skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I noticed the same, but then figured out that the PoC is incomplete like the engine function. I assume that's on purpose. I look forward this gets the attention of security experts to know if this is real or not.
> The inability to deliver on the kickstarted campaign caused one of the founders to take their own life.

You don't know why he chose to end his life -- nobody does -- and making up stories about it is irresponsible. Even those closest to him have competing explanations, e.g. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-10/on-diasporas....
More importantly will Apple give me a replacement for my 2008 IMac? :P
Looking at the page source the only Javascript that is running is Google Analytics so we are probably safe. Your antivirus probably doesn't like http://1337day.com/.
Thanks for the reply:

I don't know about HTML5, so I will look into that. But my concern is more about how to design the system. Let me explain.

LaTeX is quite a formidable system nowadays, with a well-developed markup language optimized for mathematics and technical writing, as well as a compiler which does advanced typesetting (for PDF output, that is). Because of the way the system is organized, there are thousands of packages available for LaTeX which essentially extend the markup language and provide new functionality to the compiler to produce diagrams, for example, or certain alternate PDF formats, etc. The amount of work done in the LaTeX domain in terms of development is quite amazing.

In view of this, is there a way of extending LaTeX in such a way that all this functionality ports over to the creation of more active documents/webpages?
Netscape no longer exists as a company (or meaningful subdivision of AOL) so that might not have been the best strategy. Copying got them ahead quickly but didn't keep them there.
Literally any proof is on the level of FizzBuzz. There is a wide gap between the level of competence it takes to prove anything, vs. not understanding how proofs work-once you know any higher-level Math, you know proofs. That's even a slightly higher level of competence than FizzBuzz-anyone can do FizzBuzz if they know even a modicum of programming. You certainly don't have to be a programmer to do FizzBuzz, and you don't have to be a Mathematician to prove that sqrt(2) is irrational.
Wow, I am genuinely shocked by the comments in this thread. I didn't realise that so many people held the polar opposite view to me. It's a bit like suddenly finding out that all your friends are racist.

I love object oriented programming. For me it aligns perfectly with the way I think - it allows me to produce a system of interrelated 'things' where each thing (or group of things) has a well-defined role and can hide its internal state and behaviour from other things.

When I see how some code tackles a problem I get an emotional response from how 'clean' it is. Does it smell bad or is it a work of beauty and elegance? If the code feels wrong I get an urge to make it better and for me that process of improvement relies heavily on object-oriented concepts. I get a real buzz from creating a clean, elegant solution to a problem: Trying to do that without object-oriented features would be like trying to write a letter by holding the pen with my teeth. Ugh.
Sorry. Melancholy frequently gets the better of me.
Very interesting article with ties to Wall St as well as Siri. It should serve as a reminder that in business dealings, only -you- have your best interests in mind.
He's campaigned for more extensive reforms than what actually took place - I'd place his position further left than the current state of health care.

That said, mainstream politics in the US has shifted dramatically to the right since the 90s. The conservatism of the 90s is the "liberalism" of today.
wait, is this a compliment? Voltron defends the galaxy from evil just so you know, might want to check your anime facts
I'm all for proper rants against popular tools to keep people on their toes.

This isn't one of those.

"Objects bind functions and data structures together in indivisible units. I think this is a fundamental error since functions and data structures belong in totally different worlds."

Sure—a class defines a type and operations on that type. What's fundamentally wrong about date.addDays(1) vs. date_add_days(date, 1)? (Let's skip the mutable state argument and assume both versions return a new date.)

There is the problem that sufficiently opaque classes are hard or impossible to extend. That's the class author's fault: this is an avoidable problem in every object-oriented language I've used.

"Functions are understood as black boxes that transform inputs to outputs. If I understand the input and the output then I have understood the function. … Functions are usually 'understood' by observing that they are the things in a computational system whose job is to transfer data structures of type T1 into data structure of type T2."

A constructor is a black box that converts a data structure of type T1 into a data structure of type T2. Objects just also have other black box functions defined on them.

Sure, some objects are stateful, but they don't have to be.

"In an OOPL I have to choose some base object in which I will define the ubiquitous data structure, all other objects that want to use this data structure must inherit this object."

Um, no. This is a job for composition, not inheritance.

"Instead of revealing the state and trying to find ways to minimise (sic) the nuisance of state, they hide it away."

They hide state's implementation, for mutable objects.

std::vector<std::string> some_list;
std::cout << "Items: " << some_list.size() << std::endl;
some_list.push_back("Hello, world!");
std::cout << "Items: " << some_list.size() << std::endl;
// Oh no! State, EXPOSED!

Sure, an allocated piece of memory might have grown, or even moved. Why should I care? I still see the state I care about, presented through a hopefully useful abstraction.

This rant seems to somehow miss the points of both object-oriented and functional programming, instead harping on mostly meaningless (or outright wrong) details. Or am I missing something here?
> If you are using Noscript and also blocking Flash, then you are probably safe

If I understand this bug correctly, then no you are not. My initial impression is that it is loading a specific sequence of bytes into memory than is then mistakenly executed by the CPU.

You don't need javascript to put bytes into memory.

It could be they need javascript to cause some sort of memory (string) copy at the same time.
The Gift Card of AMAZON.COM: A practical alternative for your economy.
I made part of my living in the 90s from selling and installing Dragon's software, and was perplexed to see L&H buy the company and then implode. What an appalling story, though I wonder why it has taken so long to end up in litigation.
OMG there's comet hurtling toward Earth. We didn't study the problem enough so now the debris from our nukes is going to take out ten land-locked cities, instead of just coastal cities from the tsunami.

The frustration you're feeling is a side-effect of reality. Complex problems are complex.
The New Yorker uses "insure" for both meanings, and it trips me up every time.

Holy mackerel, you're right:

https://www.google.com/#q=site:newyorker.com+insure

At first I thought, "Well, but the New Yorker does have a few quirks" - but the analogous search for the NYT shows that they do it too.

I always assumed "insure" for "ensure" was a sign of illiteracy. What's that thing called in psychology where the brain edits out incongruent things and just doesn't see them? I must have been doing that with "insure" for years.
Considering there are so many different JavaScript engines (IE, several FireFox options, Chrome's V8, WebKit's engine...), how could ONE exploit affect them all?

Even taking C code and running it through two different compilers (or the same compiler with different options) will often produce different executable code. So one would assume each JavaScript JIT compiler would produce code differently, and yet there's no comment on what browsers are vulnerable?

Did I miss the memo that all of the above compilers are sharing the same JIT code?
Hint: However much the venture investors in my blog want me to tell you it is
"Has anyone under 30 ever bid on something on eBay?"

What a load of shit. I'm 25, and I use ebay all the time.

Sure, you can make the argument that Etsy and Amazon are taking business away from eBay. But suggesting that they have replaced eBay as a platform is ridiculous. This is also a very USA-centric view to take. I'm from Australia, so using Amazon is a pain due to manufacturer export restrictions, and the often prohibitively expensive shipping costs. So in many cases eBay is a better alternative. And as for Etsy, it serves a niche. If you want to set up an online store to sell kitschy homemade toot, knock yourself out and use Etsy. But if I want to sell some of my second hand stuff, eBay is what I'm using.
Personally I think it's time for ebay to get rid of listing fees and MASSIVELY increase it's listings.

These days I go to amazon first for used stuff since people can list there with no fees, so I get better deals.

The only place where ebay wins is one of a kinds since amazon will only sell items with SKU's or part numbers.
Craigslist cares about profit.

It also realizes that sustained profitability is achieved by leaving so much money on the table that any possible competitor is going to have a really hard time covering expenses.

Generating positive social goodwill isn't a bad side-effect either.
You're probably confusing the International Committee of the Red Cross (which is the organization you're describing) with the American Red Cross (which is explicitly American, and assists US troops overseas along with other charitable activities).

As for the moral value of providing a gesture of thanks to people who are literally fighting the Nazis, I'll let you work that out for yourself.
Caveat. I never saw any mathematical formalization for Law of Demeter. Contrast this with the Substitution Principle, which is directly defined in terms of logical implication.

With the regard of the example presented, there is at least a trivial solution. There is a BookApi which is concerned with providing Book operations, and there are the Book/Section/Paragraph data types. List<Sentence> getAllSentences(Book) is defined by the BookApi. Changing the data types doesn't affect any client of the BookApi, only the implementation of the BookApi.

Conversely, coupling the methods to the actual data types results in inflexible designs. Should a Book know how to display itself in a gui widget? Which widget library? Should a Book also know how to save itself in a database? Which database api?
Ok cool. Thanks!
California. I even corrected Malcolm Gladwell once (which he thanked me for!)

I think I have found an explanation in http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jun/17/food/fo-60599 "and forget the fact that "insure" was nearly always spelled "ensure" in the 18th century."

It is probably one of these things where Americans swung one way and Brits the other. Another example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Etymology where Americans use the original British spelling and the Brits use the original American spelling!

But insure and ensure mean different things - they can't be interchanged!
Giant Owl Found In Texas, Is It Real?
I essentially agree with what you're saying, although in most cases, I would argue against the characterization of the tool as "broken". But I think that's semantics.

If this article was titled "Functional programming offers a number of advantages over OOP when dealing with $productive_activity"[1], my response would have been positive.

[1]: It goes without saying that the article would have to live up to the title. Obviously merely re-titling this article in such a way wouldn't be sufficient.
I'm going to ignore all of this article except for:

"The first step was Canada, where Stripe has just gone live. It’s actively working on Western Europe too."

This isn't even true is it? There's no mention of this on their site/blog. Nothing on Google. Their Twitter feed even recently replied to someone saying it isn't in Canada.
I think they were expecting something hugely successful. When it turned out to be just average with so much publicity attached it must have been difficult.
Who, if anybody, gets screwed by hidden swipe fees?
The funny thing is that most of these APIs wind up with what's essentially a "this" pointer at the front of every argument list so you're really doing OO anyway.

I'd like to read a persuasive critique of OO but so far I haven't found one. Time objects are a really bad example because time calculations are exactly the kind of hairy mess you want to hide behind some kind of abstract API.
In my experience people have all kinds of expectations, regardless of wether you charge them or not. And billing shows them your time is as valuable as theirs. On the other hand, if you offer your time for free, people will tend to load you with as much work as possible because, hey, you're free; and you have no way to leverage how much you're willing to do.
Each Module defines an api that talks about N different ValueTypes. Saying the word Object limits the api to expose exactly one ValueType.
Android SDK v3 for RedLaser launched
I read a CNN Money article which said suspect suicide (with confirmation from coronar coming later). If I am incorrect I will edit my post and apologise.

Articles:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/14/technology/diaspora_cofounde...
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/249210/20111114/ilya-zhitomi...

Edit: "The San Francisco Office of the Medical Examiner formally ruled the death a suicide last month." - http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-10/on-diasporas...
It is in a private beta in Canada as of last weekend. You can ask them for an invite.
You are now talking about the washing machine effect, which is not what you were talking about before. You described a photo sharing site as, "a network of tens of millions of people sharing data about their day-to-day life", which is ridiculous. True, washing your clothes a bit faster is not important by itself, but it is if you can read more books or spend more time with your family. I think it would be a tough case to make that using Instagram instead of emailing zipped photo albums like I did in 1995 allows you to accomplish more with your life.
HTC One XE Price in India & Pakistan-Features & Opinion | RaviMobiles.com
Wouldn't there be a fairly simple solution in lowering the working schedules of Americans as a whole? (Simple in idea, not in execution)

With all the productivity improvements couldn't workweek hours decrease causing a rise in the number of people employed (maybe at a cost of less take home pay for workers overall)?

Musings.
A gem for automatic Retina image handling
This means that if you are an OS vendor but not the system vendor, you have to do things (aka execute) which allow complete systems (hw + OS) to be brought to market. You have to define a HAL for example, and a way to evolve that HAL, and a way to probe what parts of the HAL need to be implemented in software because the hardware bits are missing. You need to provide a bullet proof schedule (which usually means prioritizing software availability over feature availability) at pre-defined times. You need to have a strong relationship with chipset and other silicon vendors to enable solid device support, which is at least backward compatible and ideally forward compatible as well. You need to be able to work with a hardware partner to get their stuff up and running, you need clear APIs that don't change and solid training materials to bring engineers up to speed. You need to create a series of test suites and compatibility suites to provide confidence on your vendors part that they are doing it right. And perhaps most importantly you should provide legal indemnification for your partners who use your software.

When you execute well, all those things are there. When you execute poorly there are parts missing, or parts that are confusing.

The result of poor execution is incompatibility flareups, your partners product shipments slip because they haven't had enough integration time, you screw some partners with a release they cannot ever run on their hardware, and your partners take punches in court for you over their decision to use your OS. That's painful.

I was working at Google when Android was released and while not part of that team, participated in the early development contests and worked on a 'loaner' G1 to test various things. That first release with T-mobile was when Google still felt that could release on open source (mostly) OS, and a reference implementation, and the rest of the world could just pick it up and go wild. (this is sometimes referred to as the 'throw it over the wall' strategy). Fortunately, this failed really hard, really fast as evidenced by the pretty sizable gap between the first Android phone and the second. But Google is nothing if not resilient. When I left in 2010 they were still struggling with the notion of 'software releases have timelines' kind of thing because all of Google's other properties just pushed out to their own hardware in their data centers which meant alpha was beta was release all wrapped in one. Not only that but major changes could occur between any step. Hardware partners really really don't like it when you make a major change between one release and the next.

Much of the early thrashing in the Android market was due to inexperience on Google's part. The fact that Jelly Bean has been released and Ice Cream Sandwich is hardly anywhere is, in my opinion, and artifact of this learning process.
Awesome! "just gone live" is a bit misleading then.
> the most security hardened browser, which is Google Chrome

Cite, please.
It's a pretty weird idea to suggest there is a universally applicable CPU bug that can get that code to run.

There are substantial differences in the ways various Javascript VMs work, how and where they store strings, how code is compiled, etc. Would it work under Rhino? Firefox? Old Safari?
The historical win of OO was polymorphism. The competition to OO was procedural code that consist(s|ed) of hardwired procedure calls. Enter polymorphism, which provides a way to abstract over functions, not only over values. Of course, this is nothing new to functional programming where functions are first class citizens, but it's new for procedural programming. Modern OO is about stateless objects, dependency injection and unit testing, aka functional programming.
What I find so obtrusive about OOP which I feel is a massive issue (maybe has to do with the last sentence in Joe's post). OOP is pushed into places it does not belong and causes a lot of impedance issues.

OOP developers want if something doesn't talk OOP then to make it talk OOP, for example ORM's and SQL databases.

It is a tables and sets, most of computers use sets and tuples, yet OOP needs to be serialized and abstracted away and pushed in almost becoming a data type in it's self.

And I think there are other issues and pervious failures like this.
That analyst can go suck an egg. The majority of startups these days use some form of Agile. As far as 'developer backlash' -- you're damned right: backlash against 500 page spec docs that are, for the most part worthless the second the software is released.
Upcomming LG Xpression Mobile - LG Xpression 3G Smart Phone Feature
I read it as live but not public. You're reading tech blogs, their main beef is to get news as soon as possible.
This placed a malicious file in my cache. I'd recommend not visiting for now.
eh, in the things I am worried about? getting sued is pretty far down the list. I am /far/ more concerned, for instance, about screwing up my taxes. (probably my biggest fear, as everything else can only take me to zero, in the worst case. Tax debit is forever.) Or, of, say, a serious security incident. That could kill my business and greatly damage my reputation in the process.

Eh, but really? I believe that this "avoid getting sued at all costs" attitude in general leads to suboptimal decisions being made in many different areas; and as a systemic force, it pushes all companies to do things the same way that other companies do them. "Industry best practices" - things like that which are usually code for 'expensive mediocrity' - I don't even think it makes sense for big companies that are worth suing, usually, but big companies are run by managers, not owners, and managers are far more concerned about avoiding blame than they are about anything else.

Really, I think this relative freedom from the fear of lawsuits is a huge advantage I have, and yeah, if I want investors or if I otherwise want to move into management in the corporate world? I'll have to change my tune, but for now? I get to enjoy my freedom.
For a company run by Sarah Lacey (who takes pride in having a Chinese presence) Pando Daily is a shockingly north American centric publication.

I also get the sense they want to be the first to say something is happening rather than could happen, at the expense of accuracy.
Lua: Why explicit local is a good thing
But everyone invested in my blog, that's how you know it's fair!
You can certainly achieve this in Clojure using deftype/defrecord, with methods that operated on those types.

But I think the point he's making here is a good one. Why exactly ARE you modeling a book as a series of chapter, section, paragraph, sentence, word objects? Just because you can? Or because it's actually a useful API to developers (the latter seems somewhat doubtful).

It's very tempting when you're working with an OO system to actually try and model the data as it corresponds to the real world equivalent, but it's rarely a good idea. Design your code around the API you want other developers to use.

In the case of a book, it's unlikely every book will follow that rigid chapter / section / paragraph / sentence / format (what about a book that doesn't have chapters at all? Or has pictures? Or is stream of consciousness). You'll want a more flexible system - I'd imagine it would end up looking like some kind of markup representation. And no surprise, markup is best dealt with as a nested data structure (XML, JSON), not a rigid set of container classes. So even in this trivial example, a bunch of encapsulated classes aren't really an appropriate representation.

This is true more often than not in practice. Rather than building a rigid class hierarchy, having functions that operate on data (and frequently that data _is_ typed) often yields better results.
We're not going to get to 100% carbon-free energy sources overnight. Continued use of fossil fuels in the near-term is a fact of life. Natural gas technology is well developed, highly capable, and already economically competitive with coal and oil. If carbon emissions are an existential threat to humanity, to any degree, we would be stupid not to take advantage of natural gas in the here and now. Switching from gas/diesel/kerosene to natural gas is a >20% reduction in carbon emissions per unit of energy. Switching from coal is a 60% reduction.

And natural gas is also better for human health and overall environmental quality since the emissions are almost pure CO2 and H2O without a risk of acid rain, particulates, or radioactive fly ash. Being able to make such huge environmental gains in the short-term at very minimal economic cost is as much of a no brainer as these things get.
Which file? Details?
Fair enough. In most cases, it's probably more "suboptimal for the task at hand" at worst.

For some reason, anything like this turns into a crazy holy war. At the risk of invoking another holy war:

"For these people, the iPad is unsuitable for content creation for anyone unless it’s suitable for them." -- John Gruber

s/the iPad/\$tool/; s/content creation/\$activity/;
From software to toilet paper: filmmaker to live open source for a year
3 Pairs of EccoShoes Sandals Giveaway
Why would they obfuscate this if they intended to publish it? Maybe this means it was not meant to be published...