skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So what they want is an open platform, not necessarily an open source platform -- iOS being `closed' certainly hasn't stopped these broadcasters from building apps for it. What's made it a success is the installed base of users, which has meant it's worth the broadcasters' time and money to create apps to work on these devices.

As for availability of programming, that's basically what I said in my initial reply: *``all [the viewers] want from a TV is the ability to watch $PROGRAMME with as little pain and inconvenience as possible''.

If the ultimate goal is (as it should be) to get these broadcasters' programming everywhere, on all TVs, the last thing we need is another damned platform with a tiny userbase. We need some kind of consolidation, or (ideally) interoperable standard, that allows a ``write once, run everywhere'' ability for their apps.
We're currently using MPMoviePlayer but we have a multiplatform C++ streaming/preload/caching library we're working on as we'd like something super performant that we can use on winpho/android & ios
It's "cute", I'll give you that. But what possible use could this have? Using a temp variable is MORE likely to be optimized by the compiler[1] and is FAR easier for someone reading the code to understand. Using it in an interview falls into the trap of asking useless and irrelevant questions that weed out perfectly good candidates. All in all, it's a bad idea.

[1] - I don't actually know this... but I suspect that it's true.
This reminds me of the case of Lucia de B., a nurse once suspected of killing her patients.

There never was solid evidence against her. She was a suspect because nearly everytime someone died in the hospital she was on her shift.

The initial chance of her being present when these supposed murders happened, and being innocent, was estimated at 1 in 7 billion. This number caused the police to focus their research completely on Lucia de B.

Eventually she was convicted for the murders based not on hard evidence or witnesses, but on statistics. The chance of innocence was put on 1 in 342 million.

The econometrist Aart de Vos was the first to notice that the initial Bayesian analysis was plain wrong. For example they had presumed the murderer had to be found amongst the nurses, other possibilities were neglected. They also hadn't corrected for combined P-values. He reduced the chance Lucia was innocent to 1 in a million.

The court said they had abandoned the statistical "proof", but remained of the view that it couldn't be a coincidence. Possible murder cases were chosen when they were negative for Lucia, other possible murder cases were left out of the equation. This further reduced the chance to 1 in 50.

Statisticians Richard Gill and Piet Groeneboom further reduced the chance to 1 in 9.

In my opinion statistics alone can never be adequate for conviction. It can muddy research and lead to confirmation bias. And the difference between a Bayesian chance of 1 in 7 billion and 1 in 9 is so big as to doubt the initial use of statistics even further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk#Statistical_argum...
Meaning of Newton, Baby Names and their Origins
There's more specific information in the main info page[1], but the answer is yes: "In 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation signed Wikipedia Zero partnerships with three mobile operators [...]. In January of 2013, we signed a fourth partnership [...]" (from TFA).

[1]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
Dev Tip - HTML5 & CSS3 for the Real World
" Somatic gastrointestinal issues are very common, and are often resolved by placebo treatment."

Really? Can you cite any research to back that up?
My solution ended up like this:

a = b + (b = a) - a;
Beware HTML’s id Attribute when Creating Reusable Code
"The man that Germany’s baby boomers loathed as the archetype of fascism, a living symbol of the evil Nazi-ish past, actually was a Stasi hero, a loyal servant of Communism"

Two sides of the exact same coin. Hitler himself repeatedly stated that communists would make perfect nazis once he'd have conquered russia.

National socialism and communism really aren't that far apart: Hitler did adopt 8 of Marx's ten major points of communism.

That an ex-nazi in free western germany would actually be a Stasi agent is really not surprising at all.

These kind of person are the ennemy of freedom and the ennemy of individual liberties. They'll do anything they can to work for an ever bigger and ever more restrictive state.

Socialists refuse to admit that national socialism was actually an ideology from left and keep telling that if Hitler was allied with Italy and Japan nazis were right-wing fascist. But that logic has its limits.

Statism is statism. Planned economy is planned economy. An article like this one only reinforce the notion that what I know is not wrong: communism and national-socialism are two sides of the same coin.

Hitler wanted to rule alone, hence his wish to annihilate Stalin and to convert russians into nazis. But it's not because Hitler wanted to replace Stalin that nazism suddenly becomes a free-market, liberal, ideology where individual liberties would be the most important thing.
It is perfectly rational when you know that there are deflationary trends with the money. Sitting on it means you are becoming wealthier.

Of course, if everyone does this, the currency will collapse, but that is just the beginning of Bitcoin's problems.
BlackBerry Java to BlackBerry 10 Cascades Porting Series..
The more information is available, the more conspiracy theories are found to be true. Here are 33 of them:

http://www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-o...

And before anyone sniffs about linking to Infowars, let me ask you, looking back 15 years, who was right in predicting our current dystopia, Alex Jones, or his critics?

' "Conspiracy theory" is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory," evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation."

In earlier eras other pejorative labels, such as "heresy," "witchery," and "communism" also worked like this. The charge of "conspiracy theory" is not so severe as these other labels, but in its way is many times worse. Heresy, witchcraft, and communism at least retain some sense of potency. They designate ideas to be feared. "Conspiracy theory" implies that the ideas and their advocates are simple-minded or insane. '

http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/old/conspiracy.htm

Many conspiracies which have been irrefutably exposed continue to operate, simply because the majority of people dislike acknowledging uncomfortable facts - for example, Operation Gladio:

http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode256-lq.mp3
The reason why this happens to a lot of developers is because:

1) They have a LinkedIn or Stack Overflow account.

2) They have dealt with a recruiter before, either looking for work or from cold calls.

I've had the (mis)fortune of both. The only people that ever look at my LinkedIn profile are recruiters, so I regularly get emails about crappy jobs. Hell, it's not unusual for a recruiter to offer me the same-level job at the company I already work at, sometimes even by phone...

It'll happen, so I won't worry too much about it. It's largely a talent market out there, and if you've spent enough time at a company that gets hounded by recruiters or a recruiter finds an online profile of yours you'll be on a "list" too.
I think we're in fierce agreement here.
I agree completely, but broadcasting their programming via the internet isn't a paradigm shift for anything except set viewing schedules. Whether I'm watching The Walking Dead over the air at a set time, or watching it over the internet whenever I feel like it, I'm still watching it, and the TV industry as we know it still needs to exist in a relatively similar form to produce it. The only real change is that they broadcast from a server instead of via a transmitter, and they can't guarantee to advertisers that I'll be sitting down at a certain hour to watch it, which may dilute their advert's effectiveness somewhat.
Oh, not just seems like. It is. I baited them all.

Notice how they completely dismiss my point of view with terms like "entitled","absurd","unwilling to pay",etc. and don't even begin to acknowledge the problem with the delay between cable-tv and legal internet availability. This pretty much happens with every major change that disturbs the status quo cash cow, but the change ultimately happens anyway ;)

And with that, I'm out of here!
If LG uses its new ownership to pay one developer to release the update that was promised and in the pipeline for the HP Veer, but was never released (rumor was they simply forgot to switch a button), I promise my next TV will be a LG.
That's what I'm about to say. He is a kid I had a developer just like him (I read his article this kid is not a team player at all I could tell). Anyway I fired my developer after 2 months because of his narcissistic programmer attitude.
Jack London on Success
it might become consistent but at the cost of being complete... or the other way around. ;)
er... not being complete XD
Ubuntu Touch Ported To Galaxy S3
I agree completely. This could have been written in a way criticizing the hiring practices of companies where it didn't come off as a complete bashing.

One thing you need to remember is that technical people that are performing phone screens are going to do a little research on you as a future candidate, and this isn't the first impression you want to make when vying for a job.
and the argument smells like a straw man and appeal to authority, comparing it to sherlock holmes

A humorous reference to literature is hardly an appeal to authority.

who incidentally /is obviously wrong/

He's not /obviously wrong/, he's subtly wrong in not explicitly acknowledging that the enumeration of options, not evaluation of their probability, is usually the difficult part. He's obviously right if you assume all possibilities are enumerated.

actually the fact that a probability is precisely 0 or 1 is very significant to its power in drawing conclusions

0 and 1 are not probabilities, and while certainty has power in drawing conclusions, it only really occurs in purely theoretical discussions.

what the court says is common sense...

Whether it's common sense or not does not make it valid.

oh, no, wait, it really isn't

Is that about it being common sense, or it offending academic views?
I have very little experience with NetHack. I'm basing my comment off of the DCSS FAQ. I probably have misrepresented it.

>The history of Crawl is somewhat convoluted: Crawl was created in 1995 by Linley Henzell. Linley based Crawl loosely on Angband and NetHack, but avoided several annoying aspects of these games, and added a lot of original ideas of his own.
I think Cletus gave a good answer to why these questions are used in interviews in this post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5264510

In short, if you can't write a simple FizzBuzz program, then you are probably not a good developer. Questions like these are good for being a quick way to separate programmers from those who cannot program at all.

But I agree - as someone who sucks at puzzles under pressure, questions like 'what's next after 111221?' seems like a totally retarded question to me.
The difference is that in the 1990s, we went from having mostly isolated networks to mostly open networks using standard protocols. We also have introduced an incredible surface of attack via email, site browsing, USB sticks, etc. And provided GPS locations of ourselves. It is not the same. We are a time bomb.
Different hiring schemes work for different companies. Hell, even different teams within companies. If this works for FB there's a reason it is working.

Job offers will come and go. Don't burn bridges that you may want to cross later in your career.
Rob's Guide to HTML5 Charting Libraries: RGraphs and Highcharts
If I wanted to find somebody who understood bitwise operations maybe useful.

If I'm looking to find a developer who can write maintainable line of business software, which Java is a common fit for then I'd be aghast if this was proposed as a sensible, maintainable solution.

This trick just reminds me of a long list of things that people ask for at interview, which has no demonstrable link to the job at hand. Why not ask for someone to memorise a complex api? Or understand a workaround for a long standing "won't fix" framework.

Pointless. Useless.
Part of trying to get a job is learning about the interview practices of the company you are applying to. If they do puzzles then study some dumb puzzles. The puzzles usually aren't that hard and interviewers generally talk these types of problems over with you as you are solving them.

If you really want to work at Facebook, and you are a conscientious developer, then you'll study and be prepared for their kind of interview.
This is a very different world from the one in which IE6 rose to dominance. We're in no way in a Webkit monoculture right now – Trident and Gecko aren't going anywhere any time soon!

Specifically addressing Opera: the smaller-audience engines that have had their chance but not done much with it should be left behind, making room for new small players to step in and take the reins. I can't wait to see some new players in this space.
Resize and Style Google Chrome Scroll bar without Extension
Thanks to this guide now I have scrollbar looking like Plan9 Acme's one. The default scrollbar colors are very hard to see especially when your eyes are tired. With this settings I never miss the position in document.

::-webkit-scrollbar-track-piece{
background-color:#99994c;
-webkit-border-radius:0;
}
::-webkit-scrollbar{
width:12px;
height:8px;
}
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb{
height:50px;
background-color:#ffffea;
-webkit-border-radius:0;
outline:1px solid #99994c;
outline-offset:-1px;
border: 1px solid #99994c;
}
I actually think that even as an interview question the real benefit is in using it as a lead-in to the "do you think this is a good idea?" area of questioning. The xor sequence itself is just another "have you seen this trivia question before?" question, which doesn't really reveal any interesting information. Finding out what the candidate thinks about code readability, whether they know what kind of things a compiler or JVM might do, whether their mental model of assembler-level optimisation is still the "all the world is a Z80 and execution time is proportional to instruction count" flavour or if they are aware of caches, pipelines and so on -- these are all useful. You can also take the "ok, plug in some numbers and show me whether your sequence works" tack to find out whether your candidate can work through doing bitwise logical operations on integers, a sort of bit-flipping variant on fizzbuzz.

But "have you seen this before" is so uninteresting that I always tried to make it clear that I really wasn't interested in whether they knew the trick or not, but more in the ensuing discussion.
> this seems like a complete over simplification and naive analysis of the situation

The key phrase in the linked article:

> and so I must now tell them that the entire philosophy behind their course has been declared illegal in the Court of Appeal. I hope they don't mind.

Is what reveals the misunderstanding. Judges don't "declare" things illegal, they rule on matters of what the law is. That the law requires judgements to be rendered in certain terms is not a statement of the legality of making Bayesian arguments.

The law requires a decision. The conceptual basis of the common law is a promise that a court will always render a clear and specific set of rulings or orders, and that there will always be an explanation of those rulings or orders. Judges are not free to say to disputants that they are X% likely to win their claim.

This is one of those places where Bayesian probability isn't a good fit. Fuzzy logic -- so passé these days -- at least has an understood mechanism for "defuzzifying" in a fashion which lawyers would find quite familiar.

It also overlooks that judges have many other places to introduce flexibility and weighed judgement. For example, judges may assign blame in portions for some crimes or torts; they may reject, moderate or modify some claims in equity; they have leeway to combine multiple considerations and legislative constraints in handing down criminal sentences and so on.

One thing that bugs me tremendously about outsiders looking in at law is the assumption that, since lawyers don't immediately and entirely embrace new idea X, they are fusty old fools who are an impediment to the good. It's an argument born of ignorance that lawyers are deliberately obtuse fools, or judges out-of-touch theoreticians. Lawyers and judges touch on more problem domains in more depth, with greater consequences, than pretty much every academic and every software developer.
Perhaps just slightly too large, but I do like your typography ;)
I can't up vote this enough. I keep gearing up to try using an FPGA, but ever time I do, I am prevented from continuing by my revulsion of closed source tools.
The phrase "...beyond a reasonable doubt" comes to mind. I would hope a jury involved in such a case would be more reasonable about actual hard evidence, but I hear that juries are selected for emotionality and not rationality. I would hope that the judge in such a case would be more reasonable and demand some actual evidence.

Such is the case in a fearful populace, and one that demands vengeance over justice. I appears as though something bad happened, so someone must pay and ... here's a magic forumla with missing variables that says you might have done it so ... GUILTY.
> In my opinion statistics alone can never be adequate for conviction.

This is in an English court, and it is a civil case. Thus, there is no "conviction". For a criminal case the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt". For a civil case the standard is "balance of probability".

So, no-one is going to jail or getting a criminal record. But they might have to pay compensation to someone else for fire damage.
It's not the courts decision that's jarring, it's the argumentation.

If the court argued from human unreliability in enumerating options, the judgement would be sensible. But simply arguing from a mistaken understanding of probability makes it look silly.
Is there any good speed reading online course?
Grunt-Google-cdn
This article did it for me, it was originally written in 1989:

http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dat/miranda/whyfp90.pd...
4 Things Microsoft Can Do To Avoid Failure
Once licensing deals by the TV manufacturers force them to choose between a TV that supports Youtube, Netflix and HBO, but not NFL Gamepass and a TV that support Netflix and NFL Gamepass, but not HBO and Youtube then they will start to care.
Everything you hear about law that was not conveyed to you by a lawyer, a law lecturer or a judge is probably horseshit.

People love to think they know some obscure wrinkle, some cool loophole, some nifty curio about the law. But so many of the stories you hear are just stories.

ps. a better way to get disqualified is to have studied law.
I do not think I understand your argument. In the case as you describe it the statistics are done incorrectly and cause a potential false conviction.

How is this different then an expert on autopsies incorrectly does the job which leads to a potential false conclusion.

In both case an expert made a mistake or did their job poorly leading to a potentially unfortunate outcome. Why should one be banned and not the other?
Well, the OP statement "write a function which merges two sorted arrays without allocating any additional memory. Aside from having no real-world value, it’s not actually possible" seems strange.

Ok, any real-world usage might be applicable only in embedded systems which is a fairly narrow domain.

Still, it is a small (easy to describe) problem that can be used to see how the applicant does problem solving for problems without a widely known best/proper solution - and that skill is probably 90% of any serious programming; the remainder is just typing while following an arbitrary syntax which a trained monkey can do.

And the solution definitely exists - depending on how the interviewer wants output, you can either push the result out with a trivial iteration with a pointer on each array; or if the arrays aren't read only, you can sort them in-place with a slightly modified qsort or even bubblesort - both of these approaches don't need to allocate any memory on the heap, just 2 int counters in processor registers or stack.
sure, I sometimes forget when I'm reading JS in the debugger that I wrote it in CS.
But I wouldn't discount the value of source mapping. I particularly find myself wanting it on the server, where I'm more likely to be depending on some one else's CS code, maybe in a deeply nested module somewhere. I'd really like accurate line numbers in server logs.
So, sourcemaps are important - but so is super :{(}
because we are in 2013.

special characters should finally be fixed in any computer language, as the internetz has shown us that the world is so big.

unfortunatley, in reality we still have to cope with many primitive char problems - a mindset like demonstrated by your comment is one source of these unbelievable stone-age problems we still have to face and programmers with this limited view should leave the modern computer industry.

in 20 years everybody will have to program in cantonese, if chinese programmers would have such a limited view of the world.
Mathematicians are people who define probability as the measure of some well-defined subset of some well-defined set of all events.

The people who use probability theory to build approximate models of real world events are called statisticians (and those who forget about "approximate" - applied statisticians).
Grab something to eat

Maccy D's or KFC

Only one choice in the city

Done voicing my pity now lets get to the nitty gritty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z1kRhiPE0E#t=30s
To add one more evil edge case - if you're using something like libgc in your project and try swapping pointers that way, there's a chance you're going to lose your memory by accident.
"(Of course, this was all in the 1970s, when what one read was black text in a familiar font in neat rows on white paper, all at least somewhat thoughtfully arranged. Things are different now ...)"

Different how?
The main sarcasm is people missing the point, while it's there, in the first BLOODY line of the article.
Also, the left-hand navigation overlaps the content when you zoom on mobile...
I think this guy needs to chill out.
> * In upholding the first instance decision, the Court of Appeal reiterated the principle in cases where there are competing explanations for a particular loss that causation cannot be established only by a process of elimination such that the 'least unlikely' cause of a loss is identified. A claimant must demonstrate that the particular version of events that they rely upon is more likely to have happened than not, in order for the civil burden of proof to be satisfied.*

I'm not sure what the problem is.

"It could have been A, B, or C. It's really unlikely to have been A or B, and thus it must be C" is obviously flawed, because for all we know it could have been D, and even if it was C you need to show (on the balance of probabilities) that C is the cause. Not just that C is more likely than A or B.
Tyler they didn't hire you because you were not able to solve it. I'm a 100% sure it is because of your attitude the way you represented yourself to them on those interviews.

Your article clearly tells me everything about you. I read your LinkedIN profile geeezzzz entrepreneur? you really? COME ON!!!!!!!!!