skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I haven't seen any research that says passive listening without instruction has any effect at all.

You may have some success in a language related to your native language. Good luck with something truly foreign...
That’s fine. As long as it includes emissions already created during production.
Thanks for the excerpt of the study, it is interesting. As persistent stress causes visible signs of aging, for example the seemingly accelerated growth of gray hair and wrinkles of U.S presidents, it is not big a leap to suspect more.
I can see the convenience of not having the "hassle" of cash and having a single receipt at the end of the month.

I recently switched to a public transport card that stores all my trips and gives me a single invoice at the end of the month that is automatically debited from my bank account (SEPA Direct Debit). Before I had to constantly top up my card with money (prepaid) or buy individual tickets. I really like this system!
The ability certainly already exists, unfortunately.
A Path Less Taken to the Peak of the Math World (2017)
Is 5% a distant second from 9%? I guess but - what are the growth curves of these two businesses?
Why not put all tax on the Fuel? Then you have everything in one tax, exactly the way you want it. Take the bike more often? Benefit immediately. Buy a lighter vehicle? Benefit immediately. Drive less wasteful? Benefit immediately. It seems like such a system would stimulate only good things.
The title says "children", people!

10 year olds, NOT college students.
The new walrus operator now makes indentation obsolete. You can write averything within one line as an array and it is hard to read. This in combination with syntactic sugar, operator overloading and unicode variables can make the language very hard to read.

e.g.

# compute pi
1000000 >> ψ( ψ(χ>>op("(x**2+y**2)**0.5<1")@rlµ<<χ)>>Σ*4>> _/_)

or this:

# 10 fibonacci numbers
[x:=[1,1]] + [x := [x[1], sum(x)] for i in range(10)]

is valid python code. (for the first see my github jamitzky/iverson).
Not that I wouldnt like it, but python3 has changed and the zen of python is not valid for some time now.
Is this in relation to the arXiv article "Frequency of planets orbiting M dwarfs in the Solar neighbourhood" published in June of 2019?

The quote from wikipedia.

"In June 2019 two candidate planets were reported in orbit around Wolf 359. They were detected using the radial velocity method from observations with HARPS in Chile and HIRES in Hawaii"
Coconut liquor kills nine in Philippines
Quite the contrary, it's very beautiful and useful:

>>> (1, 2) == (1, 2)
True
>>> (2, 1) == (1, 2)
False

If you need identity for perf:

>>> (1, 2) is (1, 2)
False

If you just need the type check:

>>> isinstance((1, 2), type((1, 2)))
True

It's very explicit, practical, and you can set the scale of practicality vs performances where you want. Plus: no implicit weird type conversion, only one equality comparison operator, and no hidden rules.

I think it's sane.
Yes, formal grammar instruction is optional. But it does accelerate things.

I mean, it may depend on your goals. If you are focused on communicating, and don't actually intend on using the language efficiently and competently, then maybe formal grammar is a waste of time.

Otherwise you need to have this information. You have a choice to get it in a systematic way or to decipher it on your own.
I absolutely love what Katarina and her crew have done with this, and indeed I have used them in a presentation deck I created, but unfortunately, I think this model has resulted in this artwork becoming a bit of a cliche on SaaS websites recently.

I routinely come across sites out there with these illustrations now, and it is becoming a little same-y (check out @humansofflat on Twitter).
How much of the 58% are fakes or worse, then we can start figuring out really how worthwhile it is for sellers
Same here. I started watching because I misinterpreted the title and stayed for the wow effect :)

Also, after seeing what kind of magic he can do with the right representation, I wondered how many "business domain" models I know could be expressed with models that "click" in the same way (i.e. are expressed by simple concepts and compose as well).

I feel as if many of us often give up way too early in the search for good models for our data. Myself included, of course.
Are men forbidden to buy and register them?
I’m so fcked.
You can achieve the same thing in python by using two lambdas (which is actually what you're doing in JS with map):

>>> powers_of_x = [(lambda i: (lambda x: x**i))(i) for i in range(10)]
>>> [f(2) for f in powers_of_x]
[1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512]

Or you can use default parameter values to use a single lambda (though this means it can be overridden, it's not semantically equivalent to the js implementation)

>>> powers_of_x = [lambda x, i=i: x**i for i in range(10)]
>>> [f(2) for f in powers_of_x]
[1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512]

your python snippet is equivalent to the following JS:

>>> function* comprehension(iterable){
>>> let i;
>>> for(let j of iterable){
>>> i = j;
>>> yield x => x**i;
>>> }
>>> }
>>> powersOfX = [...comprehension([0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9])];
>>> powersOfX.map(f => f(2))
[512, 512, 512, 512, 512, 512, 512, 512, 512, 512]

And Python's comprehensions are actually a shorthand for writing the above generator with this syntax: yieldExpression for i in iterable. The semantics are consistent with the regular for..in

>>> def comprehension(iterable):
>>> for i in iterable:
>>> yield lambda x: x**i
>>> [*comprehension(range(10))]

is equivalent to

>>> [lambda x: x**i for i in range(10)]

This is all a consequence of python's late binding.
"If you haven't built a finite state machine, you've built a bad finite state machine."

I've recently started using Fulcro (framework in ClojureScript), where they are first class citizens in the form of "UI state machines."

http://book.fulcrologic.com/#_ui_state_machines

In retrospect it's obvious how much better it is to contain, for example, the logic of logging in and signing up within an FSM.
Because it was mentioned in the bottom of readme.
Certainly something that should be studied. Too bad the federal government in the US effectively banned any research into LSD for decades.
Game Perang PC Terbaik Dengan Grafis Paling Memukau
only works if you know where your app store icon is. i dont use the icons from the launcher screens anymore, everything goes in one folder bar the 'sticky apps'

find it much faster to just pull down and search for apps
The reason for this had always seemed pretty clear to me. Numerous different political ideologies rely heavily on scare mongering, outrage and catastrophizing to motivate their base and inspire followers. Many of the most powerful people or groups around the world have an incredibly vested interest in getting as many people as possible to believe that some particular set of things is very, very wrong with the world, and that they should be granted the power necessary to fix them. A lot of political ideas become obsolete if people realise that the world is a better place than its ever been, and that it continues to improve at a consistent pace.
Yeah, that certainly fits.
“In combination with a lower rate of hydrogen consumption due to its low mass, the convection will allow Wolf 359 to remain a main-sequence star for about eight trillion years.”
O=MiniTruth CN=Big Brother :D love it
Good luck learning romanic or slavic grammar from "comprehensible input".

And the thing Krashen seems to be talking about is actually phase 2 in my model. The students may have taken the long way towards basic knowledge in English, but in order to advance, they need to spend time reading text to assimilate the grammar and vocabulary more.
(Aside: taking the split between static/dynamic as fundamental is at least as old as Hinduism and I do kinda like that perspective).

Ok, so what stands out to me is at each of those levels you can define an individual of sorts (proton, phenotype, society, meme) with goals (electromagnetic, genetic survival, ??, memetic survival). So I get what you mean that definition of goals (quality) goes hand in hand with definition of individual and therefore subject/object in this restricted model of reality.

But that's what this model seems to be to me, more of an ELI5 explanation than the grown up one. "the proton wants to move towards the electron, the rabbit wants to have babies, etc" is a simplified model that leverages our brain's skill at modelling motivations of other animals but falls prey to our tendency to see such motivation where it doesn't exist. Once you start testing this model by making predictions, it doesn't work because the levels work rather differently under the hood. Try using evolutionary principles at the social level to predict the growth of New York for example, and you are going to mispredict because New York isn't going to reproduce in any meaningful sense, it will either grow or die (there's a vague parallel to group selection controversies here but not that relevant). People (like the inhabitants of New York) and ideas (like ideas on how cities should be run), conversely, can be said to evolve due to mutation and reproduction and if you predict the growth of New York based on evolutionary influences from those levels you are more likely to succeed (alternatively you could take some sort of network/complexity approach but whatever works it isn't going to be city level evolution * ).

But let's not get hung up on evolution, it's just an example of how the levels differ so much in their details that the only correct overarching definition of quality for each level would appear to be "the thing the thing is going to do anyway", a definition so general as to be useless * . From that light the good student essay was the thing Phaedrus wanted (the standard he was trying to achieve in his students) but if we want theories to make useful predictions we need to predict when this will and won't happen (e.g. because the alcohol molecule's notion of 'quality' interferes with the student's brain's efforts to reproduce Phaedrus' notion thereof) which is where the model breaks down. Or maybe this theory isn't supposed to help predict anything but is supposed to help grade essays? but "what I wanted to see" is not a useful definition of quality for the student either.

*edit: unless it's morphic resonance a la Rupert Sheldrake, a theory so general you can state it as "whatever happens becomes more likely to happen again". But while at first sight that notion is strongly related to quality as defined by Pirsig, I think that may be an illusion caused by them both being super-general abstractions. MR is subtly different and although not accepted by scientific consensus that difference at least allows it to make testable predictions.

Thank you for helping me think through this stuff more (as my edit history would show!)
In the US market they have a weird tax advantage. Not the case in most of Europe; you certainly see a lot of Mondeos here.
Why should people only use it when necessary? Why not say “the walrus operator is the exact same as the assignment operator, but it can be used in expressions and thus is spelled a bit differently in order to better distinguish it from the equality operator. Feel free to use it in all places you’d previously use the assignment operator.”. Simple, easy to understand, easy to learn, and most importantly (though python folks might disagree, given 2 => 3), easy to adopt. (Find and replace all single equals with colon equals and you’re done).

Instead, they’ve chosen the narrative: “the walrus operator is a lot like the assignment operator, but it is able to be used in expressions, cannot be used as a statement, and it sits below the comma operator in precedence instead of above it. We understand that this is super confusing, so use it sparingly”.

One way you have two operators for people to learn, with the understanding that there is a third legacy operator that works pretty much the same as one of them. The way they chose you have three operators for people to learn, with two of them behaving pretty similarly but not interchangeably, and with subtle yet important differences.
I’m not sure if you’re for or against here. Walking the container is exactly what you have to do, and it is horrible. More importantly, if it’s not your library, you don’t get any choice on how the equality check is implemented.
Wow, I never realized the site of the Battle of Wolf 359 is a real place.
One she is not underaged. More like 20 something.

Two, it can also be named after the anime, Lilith.

Three, even so, nothing wrong about naming something after a succubus.

Four, I don't see the objectification. The objectification only exists in your mind.

Five, it is not a professional project.
Also good for him that he didn't take the CoC (pun intended).
>if I try to find concrete evidence that someone has done the work, there is no evidence that anyone actually has

Unfortunately, the fact that negative results tend to get little if any publicity works against you here. And it's probably worse outside, not inside of academia. How often would a project team in some big company, or a couple of guys in a garage try out some promising alternative approach to something, fail to realize an advantage over the conventional approach, and then go out of their way to publicize that failure? That would be extra work for no - or even negative - gain.

It might just be meant to be humorous, but even "If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence you even tried" sounds more likely than "If at first you don't succeed, put some extra effort into telling everyone".
Ha! Science can only get you so far and there are areas where it falls on it's face, for example explaining consciousness and that is where Spirituality and philosophy need to step in.
The limits of a single man knowledge and understanding are perfectly real and discussion on how to overcome them is very important. I'm not a Steve Wolfram fan, but his answer in the article is much deeper than others.

As for pure proofs, they died in 14th century actually where scholastics were able to prove anything. Since Bacon and Newton experimental evidence was required to confirm the validity of the knowledge.
Why we procrastinate paying our taxes, according to behavioral economics
Clearly, the solution would be to place Arcade under Profile. Easily accessible!
USB-C cables desperately need better labeling but it's not as bad as that. They all carry 60 watts, and they all support USB 2.0 to give you >300Mbps.
Well, good for them wanting to die on that hill.

They will remain dead..
Love the noun project
It's one thing to confuse a civilian, it's not that hard. But your narrative doesn't explain actual fighter pilots observing objects flying orders of magnitude faster and making incredible maneuvers.
"having to link the standard C library”

Ideally, IMO, there should be two libraries, a “Kernel interface library” and a “C library”, but for now, just think of it as two logical libraries in a single file.
> Why would you still manually traverse a linked list? Oh right because C doesn't have parametric polymorphism (genericity) so you can't abstract out the traversal in a standard library.

It's pretty easy to make something like this work:

list_insert(&itemList, struct Item, &item, &compare_item);

Which would be just a thin macro, for example defined like this

#define list_insert(list, type, item, compare) \
__list_insert((list), \
sizeof (type), __alignof(type), \
(item), (compare))

You could further "improve" to even allow

DEFINE_LIST_FUNCS(itemList, struct ItemList, compare_items);

itemList_insert(&itemList, &item);

It's not the end of the world. The reason C programmers usually don't make or use such "libraries" is that these are pretty easy to craft on the spot, and there are just a billion way of making it work. Allocation strategy and intrusively vs extrusively linked are two example considerations. I for one prefer to think about the best way to organize my code and data, so I'm not interested in such a library.
You could do that with a lambda since Python 2.4.

E.G, calculating primes:

>>> print(list(filter(None,map(lambda y:y*__import__('functools').reduce(lambda x,y:x*y!=0, map(lambda x,y=y:y%x,range(2,int(pow(y,0.5)+1))),1),range(2,1000)))))
[2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 281, 283, 293, 307, 311, 313, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349, 353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 409, 419, 421, 431, 433, 439, 443, 449, 457, 461, 463, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, 503, 509, 521, 523, 541, 547, 557, 563, 569, 571, 577, 587, 593, 599, 601, 607, 613, 617, 619, 631, 641, 643, 647, 653, 659, 661, 673, 677, 683, 691, 701, 709, 719, 727, 733, 739, 743, 751, 757, 761, 769, 773, 787, 797, 809, 811, 821, 823, 827, 829, 839, 853, 857, 859, 863, 877, 881, 883, 887, 907, 911, 919, 929, 937, 941, 947, 953, 967, 971, 977, 983, 991, 997]

As for the unicode caracters as variables... Remember you could do that in Python 2 ?

# -*- coding: rot13 -*-

cevag "Relax"

But people don't do it. Just like they don't use "import *" everywhere, or monkey patch methods like it's going out of style the way Ruby loved it 15 years ago.

Because such capabilities are restricted (one line lambda, parenthesis for walrus, not all unicode is allowed as var names or everywhere...), introduced slowly, and the community culture is to value readability, Python stays Python.

I was against the walrus personally, for the reasons you mention. But while I do see Raymond Hettinger trolling twitter regularly with his latest crazy walrus magic, in production we see no such thing.

Not to say it never happens. It does, I've seen monstrosities in the field. Like with every tech. I mean, you can start a fire with a water hose if you try hard enough.

But it's rare.
OpenFaaS 3rd Birthday Celebration – webinar recording
Loading all tax into fuel just drives (heh) more and more people into fueling over the border. Fuel already is really expensive in The Netherlands.. €1,77 per liter or €6,73 per gallon, and most of that cost is tax.
This is just whataboutism. Trump's insanity doesn't justify giving other politicians a free pass for saying incorrect things.
I'm perfectly happy, thanks. Though to be fair, I tell people I'm saving it for a time when I'm really ill and I need something to do for a month.
I'm going to give a sentimental answer instead of a fully accurate one. This also came up during the livestream, so it's a great question!

When I was a five or six years old kid I used to program on our home computer, a Philips P2000. Monochrome green on black CRT, Zilog Z80 CPU, different ROMs for running BASIC or Pascal or whatever you hacked onto it. My very first program drew Christmas trees on screen. Very appropriate to share this story right now. I immediately showed my mom, who wasn't really impressed, because she didn't understand what I had done. I had told my computer what to do—wow!

Then one day I was walking around the schoolyard imagining the world around me being digitized and available as large, 3D blocks inside my computer. "My" P2000 wasn't advanced enough to pull it off and similarly I wasn't advanced enough to program something like that. But the idea of having a coarse, 3D replica of my world and being able to have fun in there with my school buddies always stuck with me.

Many years later, at an intellectual dead-end in my job I took a month-long vacation to regain focus on my life and myself. And I suddenly remembered my childhood dream, or fantasy, of that 3D world. And I realized that computers were now advanced enough and I was advanced enough. So I decided to take on the journey, channelling my inner five-year old.

Some players have joked about this with me. That they're actually investing their time in the figments of a five year old's imagination. And that's not far from the truth. Even though Angeldust is better, more beautiful and more professional that I had ever imagined, it is the actual implementation of my childhood dream.

So the answer to your question is that I started development somewhere between being five years old and now. Hopefully this answer still gives you some joy and insight!
Show HN: Faasd – Serverless with Containerd
Binary search on a list??
(Obviously) it should be done EU wide.
Basically, C++ developers (like me) are stupid. We're like primitive species, stuck with C++ because we can't understand superior languages. The Lisp developers tried to bring us the light, but we chased them away by throwing rocks at them. Now the Rust evangelists are doing the same thing, but I'm afraid we might take a break from writing video games, stock exchange software, safety-critical software, CAD packages, web browsers, video codecs and the like, to throw rocks at them.

My point is: maybe C++ actually _is_ the superior language. It can't be a coincidence that all the best software projects tend to be written in C++, and not in Haskell or whatever.
To use a language efficiently and proficiently, you need to know all the grammar. Regardless if you have learned them systematically or if you have deciphered them by yourself. The latter might be somewhat easier if the foreign language is close to your own language, which means you already got that information. I've found Indoeuropean languages much easier to learn than others.

Sometimes even the definition of "grammar" is confusing. If you study Indoeuropean languages, they are so similar that "studying" grammar is mostly getting the conjugation and declination right. Sometimes you only have to switch some endings between languages. With other languages, the entire system of morphology is different, because for example they have more "persons" or whatever.

Additionally, English or Chinese may seem to have easier grammar, but then the complexity is hidden in the vocabulary or usage patterns.
Calling people who disagree with you "apologists with an agenda" isn't really within the spirit of Hacker News, nor is it conducive to healthy discussion.

The disaster that hit Fukushima was a tsunami. Only a very small section of the prefecture is still affected by the fallout and most of that area is for an abundance of caution. Most of the leaked radioactive material went in the best possible place for it—dispersed into ocean water. Ocean water already contains naturally occurring radioactive material, in quantities many orders of magnitude greater than humans could ever hope to disperse "by accident".

Meanwhile, the disaster being faced now could have been similar or ever massively worse if the tsunami had hit and damaged chemical storage plants instead.
that is a step in right direction, but still doesn't allow me to express my route preferences
6000 Euro tax for a 15000 euro car. I'd call it significant enough and ridiculous enough to be more than mere propaganda. But you're right, the figures I had in the mind were for the Jimny, not the Vitara. Over 10000 tax for a car that's less than 20000 euro.
Agree. I was just adding some context about these narratives. And I really have no issues with anything you have said.
As proven by Hambach Forest in Germany already.
Chernobyl Dice: A quantum random number generator with a Nixie tube display
In mathematics pure proofs are well, alive, and kicking.
I believe the main problem with the tax on fuel (it already exists) is that you cannot make it as progressive as you want. It will be the same percentage regardless of how much fuel you use and so far this proved not good enough to skew the market in favour of the low-emission solutions.
No OpenBSD support :p.
Excuse me, but this sort of complaining about toy code is pretty pointless, at least when it comes to bashing the language. I don't use malloc directly in real code...

You'd never object "forgot to catch std::bad_alloc from new'ing", would you?
Sometimes I need a bit of context to understand why it's on HN. I mean sure, it's a star, what makes it interesting?