skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Gilbert Strang's Linear Algebra textbook is designed to be useful to the self-learner, and I think the latest edition was revised after MIT's OCW was a thing, so actually references all the material online, IIRC.

I've read some of it and it's quite good. His lectures are great too.
Growing infrastructure by orders of magnitude makes more sense to me, and is often how I hear the term used. I was at a conference in Berlin a few years ago and Joyent gave a talk about scaling which touched on this very topic.

The argument given was that you should plan infrastructure expansion with orders of magnitude. For example, increasing disk space from 10tb to 100tb. Or replacing a network switch with one that has 10x traffic capacity. The reasoning goes that the time spent engineering the expansion is a better investment at 10x, rather than having to increase infrastructure incrementally.
Are there any versions of this that work with Windows GUI apps? (Along the lines of puTTY instead of Cygwin)?
"Google’s decision to block Windows Phone users from their map service made absolutely no sense"

What a load of rubbish. The simply redirected users away from Maps to avoid a broken experience. Maybe some sort of message explaining the incompatibility would have made more sense, but it still made sense.
you do care a little though ey? but understandable
That's awesome! You should give this habit a try, maybe you can preemptively avoid those Wednesdays and Thursdays.
A high school teacher is not required to publish, attend conferences and raise funding at the same time...
So, er, does the [mo]bile[sh]ell have a mobile app for iPhone?
I'm always putting my wallet in my (kinda tight --at least not baggy) jeans' front pocket.

I've been thinking about asking my step-mother to sew velcro inside the pocket as to make it harder for pickpockets to get in when I'd be distracted. It would be invisible and certainly not something they'd expect: from the outside it would just look like a normal pant.

Do you think it could work or do you have any other anti-pickpocketing trick?
I love the concept, but "Clients may not even know they have roamed".

Can anyone briefly rehash some of the security issues that were brought up with mosh?
In the works, not trying to trick ya. See https://github.com/lefnire/habitrpg/issues/28
Android is a real Linux
I've spent the past year using Mosh from high latency, unreliable satellite connections in Afghanistan. I would have been pulling my hair out without it. My only complaint is the scrollback buffer often gets jumbled.
You mean, "how is a thought on the commendability of pursuing one's internal motivation relevant to a discussion of internal motivation"?

If you have a genuine argument, please articulate it. I'd be of course happy to answer.
After using mosh on and off for a year, I realized that what they wrote in their PDF is absolutely true:

mosh latency isn't much different from SSH latency, which is a common misconception. What mosh adds is:

- decent prediction (this is what mitigate most of the latency)

- integrated auto-reconnect (even thus auto-ssh and others do the same thing, they're not built-in)

- mostly asynchronous keystrokes thanks to UDP+stream protocol, so if you hit ^C it will abort stuff even if the screen is scrolling. Note that the way keystrokes are handled makes it susceptible to a timing attack, and there might have been work to mitigate this that i'm unaware of.
> I think memorization doesn't really help understand the fundamentals of any topic. Rote memorization can only get you so far. As concepts get harder and complex, dependence on mere memorization leaves a lot of holes in the understanding of any subject matter.

The existing research says that spaced repetition helps with abstracting and generalizing understanding as well as 'rote memorization': http://www.gwern.net/Spaced%20repetition#abstraction
Many paranoid companies will often prohibit all use of GPLv3 software. The justification I've heard is that the terms of the license make it possible that anything you produce using GPLv3 software is also GPLv3. So, for example, if you use a GPLv3 licensed version of emacs, and you write some code, the code you wrote will also become GPLv3. It's a very conservative reading of the terms of the license, but understandable for companies which have most of their net worth tied up in source code.
When your commandline tool needs several seconds CPU to complete the task, JVM startup time is irrelevant.

The benchmarks game measurements posted by voidlogic include JVM startup time and yet many of the Scala programs are faster than the corresponding Go programs, when the programs run for seconds.

So a Go n-body program can be faster than a Scala n-body program at 0.33secs over a small workload, but then over a larger workload take 32.1secs compared to 23.5secs for the Scala program.

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/program.php?tes...

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?t...
You can draw valid conclusions. You just need a very wide confidence interval. If p=.05, we can assume that the real attrition rate is between about 2.5% and 97.5%.
Because it's inflammatory, and patently nonsense. By any non-mad definition, Sweden is not a banana republic. Saying so prejudices the points made (though frankly, the entire "article" is 1 sided hyperbole).
> the nature of that license makes its use in certain classes of business very, very dangerous

Well, thats the point of it.
One of them, besides the elite crypto issues, is that mosh requires having a wide range of UDP ports open to function properly. Many admins are not willing to do that.
Hey, would love to... just drop me an email at david@microcosm.cc or put an email into your profile so that I can contact you.

The emails aren't visible in the HN profile, so you have to put it in the info area.
Had the same reaction. Especially since there are no screenshots, to me it seems very "fake" - just copy and pasted twitter.github.com/bootstrap.
I wrap a normal OpenSSH connection in CurveCP.
Anyone else think this was an Onion article when they read the headline?
>> The proof as a whole can be complete rubbish, which
>> still making sense at a page by page level."

> Correct. But if one statement is incorrect then the proof
> is wrong, at least until that statement is corrected.

The statement-by-statement work is not only trivial, it's an important step to getting your head in the right place to understand where things are going, and why. Fixing the problem of making sure each statement is, in effect, syntactically correct is not just solving the wrong problem, it's solving a non-problem.

>> Trying to convert a recently produced proof into a form amenable
>> to checking is just not going to happen, and by the time it is
>> understood well enough, and completed to a sufficient level of
>> detail to make it possible in a sensible amount of time, it's
>> pretty much pointless.

> And that's where I disagree. If you can have your new theorem in
> a machine readable/verifiable format, then other theorems can make
> use of it. The idea is not to redo the work every time for a new
> theorem. I understand new math is much more complex, and that's why
> we should be thinking of making this available in a theorem prover.

It's being done now, but the problem is that producing new work, new theorems, is not going to be done within the framework of the automated system, because that's not where the meaning lives. When I produce a new proof, the fastest thing to do is to make it readable by other mathematicians, not convert it painstakingly to a different notation for a machine to check. That can, and really should, only be done once it's understood conceptually by other mathematicians.

There are people working on this, and they are making great strides. I just get really frustrated when people think a) it's obvious that machine checking is the way to go, b) why don't mathematicians all work on producing their proofs in machine checkable form, c) I don't understand these proofs, so obviously machine checking is better, and d) it really can't be that hard - even I can see it's a good idea.

I have no doubt that this will change over the next 50 years, perhaps even over the next 20 years. Prediction is hard, especially about the future, and I'm not going to try. What I do know is that I honestly cannot see how I would work trying to use a machine readable form, or trying to use a proof assistant. So far they've not merely been unhelpful, they've actively stopped me from working at all. No doubt it will be different for people raised with and trained on the "modern" systems of 20 years from now.

> It's certainly a very complex work and maybe not doable today,
> but it would have a big impact.

Yes, yes it would. I don't know how much math you know, there's nothing in your profile, but if you have enough to have a go at contributing to one of the major pieces of work underway to make it happen, you could make your mark.
Languages shape the way that you think:

And so this is just killer to my mind. Time.now is an impure effect and should be isolated so that testing can occur easily in the pure code.
Immutability has worked out really well for a lot of real-world systems built with Erlang.
"Tests don't have to be held to the same level of reliability as production code"

I personally take issue with that statement. If your tests are not reliable and robust, you will stop trusting them. At the point, why even have tests if you cannot trust them to verify correctness of your program (or at least increase your confidence that the program is not broken)?
Why do you write: "Sweden has a justice system unworthy of a banana republic.". Do you imply that Sweden should identify itself as a banana republic?
Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. That's fine, everyone[1] knows this. Anything that appears in WP should be traceable to multiple reliable printed sources.

For the article you mention there should be some way of getting multiple reliable sources of a birthdate.

When one person sits on a page there's verious conflict resolution measure to jump through that might help. I hate WP so I'm not going to get involved but I guess there are some admins here who might want to help you.

What's troubling about the OP is that this WP article was a good article, and so should have had some kind of thorough vetting. That's disconcerting.

Also, once an article reaches good or great (or whatever) status I'm not sure if there's any way for visitors to get that exact version of the article, rather than just what today's edit it.
Do we really need another model of mobile phone?

Do we really need more screen sizes?

Do we really need more apps?

That's an inane question, and the article doesn't even try to answer it.
Website seems to be down. Here is the cached version of the site. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...
The phrase "A real linux OS phone" is pretty frustrating considering Android exists and is supposed to be "real Linux". What are the main reasons Android is not "real Linux"? (Its hard not to be upset with Google for this situation if the reason is what I think it is).
Well, it's been a while with no security issues, hasn't it? That's mostly how software ends up being considered secure.
Two answers, first, the cynical:

Keep in mind that equity reflects possibilites, specially in startups. I would say that most of the value of a startup are just changes of succeeding. Read: How much does a lottery ticket is valued?

Second, more useful:

You need choose a target P/E ration, and calculate. PE == Share_value / Earnings_per_share.

30 is a reasonable target. The problem is, in tech you can get P/Es around 200-300 (which is stupid).
I can't really believe the name I am seeing next to this shoehorning comment, Jacques. AFAIK, 'nirvana isn't sitting in the suburban US hoping to foment revolution by posting articles to reddit; he has turned into some kind of country wandering nomad while working on a startup.

"What is to be done" is a question facing all of us who see the growth of these unaccountable systems in an era of plenty and, lacking straightforward answers, it is a quite rhetorical one. Physically moving, generational change, violent revolution, economic collapse of the infected systems, nonviolent civil disobedience, eventual threshold of enough-being-enough, agorism, building new institutions to eventually usurp the broken, and the most important: ________________ (you fill in the blank). All of these things are less than half-answers, but only by letting the indictments and subsequent question stand can we ever hope to find some workable path forward.
Trapped in a Java VM
Same here. No-image Google cache version here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QFxSoJi...
>As it has been historically, this will almost certainly be due to a combination of a losing war, the rapid economic decline of national economies during a losing war, and finally terrible civil unrest and something like revolution.

Not trying to be argumentative, but what historical hegemonies do you have in mind that have crumbled like this?
iSSH has an independent proprietary implementation of the mosh protocol as an in-app purchase. (mosh itself has license terms explicitly permitting redistribution on the App Store, but nobody has done the port yet.)
Show HN: A small weekend project - Distraction Free Writing
I'm not as familar with Java, but in C# you can use "shims" to accomplish this same result, without DI.

http://www.peterprovost.org/blog/2012/04/25/visual-studio-11...

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh549176.aspx
> most people using PHP never actually have to set up and configure a PHP server.

Most people using node just use a PAAS too.
I'm specifically thinking of the downfall of the Russian old order as Russia was losing the Great War, and the general upheaval of aristocracies on the losing side of that war. The earlier defeat in the Russo-Japanese war also precipitated revolt, so perhaps one can look to unrest following a similar event in the future to predict when greater change may be on the horizon.
Show HN: My weekend project - MixUp your buffer schedules
> But no one acknowledged that the same exact day, 100s of thousands of cops did their job, stopping crime and protecting the citizens. Some risking their lives to do so.

Nobody acknowledged that probably because that is their fucking job. That is what they are getting paid to do and are entrusted with certain powers.

It is funny how the tables were turned and the baseline was reset. Now somehow cops who don't fuck up need to be acknowledged and sent a fruit cake. The hidden assumption here is perhaps that everyone starts to accept that there a lot of corruption and screws up by cops (this is indicative by the focus on "well there are a still some good cops, right, right...?")

> Most of the stories I see that claim how the US is some type of a corrupt police state are selectively filtering and misreporting reality.

This is just the normalization of reporting. Before these stories were not reported and were covered up. If it weren't for citizens with cameras (phones) we would have not seen a lot of police brutality videos.

When US is claimed to be a corrupt police state that is often in comparison with its propaganda image or the image people imagine US should/could be.

Nobody is surprised if North Korean cops take bribes or torture someone. Nobody believe it is a state with the "rule of law" in it. But a lot of people are surprised if a cop in US does, because people (fortunately) still expect more from US law enforcement.

But as I pointed out that starts to change.
Sorry about that guys. Working on expanding resources. This one crushed the VPS my blog is hosted on.
Finding Prime Numbers in Python
That there are private data whose state can change "by magic" is also a major defect.

It's only a major defect if it changes "by magic" in a way that breaks things, i.e. if the magic stuff can actually affect the result of your tests.

Consider internal state like a cache - this is harmless. It might magically change, but that shouldn't affect your output.
While I agree with all your points to some extent, and I don't actually like the way mosh has been made, I don't think your conclusion is fair.

When used on slow mobile networks, where I actually keep the same incoming IP (thus there is no reconnection), mosh works better than raw SSH for me and here's why:

- when switching cellphone towers, mosh's UDP catches up instantly. SSH's TCP waits for some retransmissions so that it knows if it's going to timeout or resume sending packets, and it takes _several_ seconds!

- prediction actually works well most of the time.
Android is not really open-source, you can only get source code for old versions, never the latest release.
But parts of it can be a zero sum game, just like occurs between the marketing departments of Coke and Pepsi.
Concurrency Kit: Tools to help create high performance and concurrent systems.
Panic has mentioned that they will fully implement Mosh into their Prompt iOS client, it's just not high priority at the moment.

http://twitter.com/panic/status/281208183094145024
I really think it does matter who owns it. If most of the profit from patents is the result of speculation, I think the system is fundamentally failing to do the job of rewarding innovators. It doesn't matter if the patent is a good one - if it's primarily rewarding hedge fund managers with no interest in research, the incentives are screwed up.
Kirk used both of course, although you raise an interesting point. The original Motorola Razr (I still have one) was an homage to that flip open communicator vision. Perhaps a bluetooth equivalent of the chest communicator will emerge as a similar homage.

As others have pointed out though, the folks in Star Trek were always on speaker phone whereas we see that being annoying.
I don't see why it would have been created for that purpose, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of kudzu sites scraping Wikipedia and cloning its articles as early as 2005:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo3.htm#Bastard
I was in a rut a few months ago, at some point I decided to try this out, it helped 'change' my mind.
I've been doing this for almost a year and I agree it accelerates programming languages/libraries learning. Not having to switch between my text editor and the language/library reference lets me focus on the hard problems.

As a programming languages geek, a few months ago a realized that every time I came back to a language that I had learned earlier, I'd forgotten a good chunk of it, rendering all my efforts in vain. So I started using Anki. Here are a few tips from my experience:

- Koans[0] are great as source material. They're available in almost every mainstream language, the problems are usually solvable in less than a minute and you can just copy & paste.

- Always open your repl and type your answer. Otherwise you're not really thinking about the problem but just memorizing the answer.

[0] https://github.com/search?q=koans&ref=commandbar

*Edit: BTW, I've got lots of Ruby, Python, Clojure, Erlang/OTP and a few Dylan flash cards, if anyone's interested.
Try webstorm , but dont expect the C#/Winforms level of integration. no GUI builder , no smart intellisence , etc ... it is because of the nature of javascript.
Calling out DI is a bit of a misdirection as most have come to know DI I think.

What he's really arguing against here is more basic: Composition.

Pragmatically the examples makes some sense. Why not stub out any global like this though? Because it breaks encapsulation and makes the program harder to understand.

Instead of lifting dependencies up to the level of method parameters with good composition, now you have to truly grok the entire method before you can have any confidence you even know what to stub out, and wether that's actually going to produce the expected results.

So while I fully endorse this specific, localized, easy to understand example, the poor composition of many Ruby libraries is what tends to make working with Ruby code so damn hard (IMO, see: Bundler). It's not enough to read method signatures. There are no explicit interfaces. Only implicit ones you devine by understanding the full breadth and scope of how parameter A is used in method B, all the way down the stack trace.

Fundamentally here DHH isn't talking about "Dependency Injection". He's talking about Composition and a pragmatic example of breaking Encapsulation. While sure there are 101 ways in which breaking Encapsulation can be a useful, pragmatic technique to employ for the seasoned code-slinger in the small, in the large it makes for more difficult to understand, and therefore less maintainable code.

I find many of these recent posts by DHH a bit ironic considering the subtext of a guy who read the PoEAA, then went off and wrote an MVC web-framework, packed with a nice Table Data Gateway, then proceeded to confuse Unit for Integration tests, and soap-box on the evils of Design Patterns in general.

[EDIT]

PS: The obvious example for making it easy to test, without breaking encapsulation, would simply be to avoid globals and use a default parameter.

def publish!(current_time = Time::now)
self.update published_at: current_time
end

TA-DA. So trivial examples might show how a very shallow example of monkey-patching can be a nice convenience, you also have simple "fixes" that actually take _less_ code to implement.

You could easily come up with deeper stacks, presenting more difficult problems, but then you're not really making a great case for the beauty and simplicity of monkey patching if I have to have such a deep understanding of the side-effects in your code before I can even start making sense of your tests.
If you're willing to sell "just use screen" as an answer for auto-reconnecting, why not "just use screen" with mosh? That's what I do, and I don't have any trouble with point 3 -- I just open a new mosh connection, and reattach my existing screen session.

(Points 1 and 2, for what they're worth, seem pretty specific to your environment. I've never run into them. So, please bill those as anecdotes.)
Haven't they merged the "android kernel" into the linux kernel recently?
It is a hyperbolic comparison between justice system not that Sweden is a banana republic.

It is like comparing tires on two cars. The tires on my car seem to be of the same crappy quality as the tires on this yellow, banana shaped truck.
It would not be my dream. But I don't like writing POSIX software anyway, so perhaps I am not a developer?
I interpreted the parent's usage of "reliability" to refer to engineering-lifecycle reliability. I completely agree that confidence in tests is critical, but I also agree that taking design shortcuts here and there in test code is fine, if it gets the job done and doesn't adversely impact the production API.
I've been depressed for some years and in most of my days and weeks there's just nothing I can consider as a good/positive thing.
I'm really tired of those articles. Tired enough to complain in a comment. That's classic FUD.
Tests you only partially trust are a lot better than no tests at all.

Also, the tests can be less reliable by generating false positives. As long as all positives are checked, and the tests are maintained to pass (by fixing the tests and production code as needed), then false positives are not going to hurt your production code's reliability.

As long as your less reliable tests are not generating false negatives, you are fine.
I assumed this referred to intentional baldness, i.e. shaving your head.

As far this discussion goes my main concern was that conflating chosen traits with inherited ones is derailing the discussion. They are very different with completely different forces are at play since 'chosen traits' are by definition acts of social signaling while 'inherited traits' are just that: inherited.
I'm incredibly sorry to hear that, Weslly. Perhaps consider therapy, talking to someone can be an amazing outlet.