skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What you outline is my gripe. Typical NodeJS dev setup amongst those I know:

Sublime
JSHint
JSFormat (or fixjsstyle)

To get code to some basis of style consistency.

Debugging -

node-inspector or
console.log

In the last six months, node-inspector has gotten a lot better, but a lot of times inserting console.log is just faster (mmm...printfs).
This asshole was run out of Cleveland (fired from two companies back to back) for behavior like this.

Everyone I've talked to says he is horrible to work with.
Maven just works and if you stay within it's intent, it does it's job.

We use Maven with Bamboo for continuous integration and it just works. We play with the idea to move to Gradle b/c it's more powerful, but the effort is non trivial and the real benefits - beside the 'but it's programmable' - not clear.
It's not a blanket ban on gun possession though, it was purely a semi-automatic/automatic buyback.

Lower capacity guns are still freely available.
Spree killers are ~100/killings/yr. "rational" criminal murders with guns, domestic violence, etc. are more like 10k/yr.

I'm also not sure how many of the ~15k gun suicides (or, say, all suicides) are mental illness/depression/etc. It may be unpopular, but I don't consider a 50-80 year old guy who is diagnosed with cancer which will painfully kill him over the next 3 months, killing himself, to be particularly wrong. (it's sad that he dies, but fuck cancer, in that case, vs. suicide being the problem)
I'm not "arguing on the wrong side". When you have 300 million people, you have a choice: rule by fiat or slice things into smaller pieces, because 300M people are never going to agree. State populations, on the other hand, are much more closely aligned, making an intractable problem at the federal level tractable at the state level (like many other problems). I'll get back to the government regulation in a minute, but first...

I'm not asking "you" to cover my procedure. I'm asking to be allowed into a shared risk pool at any cost due to having had a procedure. Regardless, when you buy into a shared risk pool, guess what, you have to share the risk. You can't say "I'm not sick, so I shouldn't have to pay for sick people." Your option is to buy in or not. As a personal insurance companies have smiled upon, a person has their choice to not buy in or not; for those of us they frown at, we don't have choice to buy in (short of being part of a corporate plan).

And that gets back to where the regulation has caused problems: it's set the entire industry up to have insurance companies be the customers of medical care instead of individuals, leading to all kinds of weird incentives.

For healthy people and relatively rich people, naked capitalism would be fine for healthcare. However, government is (well, should be;) about more than just building roads and bombers. It should be an embodiment of a shared responsibility we have to each other. I put reasonable[1] levels of healthcare in that shared responsibility.

I think a single-payer system, especially in the US, would fail horribly. I think we need more competition and not less. I think, most importantly, the customer for medical care (ie the person who ultimately sees the bill) should be the individual (failure of any price consciousness is another part of what got us into this situation).

But I also think everybody should have access to good quality care at prices they can afford. Today, there is an entire middle-class (not "The Middle-class") that makes too much for medicaid and too little for insurance that are just screwed. Have cancer? Too bad if you want to fight it, because one dose of the medication costs more than you make in a day. That is just inhumane and pure capitalism doesn't care. So the alternative is to quit your job so you can qualify for medicaid, but even that sucks (for bureaucratic, lack of competition, and lack of price sensitivity reasons) and is worse for the patient and our economy both.

So I believe capitalism plays a very important role in this, but I don't think, by itself, it can solve it. My perspective on this shifted a lot after going to work for myself and not being able to provide healthcare for my children after my COBRA ran out.

1. Being kept alive for years on a ventilator is nowhere near reasonable.
> Or until you need to guarentee the version of the library you're bundling

gem "thing", "3.0.0.beta3"

gem 'rails', :git => 'git://github.com/rails/rails.git', :ref => '4aded'
My account is twice as old as yours, and I think this is a terrible idea but feel no need to explain why. Also I have >150 times more karma than you, so you should bow down and worship me.

That's why, basically ;)
Hmm, reading it I think I see where criticism comes from; my impression is that I, personally, will most likely stick to sed, grep, sh, etc.

But does that make the author a bad person? Worthy of ridicule for having thrown it online? Of course not. This is just a silly script, of the variety that most of us probably have sitting around in somewhere $HOME. It's not worth getting worked up over.

The ultimate irony is, I wonder how the critics would feel about the code of sed and grep. Have they bothered to look? I myself do have these loud, exaggerated, critical attitudes towards code quality, but at some point I realized that most of the code I rely on every day is probably not up to my standards, and yet I still willingly rely on it. A younger self might have been tempted to re-write all of it, but I only have one lifetime to do such things and I'm already busy as it is. There is a time for rewrites on the basis of code quality, I would advocate for it where it is constructive or even simply satisfying, but at some point you have to admit that many (most?) times you will have to pass on this impulse.
I think John says not just one ray per pixel?
Looks reasonable to me.
Because the best proxy we have developed for measuring "a globally recognizable product of unlimited magic, that nearly every person of means in the world has or wants"ingness is quarterly revenues.
Ditching corporate speak, what you probably want to say is that this is not your priority.

What are your priorities?
Backtesting is only 1/2 to 1/3 of the actual task of algorithmic trading. When it comes to actually trading money, if you're not careful and cover every corner case, you really could lose your shirt. I can't believe that 100 lines of code is all that you would need to cover all the edge and failure cases that could lose yourself a lot of money.

What happens if the network drops while you're in a trade, or in the middle of executing an order? What if you have a partial fill, and you have a partial buy order hanging around and a full sell order out there? What if you have a stop limit order to exit a trade, and it blows through your limit? Do you have a backup stop order just in case? There are a lot of issues that you can't backtest that can only be learned once you start trading real money. I've had situations where I ran my algos on the DAX overnight, and I woke up to find that the exit order never executed, and I was 1000 euros away from where I should have gotten out. Luckily, this trade was in my favor, but it scared the shit out of me because it could have easily gone the other way. I've also had my internet connection drop overnight, and I had to scramble to figure out how to get out of a trade I was in.

The other issue is interpreting backtesting data, and knowing the difference between over-optimized data (ie. curve fitting) vs something with an actual edge. You can make almost any algo profitable if you curve-fit, even a simple MA cross-over can show extremely profitable results, if you over-optimize the data. But it won't work in real life. So being able to sift between falsely good algos and actually profitable algos is very, very hard, and takes experience. This is the biggest problem with trying to find an actual algo with an edge, it's very very hard.

I wrote my own backtester and I download my own data nightly, and that definitely takes a lot of time and effort, but the hardest part is the actual trading, by far. The psychology involved with trading is an order of magnitude harder than coding, and the hardest thing I've ever done in my life. I blew through a shitload of money, just to learn the ropes.

In terms of algo trading books, I really don't have any recommendations. I found most of the algo trading books are similar, telling you to watch out for curve fitting, etc. Where they lack is helping you come up with actual trades. My recommendation is a book called "Mastering the Trade" by John Carter. He gives out trade setups that he actually used. They may no longer be profitable, but it's the closest thing you can get to actually learning various day trading techniques, and you can implement those to get an idea, and then work your way from there.

I'm not hating on Quantopian, it looks pretty nicely done, and hopefully it takes off. But from experience, I know that algorithmic trading is by far the hardest thing I've done. If inexperienced traders jump in, they'll spend a lot of money on "tuition" for sure.
Brilliant! I love how using the ten hundred words makes the text more readable and less readable at the same time. The paragraph on the AST is my favorite.
It does guarantee the version, and I'll ignore the rest of the trolling.
Okay - that sounds like a good idea. Thanks!
"Because people consistently underestimate the implications of a change in technology—are you listening, Kodak, Blockbuster, Borders, Sears, etc.?"

Um, are you listening Ford, Hyundai, Honda, GM? Can't wait until they legislate their way back to competitiveness with google.
After 3 years of SBT for Scala development, which plainly does not work, b/c SBT developers do not like simplicity (the irony!) and are more interested in doing cool stuff than stuff that works, I'm only a small push away from going back to Maven/Zinc, that favors 'just works and you can't shoot yourself in the knee with an arrow' over 'powerful'.
Not only car companies either. Lots of state DoTs like CalTrans (in conjunction with UCBerkeley) have been working on self driving cars. The Caltrans-UCB PATH prgram was begun way back in '86 and demoed self driving cars back in '97!

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/the-future-is-in-the-past/...
I fail to see how a dummy load and a SWR meter will help to make sure you don't disturb other (portions of) RF band(s). To assess this you must look into the spectral purity of your signal. You do this with a spectrum analyzer (or equivalent). The SA is already 50 Ohms terminated so you at most need attenuators for your transmitter. The SWR meter will tell you if your transmitter is matched to your antenna. If not you might kill the final stage of your transmitter. SWR doesn't tell you something about radiating unwanted frequencies.
The Bene-Gesserit benediction against code trolls:

The bad code that I could write and did will always be better than the good code that you could have written, but didn't.
I did do some google searches first.

Buses help with traffic and CO2, they do not help with soot. And the city in this article is having trouble with soot.

It would be wonderful if all buses were LNG, then there'd be little drawbacks. But right now they aren't, and because LNG is more expensive cities are buying diesel instead.

PS. In general cursing means you acknowledge your position is incorrect but you wish to use bluster to defend it anyway. It makes little difference if you don't intend this meaning - this is the meaning that is transmitted.
just to confirm. the second reply wasn't him:

https://twitter.com/bertie_stephens/status/29416705902001766...

the person who replied registered the username with a 0 instead of an O, so even less impressive.

Case closed.
The S stands for Simple (2006)
another example ...

"I can send an IP packet to Europe faster than I can send a pixel to the screen. How f’d up is that?"

http://superuser.com/questions/419070/transatlantic-ping-fas...
I can't offer work, but I am happy just to chat if you are having a hard time and need someone to talk to, my email & XMPP details are in my profile :-)
I think that rasterization is easier to parallelize than ray tracing, since raster engines essentially multiply each vertex with the same matrix, while for ray tracing you have to traverse an octtree for each step in each ray. ( Both are of course easy to parallelize, I just think that in general you will run into memory bandwidth problems faster with ray tracing algos.)
Shot spotter (http://www.shotspotter.com/) does the detection aspect of this.

A low-cost clone might not be feasible due to patents: http://www.shotspotter.com/patents
That's interesting but also disturbing.
I think the implications are huge, but I question the 90% reduction in cars figure.

While it's true that most people don't drive their car most of the time, when they do drive, most of them are driving within a relatively small time window.

I could imagine a 25-50% reduction in the number of cars, but I just don't see 90% happening unless it's accompanied by a huge increase in people working from home or working non-standard hours.
I'm mostly ambivalent. Node, to me, feels like an attempt to bring twisted to server side JS.
The solution is much farther off than Google would like you to believe. As in, we'll be lucky if driverless cars become feasible before fusion becomes commercially viable.
I agree. I was just responding to roguecoder's point. Spree killings are so rare as to be irrational to give much consideration to when making public policy decisions.
Well, 1.4 claims to have improvements to dependency resolution, so soon you should be able to take another kick at the football soon. I'm growing to like Gradle more and more and haven't seen any problems like this. My major desire is for more/better plugins, but I do think this will become less of an issue. (I'm even hoping to write 1 or 2)

I should also mention that GVMTool is worth checking out if you're on a UNIX-based system. An easy way to install and switch between versions of Gradle and other tools: http://gvmtool.net
Like some others have mentioned, the title is somewhat misleading. There is no feasible way that Google ends up owning the entire market. And I'm not talking about the actual cars, because they're definitely not getting in the car making business. Even when it comes to the software, they could only be the only provider in the market if it becomes a government regulated monopoly.

As a side note, I think the resistance to driverless cars will be a big psychological stumbling block. I can't ride in the passenger seat of a car without hitting the "brakes" and pressing my foot into the floor. It will be tough to break habits and to trust that the software is safe.
I transfered over azhackers.com and got no warning or messages. Maybe because it a transfer, or during the "abandon godaddy" rush.
Because of this post I learned a little bit about node.js and may want get into.

See how that works. And she has other interesting projects as well.
If you don't want it out there, trust me no one will care.

I imagine the other side. What if there is that one person 20 years from now that was looking for a piece of code and finally end up on your idea from 20 years prior.
One glance at her GH profile reveals several well-used open source projects, including a neural network library and a bayesian classifier.

Thanks so much for pointing that out (and thanks Heather for writing it :P)! I would have missed it otherwise, and I have always wanted to play with neural nets as well as bayesian filters.. this seems very friendly for me to get into, so it made my week(end) if not more :)
Excellent stuff and really helpful
That second tweet still makes him look like an enormous douche. You're right about the communication skills.
Still, I can't help but feel that maybe Google have the final piece of the puzzle. We've had computers and sensors powerful enough for decades, only Google have all of that maps data, polished again and again by android users using maps (and now Ingress) to make it more reliable.

Google almost specialise at crunching massive data into useful products, and building reliable supersystems from millions of unreliable subsystems.

Car companies might have some software knowledge these days but they really are a long way from the capabilities Google has. They solve car problems, but it might turn out that this is an information system problem.
Yes, that's certainly true.

In my experience, the other vendors in this case are Big Widget Co/Big Widget Distributors Co's - like DigiKey, Farnell, Mouser.

Most of what's on Sparkfun, is cheaper there - than in my local retail shops. Then again, I am being a bit silly - since I'll have to pay import tax, VAT and such if ordering from Sparkfun.
> I generally agree that banning possession or even just sale of most guns would reduce the spree killing rate, but spree killings are essentially statistical noise relative to other violent crimes and gun-related violent crimes.

Yes, exactly -- I don't think that stopping spree-killing (as dreadful as they are) -- validates a significant encroachment on what is considered a protected individual right.

The outright ban on most repeating firearms may have worked for Australia (less overall gun crime, no fundamental right to bear arms), but it would absolutely not happen in the US (liberals and conservatives would oppose it). At the same time, it would not significantly change public safety in general.

Addressing spree-shootings is a legitimate concern, but in the United States, it has to necessarily be addressed in a manner that involves the least possible restriction. The kind of solution Australia under took would require a constitutional amendment (which needs a super majority of states to agree), an insane budget for a buy back (there could be close to hundred of millions of these firearms at the least), and it would probably never come to fruition as majority of the US populace would oppose it and police would refuse to enforce it.

This isn't just about firearms: I'd imagine movies like "Innocence of Muslims" or groups like Westboro Baptist Church would be banned in many other first world countries. Upholding a statute that infringes on a Bill of Rights amendment requires an extra-ordinary cause ("fire in a crowded theater"/"clear and present danger" standard).

Individuals who suggest US follow the Australia or British model are well intentioned but are unaware of both how strongly gun rights advocates and gun owners feel on the issue (there is no magic "gun lobby", NRA is powerful because of donations from individuals) and the reality of day-to-day gun violence in the US (it is not what is shown on tv).
You don't know how pricing infrastructure works.

Just because Utah doesn't know how to run public transit doesn't mean no one else can and do so with decent financials.
harthur, if it's any help, I immediately `npm install pg replace`'ed. I love your tool's simplicity, for common scenarios, compared to the more common alternatives. Without all this drama, I wouldn't have come across it!
>I disagree; government regulatory practice is mainly taking some of the worse edges off the inherently broken model of "healthcare as insurance".

But the government put some of those edges there in the first place. The biggest reason you have to have insurance in the US now is without it you're going to pay 5x what the insurance company pays for the same procedure. Because they're buying medical care in bulk and you're not.

One way you could deal with that is form a co-op to negotiate prices the same way insurance companies do, but without the insurance part. But you can't, because it's illegal.
Note that I'm talking about the Model Penal Code, which is strongly influential on American criminal law since the last 50 years, but isn't 100% the actual law anywhere. Attempts are one of those areas where the MPC is probably too academic and actual states diverge. E.g. the MPC punishes attempts as harshly as the actual crimes, because it focuses so heavily on intent.

In the MPC, there's (at least) three backstops.

1) The act in furtherance must be a "substantial step" and "strongly corroborative of criminal intent." The latter language creates a sliding scale for the former. Building a dirty bomb might be a substantial step towards a terrorist plot, but "attempted bear hunting" probably requires a park ranger to find you aiming at a bear.

2) Abandonment of the plan is a complete defense.

3) The mens rea for attempts is high. Actual crimes that require only reckless intent require purposeful intent for attempts at committing that crime.

The MPC indulges itself in a little bit of "if a tree falls in the forest" thinking, but largely because it tries to take principles to their logical conclusions. There is an interesting primer on it: https://www.law.upenn.edu/fac/phrobins/intromodpencode.pdf.
I don't think it is. I think its the 3rd kind: "I didnt say what I thought you said, but I can see how I hurt you and I'm sorry". Assuming that's true - which I think is a reasonable assumption based on how he teaches and his blog post from last year about being nice - it would seem wrong for him to post a full out apology.
Quantopian suffers from a few problems (not unlike Access or the other 4GLs):

1) platforms like thinkorswim get you 90% there (and have an associated brokerage so you can also run it). You can write powerful trading scripts using a wide variety of signals, but for the last 10% you will need something more powerful like C or matlab or excel.

2) terms of service are always shaky -- if you have alpha, you want to guard that like a first born child.

3) other people (http://tradingphysics.com/) offer market data at very low prices, which is far better than trusting a third party with your code

4) oftentimes strategies don't directly translate to production profits, and to a great extent they depend on simulator assumptions (let's say that there are 10K shares offered at the best selling price what happens when you try to buy all of them? What happens if you are stopped due to RegNMS or some other oddity? What happens if the quote is fake or will be canceled by the time your order reaches the exchange -- a common tactic of Chicago firms like GETCO?) for which you have no control. But now, given that they don't have a BD license, you need to go through someone else (adding another layer and process that potentially could cause problems later on -- I've seen a similar situation happen where a person leaves one company to join another, only to find out his trading strategies don't work in the new place )

Tl;dr: there are better platforms for getting your feet wet, and if they aren't good enough you are better off going with a real solution.
"For example, all surfaces that are shaded with interpolated normal will have an unnatural shadow discontinuity at the silhouette edges with single shadow ray traces."

For some reason I really want to understand what this sentence means. I don't know why it jumped out at me, maybe because it seems both accessible and arcane, I want some path to even just tour the arcane concerns of someone so deep into a (this) particular domain.