's happening apart from these contexts really demonstrated why it's useful and the power of being able to encapsulate these seemingly different ideas.

I'm sure I'll need to find a part-3 in my journey (perhaps Monad transformers) and so on, but I've at least got a good footing from those.
At the risk of making mistakes here, where I've come to personally, in a journey to understand myself, is that the idea of gender seems artificial in general, for the most part. I've been in a relationship with someone who felt strongly about being identified "correctly" when they had transitioned, and also with people who absolutely assume they'll be identified "correctly," when they had never particularly explored an alternative to how they were designated at birth. For me, I'm not upset when gender pronouns are applied to me, but I'd prefer to not be identified this way, even though I often feel since identification with the cultural experience of being identified as gendered.

I've had some frustration that "they" has become the "neutral" pronoun, when earlier I felt more personally identified with pronouns that still disambiguated plural and singular more clearly, but a friend pointed out that if referring to an unidentified singular person, "they" is perfectly grammatical (i.e. "did someone deliver the mail?" "Yes, they did."). I am concerned that so much of the focus is placed on the problem of the word, without acknowledging the more fundamental question of willingness to consider if gendered pronouns are necessary.

What seems problematic for me is trying to strike a balance between personal identity and "correct" speech. Most of the time, "making sure" that a gender is assigned in speech doesn't feel relevant to actually understanding general meaning. I appreciate language that better avoids pronouns rather than uses them as a means to add clarity. It feels to me that is possible to respect gender identity without requiring language to be gendered in a general way. At the same time, I've myself tried to take gender out of my speech and I fall constantly.

Fundamentally, it feels like a cultural moment where it feels like we're focusing on very black and white ideas and feeling that others are "not listening," or on the other hand, "forcing me to do something I feel uncomfortable about and lying in wait for me to make a mistake." When there's a possiblity for openness, there's also the possibility of vulnerability, whereas in a cultural context, it seems like we're moving towards walls and fortification, which makes me pretty sad and concerned that there's not space for nuance.
Such a chart would in no manner prove your point. Something can become prevalent could be because (a) it is the preferred option out of many equivalent and equally available options or (b) it is the chosen option due to having been given preferentially treatment. Given that your time period contains Eisenhower's expansion of the federal highway system, option (b) is the more reasonable interpretation.
Yes it is , it so is.
I've been reading "Lectures on Jurisprudence", a collation of lecture notes from a course Adam Smith gave in the 1760s. It is somewhat puzzling phrasing but seems to be a very structured introduction to the law, addressing questions like:

* What are the ways recognised by the law in which people acquire property? One way is simply by holding it for a long time; another is by receiving it, as through an inheritance; a third is when property results from other property, as when an apple tree produces apples.

* What do "rights" mean in a legal context and where do they originate from? Some are intrinsic, some are the result of agreements.

* What are the laws of marriage and inheritance and how have they changed over time?
"An intuitive way to think about "fast range" technique is scaling. Number x ranges [0,2^32−1], multiplying it by N then divide by 2^32, the range becomes [0,N−1].

From "Writing a Damn Fast Hash Table With Tiny Memory Footprints": http://www.idryman.org/blog/2017/05/03/writing-a-damn-fast-h... , previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14290055
Edited to say...

I think we (as humans on this planet) need to be respectful of each other. Not go out of our way to hurt each other.

But "being respectful" needs to have a standard, society-wide definition. We cannot allow individuals to set their own standard of what they demand in order to feel respected, because then people can invent unreasonable demands on others and then claim to be harmed when that fails to happen.

For instance, I can go around demanding people call me "your lordship". No, my name is not Scott. My name is not unreal37. I am not he/she/they. Call me "your lordship" or I will consider that an insult.

Individuals cannot define the rules like this. We need a standard of what is considered respectful behavior and it applies to everyone.
How does shortening "The Thing That Made The Things For Which There Is No Known Maker And Causes And Directs Events We Can't Otherwise Explain" to "God" actually brings any knowledge whatsoever? You didn't discover anything new.

It's much more honest to say "we don't know yet".
Oh yeah, there are attempts all over the world, but for some reason it seems to "stick" better in the anglosphere.

Also, while this is all coming from the left, it's not really coming from the "mainstream left" - it's coming from a fringe of troublemakers. The mainstream left, respectful as they believe themselves to be of the "other", are just letting it happen. And they're going to continue to let it happen for a while longer, until... well, I don't want to speculate too much on what happens when the house of cards falls down, but I doubt it's going to be pretty.

(I used to be a "leftist" myself, but now consider myself apolitical. I moved out of my home country and can no longer vote, but to be honest, I don't miss it at all)
What would you call ~15% of the moderators quitting, the community largely unified and heavily confronting the company?
I find this to be a quite interesting choice, since Apple Watch ships with WebKit and enough chrome to make it a kinda-usable browser.
Ask HN: What are the top textbooks for data structures?
I've been looking at some textbooks for algorithms and I came across the Skeina book and CLRS, but they seem to be pretty advanced. I've been programming for almost 2 years and never really formally taught myself the fundamentals like algorithms, and it seems as if data structures would be far more useful to learn about BEFORE algorithms (heaps, hashes, stacks, etc...). I'm looking for a book like SICP, something classic and easy to understand. Thanks!
I think it's more clear-headed to judge somebody from the perspective of history than as if you had Alzheimer's. What may be unfair is information asymmetry between the strong and the weak.

As for the erroneous judgment stemming from analysis (like doing a word count for taboo words), would analysis arising from drastically less historical data be any more impressive?
We do not need to see the Bloomberg smear job on Hacker News. Thank you.
You can even make your deployment easier by using a static site generator like Hugo.
One counterbalancing force is renewables and using cars as part of demand response.

If solar energy that would otherwise go to waste can be stored in cars, then that reduces the chance the car will need charged at another time and save the utility money.

I can imagine plugs that you connect to for free when parked, that only give you as much power as they want but that will also let you buy express power when absolutely required via an app.
How to Develop a Naive Bayes Classifier from Scratch in Python
Browsers need to rethink what is available via JavaScript. Scroll position, cursor location, etc. should not be readable. CSS Media queries for building responsive should still be fine to write, but the JavaScript API should be silent as to what styles are actually applied (to prevent workarounds for say, inferring the screen height/width from media query styles).

If we go back to basics, where I can make a network request, and the body includes a useful response (e.g., no need for running JS to populate the DOM, as is the case with SPAs that aren't server-side rendered), we can free ourselves from those more advanced heuristics.

It will likely always be cat-and-mouse, but we can rethink the universe of data available within the browser (that can be reported back via XHR requests), and make that universe much smaller.
>I don’t know how things are in Paris (never really been), but here in NYC public transit is extremely unreliable and optimized for only one use case: to move 9-5 commuters between their homes in the outer boroughs and the two central business districts of Manhattan.

This reminds me of the London Underground. It really seems like no matter where you are in London it is going to take roughly 40-60 minutes to get from A to B.
Wouldn’t that be quite slow?
That sentiment underplays the general knowledge (more important) as well as generalized tools that even specialized shops have. It's not like pivoting is easy, it never is. I just don't think every shop has to vanish versus pivoting and finding another lane that fits the new demand. A change in the market landscape doesn't need to spell the end of all shops as we know it.
The only reason I can think of is that Keychain only works with safari. Sometimes I prefer doing dev work in chrome, and then accessing the passwords in Keychain is kind of a pain.

If there's a cross-browser way to access Keychain, I wouldn't use anything but that.
I panicked for a moment, since I travel a lot and changing my MAC address is the only way to circumvent draconian limited WiFi rules. Glad to see this is only temporary, and it'll be fixed before I end up buying a new machine.

Here's how I get around free WiFi limitations while travelling: https://jezenthomas.com/free-internet-on-trains/
Having -> denote a return variable has the benefit that you the syntax "a -> b" is non-ambiguously a function type.

For example, a function that accepts a function as an argument can be written:

fn foo(f: int -> string)

Or if the argument name isn't needed in this context (e.g. think interface declarations):

fn foo(int -> string)

If you see ":" as meaning "has type", then using it for a return type isn't necessarily more consistent, because it's not the function that has a type.
I think it looked fine the last time I checked it out but it doesn't really do anything for me that bitwarden does and bitwarden is free and open.
Your still burning significant CPU resources and turning that RAM on (rather than power gating it) to run Electron apps in the backgrohnd, hence why it tanks battery life on laptops.
I agree the Linux desktop has a come a LONG way in recent years and it is soooo close. It is stupid stuff like this that holds it back - the last little small tweaks that make like easier. Tweaks should just be part of Gnome - period. Put it in Settings - at minimum put it under and "Advanced" settings.
>I'm not sure who you had in mind for your end user

People who have data they need to transform, but probably aren't programmers or data science professionals.

I would obviously be delighted if data science professionals want to buy it. But I assume they have lots of powerful tools already at their disposal.

But I am still learning about the market, so I could be completely wrong about where the opportunity is.
Dart can do AOT compilation as well.
This entire "debate" around gendered language just reaks of western liberal privilege. Nobody outside of this miniscule bubble of academics, political elites and their social justice warrior pawns actually give a damn.

I just sit back and laugh and watch all of these institutions implode in their own incomprehensible ideology and laugh. How sad that we've come from the civilization that abolished slavery, instituted women's suffrage, civil rights for all, and defeating the Nazi war machine....to bickering over gender pronouns.
What happens to a sentence like " Elle est intelligente". Do the conjugations change to be neuter?
> ...addressing someone with their proper name and title.

Except titles were banned by the U.S. Constitution. I'm not sure why Your Honor and Dr. stuck around, probably because of the immediacy of the need to oblige onesself to them. But it's important to remember that the Dr. honorific is cultural and unenforced. And the Your Honor is only enforced in court.

If someone wants to call the President "Donny", there are no legal repercussions. Not that Donny T will be a grown-up about it necessarily.
It’s interesting how smoothly this logic can move between “your country”, “your religion”, “your ethnicity”, “your ideology”. I am not making a case for or against any of these. But if pragmatic arguments for group punishment hold currency when there is known collateral damage, arguments from principle lose currency in equal measure.
> - how could you prove negative intent when choosing not to use certain pronouns, as opposed to a mistake, or pronoun identity that was not publicly known, etc.?

Same way you prove someone is posting maliciously in any other context -- you make a judgement call based on history? If it looks like an honest mistake and they say, "Whoops, my bad!", then it's no big deal?

> - even if you assume you did need to refer by pronoun, how could Person A know what pronoun Person B wishes to be referred by, unless explicitly stated somewhere?

People who care about having the correct pronoun used will either gently correct you or have their pronouns in their profiles.
What is the point of this when we already have symcryptrun?

https://gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gnupg/symcryptrun.ht...
What do y'all recommend for frequently updating charts i.e. streaming data sources with histograms, etc?
Repeated exposure to implausible statements makes them feel less so
As an early and faithful Be user, I remember the odd looks I got when I chanted mantra “One processor per person is not enough!” back in the second half of the nineties. Oh, how times have changed!
I have never used in conversation, but sometimes use it in writing. My native language has a gender neutral pronoun, so it did not take too much getting used to in English. You say the double usage of 'they' might be confusing, but in pratice believe it has been around for long enough on the internet that I have a high enough confidence that most readers will understand it's use or at least not be too distracted by it.
You mean... voted into power and determined to destroy them?
Does anyone know how to bypass Bloomberg's paywall?
a little annoying they swap Mexico and Canada's keys in the two charts. Beyond that, I didnt read anything that was particularly compelling. the tittle could have just as well been: "Robots are getting cheaper" rather than "Robots Are Catching Up to Humans in the Jobs Race"
I'm not so sure about that. 'LGBTQIA+' is widely accepted, and the '+' is a wildcard.
Neo Cab is the dystopian, gig-economy Crazy Taxi we’ve always wanted
Why will we eventually need to increase the fission base? I see no good justification for that.

> What nuclear really excels at is at replacing coal

Coal is being displaced, but not by nuclear. Nuclear is actually rather bad at displacing coal. People were building coal fired power plants for decades when they could have been building nuclear plants, because nuclear failed at being attractive enough to replace coal.
Anyone have any experience? I see a date of a year ago on the page.

The latest TeX Users Group meeting, a month or two ago in San Francisco, featured a number of amazing demos of TeX and LaTeX systems compiling large documents basically instantly. Amazing what modern CPU's can do. The TUGboat with the papers should be out soon.
But this is in a case where the pronouns are (presumably?) known. If you were obviously doing it with regards to one person, it could be very offensive. That is, if you insist on referring to a transgender person as "they", when you know their pronouns but refer to cis-gender people using gendered pronouns.... then you're just refusing to gender a trans person correctly as opposed to trying to take pronouns out of your language.

We did just have the whole contrapoints fiasco regarding pronouns, which shows that... the community is not dealing with some of these things very well at all. (FWIW, I'm a transgender woman and I totally agree with the concept she was expressing)