skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Kernigan is absolutely right here btw.

There are so many problems with trying to make up for unclear code in comments, that's a real losing battle. I recognize that it may be worth breaking that rule sometimes, but then it is worth noting that, and flagging it so that other programmers can see and fix it. A comment like "#FIXME: This code is unclear: What it does is...." is perfectly acceptable.

Comments are for collaboration. You do NOT want to make them even appear useful for debugging.
Maybe Singapore's a good bet--combination of a major metropolitan area and a technocratic dictatorship that might go for it.
any car company making a robocar is going to get sued into oblivion when they collide with a human driver, regardless of who is at fault

I'd actually be somewhat surprised if this were the case. Self-driving cars will gather an enormous amount of sensor data and I bet they'll store that and decision tree logs in a "black box" of sorts. If this isn't being done now, I guarantee it'll be done after the first few lawsuits.

With that info in hand, it should be rather clear – at least in the majority of cases – who's at fault. The human driver can claim they swerved over the double line to avoid an obstacle, but the sensor information can probably confirm whether that's actually the case.

This isn't to say there won't be lawsuits, or that self-driving cars will never be at fault. I just expect there will be a rash of initial lawsuits. Then, as it becomes clear that the data recorded by self-driving cars makes them a difficult target to exploit (and assuming self-driving cars are in fact less error prone than human drivers), I expect lawsuits to taper off.
That's if you're trying to say thorough, which he wasn't. He was saying through. Different, although similar words.

This post is a direct continuation, picking up where the Thinking This iPad Mini Thing Through post left off. It's "Through-er" both as a joke and to make it perfectly clear it's a sequel to the previous post.

Thoroughly would imply something different, like he wasn't really thinking about carefully it in the first post. That isn't his intent. It's not supposed to supersede the other article, it's just "more".
"Quicktime needs your permission to run."

"Java needs your permission to run."

"Flip4Mac needs your permission to run."

"The page at www.constellation7.org says..."

Yikes.
How many of your Twitter followers are fake?
I don't think tourist-heavy locations like Hawaii and the Bahamas would be good. Lots rental car business and airport traffic relative to the size.
The point is
(1) Is all this stuff true? How true?
(2) Is it really all good? Seems like they have a very free wheeling engineering culture. Are there downsides to this? Is it sustainable as Facebook grows? From what I've heard Google is considerably more controlled.

Also I must say that as a daily Facebook user I haven't noticed most of these "thousands" of features being launched. They must be exceedingly subtle features or else they bundle them up for an annual release (which is actually a good idea).
Jobs House Robbed
I like how he says in one sentence that maintaining code is too hard, and then in the next, asks Mozilla to maintain extra code. It is scary how few programmers realize that software they use every day is the same as software they write themselves. There is no magic.

Also, duuuude, the site in question is awesome: http://www.constellation7.org/Constellation-Seven/Josiah/Ind...
USA Celebration Store
USA Celebration Store Find top-brand you want online everyday Low prices now! USA Celebration Store
Hah, well, I was surprised to get even FOUR upvotes. Good to know, I guess...?

Anyways, I had meant to bring up HN as more of an example of a bubble--both because it has an exclusive attitude (which is exemplified in part by a non-zero barrier to entry) as well as a self-selecting user base.
The beauty of literate programming, quite honestly, is that because of the way that the documentation and code are interwoven, it requires fewer code comments, and encourages both clear code and clear documentation.
At first the robot cars will take you to get frozen yogurt. Then they will begin to refuse, citing your weight and the three laws.
I agree, some algorithms didn't translate well from Python to Clojure. Also, I wouldn't want to process mp3 files in Clojure... but that is probably a good match for Java.
Actually Android is a counterexample--Google doesn't control the entire Android ecosystem, and they do have to cede control to phone manufacturers, who cede control to carriers, who drag ass on innovation, which is why you can buy a brand new phone today that has a years-old version of Android running on it and loads of crapware.
Why make it impossible to read more than two lines, if the point is to show off how cool FB is?

It is fascinating, that I really want to learn the good things, but I cannot get myself to read through the satire. Normally, I would be able to skim through it; even that triggers a gag reaction. Anybody has the same problem?
Tesla doesn't have the capacity to build large numbers of cars. Even if it wanted to ramp up, it would take a long time to build a large-volume car.

GM could licence the tech and punch out 500,000 cars in no time at all. That is the difference.

Google will not want to become an auto-maker. Of that I am almost certain.
Author is missing a few important points that are highly relavent:

1) No insurance implies no liability. When people "buy" these mostly autonomous vehicles, who is assuming liability? Google?

2) "Death of car companies" - is Google going to start making cars? Are they going to compete against years of engineering? Just because they are building the brain doesn't mean they will be building the entire body.

3) The auto industry is heavily regulated, and moves very slow. 5-10 years is a very optimistic estimate.

4) Cars are moving mechanical parts. They require maintenance and repair. How often do you go to the car shop because of an accident? How often do you go for general repairs?

5) Sure, parking revenue might go down for the city. Traffic at those same spots where people did not go because it was hard to find parking will go up. How often have you considered going somewhere else because of parking?

6) Not sure what percentage of the legal system is bogged down by "driving" related crimes. Same for health industry, vehicle related health service.

The author is making the mistake of equating Google moving into this space as Google being able to do all. Google will not be able to manufacture cars for the near future. They will not be able to eliminate liability. They will also have to change driving culture and habits. Having discussed this with friends, a fair number of people just want their own car that they drive.
In the long run, hopefully person driver insurance won't be too much more expensive, simply because they'll be less accidents.
I agree but Auto industry is not about car manufacturers. Players like auto insurance companies (who constitute billions of dollars in market cap) will not fade easily.
The bigger problem for them is that most people aren't logging in anymore I'd bet. I doubt the people who are asking for their accounts to be deleted (myself included) were active users very recently anyway.
VC Portfolio Page Changes - and data to play with
There is non-insignificant fixed cost to insurance business: people, advertising cost immediately come to mind.

But I see another scenario: traditional insurance business will not be willing to insure self-driving cars rationally (i.e. at much lower cost due to much lower incident rates) and robo-taxi companies will self-insure. That will deprive traditional insurers from a lot of revenue and since they are publicly traded companies, they won't just accept that and scale down to match smaller market. Instead, they'll try to prop up revenues in short term by rising prices which will make self-driving cars even more attractive to more people, fueling their own decline.
Ask HN: What are some Chrome extensions that you wish you had?
I'm looking into developing some Chrome extensions. Share your paint points and I shall relieve.
"I think that diversity of thought is more refreshing."

Given that Facebook (attempts to) model our existing social networks, and that the vast majority of people socialize with people of significantly similar cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, this diversity of thought is already (for the majority) a lie. We don't go to Facebook to see how the "other" lives -- we go there to get updates on friends that are comfortingly similar to ourselves.

The people that are willing to pay app.net's admission fee are going to largely be people who socialize with other folks who are willing to pay app.net's admission fee. It's no different than the clientele at a high end restaurant, and the existence of such restaurants hasn't precluded the existence or utility of lower end restaurants.
No meetings != no communication.
I think "gatekeeping" may be a bit of a strong term for what's happening here.

I get where she is coming from, and it is something that should be acknowledged by the users of the site. The key point here is that the GOAL of App.net is not to cater to a different market (those able and willing to pay $50 to have an ad-free real-time network with control over their data).

This is just the economic impact of charging something for a service - it will limit the audience that will buy/use the product.

In particular, I think the comparisons to Hacker News and Quora are exactly what it will be like. Quora is a fantastic Q/A site, and as much of a fan as I am, it still has not reached the completely 'mass market' that yahoo answers is used by. In the same sense, Hacker News has very different content on average than, say, Reddit.

So long as the content creators (users) of App.net realize their audience and the effects that have been created by the circumstances and economics of the network, then it will still make sense.

So perhaps the call here should be for people simply to realize that App.net will never be Twitter. And /maybe/ that's a good thing.
not to mention the only portion of the site I use (photos) is couldn't possibly be worse :p
I enjoy driving as well. But not all driving is fun.

You'll always be able to drive. But I would guess most 'fun' driving cars will be a hobby, like a boat or a horse. Not something you use every day.

But a change like that is 20+ years away.
Actually the people I have met who tend to be most against documenting what code does with comments tend to have the best commented codebases I have ever seen.
So... it is a forum but posts in each thread are ordered based on upvotes instead of time, and displayed in Pinterest format?

That's what I gather from 30 minutes of an exhaustive all-links traversal, at least.
This is what I was thinking earlier today, and it makes a lot of sense. Google would have an opportunity to enter the automobile market very quickly and use its technology on all Tesla cars. The major problem to me is that a company like Tesla only manufactures more expensive cars, and as a result Google would be targeting a small percentage of the population initially with this move.
The purpose of the announcement is to try to save funding for naval weapons systems as the budget priorities continue to shift away from cold war strategic nuclear weapons systems. This is the sort of information which is only made public for political purposes, and the liberal references to President Obama ignore the fact that Congress establishes the budget and that priorities within the defense budget tend to be established based upon the advice of experienced personnel at the Pentagon and within the civilian intelligence agencies.
The horse analogy is brilliant.
Does anyone have a good summary of the actual monetary costs associated with human drivers? That would be really compelling.
I think this is missing one major thing: private car ownership will drastically decrease. It will be a luxury to own a car, almost everyone will be driven in available commodity cars. I personally hope this becomes public transit: available public cars just like some cities have available public bikes. Request it via your handheld (a la Uber), take it anywhere, hop out and it will either remain where it is or head to where it's needed. But it could just as easily by all private robotaxis.

Human drivers will be regulated and confined to certain areas. No amount of "but I like the feeling of driving!" can justify unnecessary death and destruction for too long, and anyway people will grow up not driving. It's more or less like paper books.

Eventually the infrastructure and car design will change, too. Our system is built for human drivers and cars. Obviously we won't abandon existing roads, at least not for a long time, but a lot can be changed cheaply that will have major effects once robocars are ubiquitous.
Or a troll...
Accidents will still happen. The insurance industry will still exist.

There are approximately zero auto-only insurance companies. There are still plenty of other things to insure.
Probably because the first 4 sound like they could be problems. Facebook is super buggy, perhaps they do need to slow down. I think a lot of the feature could be better designed. Zuck very well could too much of a micro manager. And yeah, the ad's aren't working so perhaps the should be thinking about how to make money.
Artworks that focus on Internet customs
Flash will no longer be available for Android on Google Play as of tomorrow
Jabra Wave Bluetooth Headset Review
...except that those things do still need to be re-implemented in every program that requires them, since most POSIXy programs are portable to more than just systems using systemd.
I'll give you another one. Not sure I agree completely though. Most popular communities do deteriorate in the quality of the discussion over time (even this one, spend some time here, you'll see pretty quickly).

The truth is I think it is important for people to "choose" to be real consumers of the services (yes even content services) they feel provide value to them. Otherwise what's the incentive to do anything but pander to the masses to get "eyeballs". Most importantly, there is clearly room for both models, what your post suggests is a false dichotomy.
How to Clone John Carter DVD as ISO for Backup on Computer?
John Carter, the very popular 2012 American Science fiction action movie, has been favorably reviewed by audience. Loving this great

movie, you may have bought a John Carter DVD to treasure up, and...
Are women allergic to hot tubs or something? I wasn't aware there was anything particularly masculine about a hot tub.
> the fact that robocars stop on a dime when they sense a pedestrian in their way will create all kinds of new ways for pedestrians to harass robotaxis.

Meh. I can solve this with one line of code. Every programming language has a random function =)

As a native, I can tell you that this is the solution employed by most human driven taxis already.
Looks like you're right. I should have paid closer attention.
Why You Should Wait More to Upgrade to the Next LTS
The first mistake: Thinking a software group you aren't paying money, owes you anything...
Are taxi companies currently allowed to self-insure?

I would bet current insurance companies are more likely to fight any legal distinction between traditional and self-driving cars as it would require a change to their (lucrative) business model.
A lot of this is believable (i.e. can be taken for real, not satire) if you don't read into each point, because a lot of it is quite different from how Google does things:

1. At Google, code has to be designed, written, tested, and reviewed. You can't just start writing and shipping stuff, partly because there's so much infrastructure, and partly because you pay for shoddy code later. Google has long outgrown the kind of "start-up" velocity that you feel at Facebook.

2. Arguably, software does need to be talked about and debated. Google and many others hold meetings to make sure teams don't end up with 5 incompatible siloed components when what they really needed was a server and multiple clients. Teams have been bitten in the past by the "shit, let's rewrite all this except with a good design" problem. Certainly, they try to keep engineers out of meetings as much as possible.

3. Google doesn't have Larry and Sergey micromanaging things, and PR has been something that Google's struggled with. The role of a CEO is debatable.

4. Sure, although a low stock price isn't without consequences.

5. Several design changes have been made to food at Google: healthier snacks on the snack shelves, color-coding snacks, more plates of the smaller variety in cafes. Some people do get the Noogler 15.

6. Engineers can be pretty bad at making certain kinds of decisions, especially because they spend a lot of time heads down on a small components. (Have you seen the typical engineer-designed UI?) Google PMs that work between teams focus a lot on product decisions that affect the users and other products. Remember criticism that Google just makes a bunch of random, disconnected products?

7. Facebook has had some embarrassing "launches" of Hackathon products. One poorly thought-out launch can mean multiple criminal investigations and loss of user trust.

8. Social is important to Google, but it's hard getting people to agree that it's important.

9. Does it drive away candidates?

10. Trust is all fun and games until you give people in your PRC office extensive privileges to the internal network.
Well, I inherited a codebase where all comments fell into two groups:

1) Copyright notices and brief (1-2 line!) file-level descriptions at the top of each file and

2) Comments that the code needed to have in place in order to run properly... Delete the comments and things break. I am not kidding.

Oh, no documentation and no unit tests either. We started adding unit tests and found that things like number rounding failed.....

Years later we are still replacing the old code as fast as we can. The obvious things including braindead security issues, were just the absolute tip of the iceberg.

Nowadays I write my documentation first, then code, then at least some tests.
Oops Twitter account of Dell magnate’s teen daughter shut down
How would a young programmer get into this field?

Are PhD's a prerequisite?
> There is nothing intrinsically wrong about the idea of a car.

For a single commuter, it increases their weight footprint by an order of magnitude and their space footprint by over two orders of magnitude, which increases total energy consumption and traffic congestion compared to simply transporting the commuter themselves.
autophil probably goes too far, but he isn't entirely wrong--even perfectly efficient robotic cars powered by pixie dust are inefficient and not a panacea for the problems of traffic and pollution that car-centric infrastructure has caused.
Capturing still frames from a youtube video.

I see this being a hard one. I don't even know if that is possible, but I was asked by a designer a couple months ago and he even offered me some money to build that. Taking screenshots from a video source usually render very blurry images, so he was looking for an extension that would do good still images from a video at specified intervals or specific points in time. May be worth trying.
I understand the googly eyed take on "the way of the future" of cars, but self-driving cars are going to be too impractical to become ubiquitous for much longer than 5-10.

Maybe this all works great in metro areas with mild weather, but it's not going to work well in severe weather, poorly/wrongly marked roads, "offroad" areas, and construction zones, which is still a lot of the country at this point (and most of 3rd world). I've driven in some backwards places where there are no maps or GPS, and I've driven in near-whiteout conditions, and I'm sorry but no robotic system today can deal with all those variables.

It's also not going to handle human trade-offs well--e.g. sometimes it's better to crash your out-of-control car than to ram into a schoolbus full of kindergarteners.

You can argue these are all low probability situations or that eventually AI will solve them all and you're probably right, but I'd argue these situations are going to prevent full adoption for much longer than 5-10 years. It's going to take near-human intelligence to overcome all of them. Until then, humans will still drive cars, and probably a lot more often that you can imagine, even if everyone wanted the utopian vision to be true.
Meetings are a very expensive way to communicate. A concise, well-edited email is more difficult to prepare, but cheaper for the company. If something takes you an hour to write but the ten recipients can understand it in six minutes, you saved nine hours of time over having an hour meeting. That's like having an extra person on your team, without having to pay them or buy them a computer!

(That's why a textbook costs $100, but a semester of class costs $2000. Economy of scale.)

Of course, if you anticipate the discussion to mostly be back-and-forth, then a meeting could be necessary. But have an agenda and stick to it. If you just want to socialize with your coworkers, duck out early and hit the pub.
In the thread, multiple people answered his question. Here are the two most significant reasons that I noticed.

1. The prefix was already not being supported by most browsers, thus supporting it would mean supporting the development of websites that don't work properly in other browsers.

2. Best practices suggest that one shouldn't rely solely on the prefixed version of an experimental alias. If this developer had written good code to start with, he wouldn't have had the problems he ran into.
This is the next big thing and it will happen. Just imagine a city full of robotic cars were you dont have to own a car anymore because you can always call one. Less traffic jams because they can drive at peak efficiency and can plan ahead because they all know where everyone wants to go and all of them will be electronic cars.

This has so many ups on society and our environment if i could buy/use one tomorrow i would do so.

One of the biggest downside of this a lot of people like cab/truck driver will lose their jobs due to this "revolution"
How should you market your startup? The definitive answer.
As a Kindle Fire owner I have to say the form factor of tablets this size is great. I just wish there was a better fix to the resolution issues. Limiting to low PPI for app compatibility seems like a hack.
Australia’s Top Court Backs Plain-Pack Tobacco Laws
How to Convert AVI to TS on Mac
This is an tutorial to tell you how to convert AVI to TS with Video Converter for Mac with high quality and fast speed. 
They can recognise road edges visually. Best-guess routing to off-map destinations. Cars can feed back trip data to improve the map database.
Fitflop,chaussures fitflop,fitflop pas cher solde en ligne
fitflop,chaussures fitflop solde,notre fitflop france de la déconomiser 54%. Livraison gratuite en 3-5 jours.
AppleID is a single sign-on used across a wide variety of systems (iTunes, iCloud, AppleCare, the Apple Online Store, the Mac App Store, developer.apple.com, bugreport.apple.com, Apple's CA services for code signing and push notification services, to name just the ones that come immediately to mind) developed by different groups, at different times, using different technologies, over a period of many years. Even ignoring hashes and authentication protocols entirely, the set of fully-functional AppleID passwords is still the intersection of the sets of valid passwords for all supported clients of all these systems.

In other words, you're most likely looking at the feature of iForgot that prevents you from selecting a password that one of the other systems isn't prepared to handle, or at least might not have been prepared to handle reliably last time requirements were frozen for a major system-wide upgrade of the (internal) AppleID protocol.
machine learning (particularly computer vision) and AI would be valuable skills I think.