skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We're open plan at Blekko and it has its plusses and minuses. Rich (our CEO) had the experience of taking an open plan group to a mix of offices and open plan that went very badly as communication dried up. At Google quad cubes were the norm, doubles were the minimum (even for VPs who in theory would need to be talking at times about material things).

The benefit is it is easier to communicate, and the downside is that it is harder to get away. We give everyone a pair of noise cancelling headphones as a way of shutting out the office noise. Its not as solid as an office but its better than nothing, and culturally if you're typing away with your headphones on its very similar to working with your door closed.

That said I don't think it is the ultimate answer, there is still stuff to be done. Maybe rolling desks around so you can move them into an office when you need to concentrate? Or perhaps some partitions for groups but not cubicals explicitly.

Definitely a work in progress.
A wonderful, cute, and inspiring love story (that you can appreciate whether you're gay or straight).

Yes, I know, not Hacker or Tech related, but that doesn't matter. Read it and enjoy.
Stock Footage:Video Backgrounds
Check out Amanda Maxham's GMOMonday. She writes about advances and setbacks in GMOs on a weekly basis with a level of clarity and flair I have not been able to find anywhere else:

http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/author/amaxham/
For local copies, rsync with a progress meter is as simple as

rsync --progress <source> <destination>
Aren't there many new laws nowadays where there is strict liability, intent is not needed? And on top of that there is the entire section of negligence law, with no intent by definition, which is easier than you think to get caught in.
Pricing, SaaS, Biz Dev, Product Mgnt, Sales, Marketing, Growth Hacking, 9-7-13
The 'g' prefix is a bad idea. On BSD systems that prefix is used to refer to binaries in the GNU toolset.
According to the article, hundreds of millions of years for the jellyfish to do this.

I share your suspicions about the coincidental rise of jellyfish and modern mankind.
Bitcoin kiosks in Canada like ATMs for digital currency
I think the OP is asking about when what you mentioned in your second paragraph is going to become the industry standard. Nobody's going to be using formal verification to prove that something is usable or fun.

Automated proof checking and derivations systems have been under development and research for a long time now. It's almost just an engineering problem to introduce them in a way that commercial companies can use them.

The aerospace industry (ex Boeing) has been doing this for a long time, and they make it work quite well for them.
Coq is based on OCaml and similar to it but actually forms its own completely independent language. Others in the same vein are Agda, Idris, Epigram, Isabelle. Each one shares more similarities with the others than with their "host" language (if one exists) of which they're usually syntactic cousins.

That said, each of them is far more similar to OCaml/Haskell than say, C.

They are all based to some degree or another on Martin Löf's Intuitionistic Type Theory which is a wonderful unification of mathematical logic and straightforward functional programming in the same vein as the Curry-Howard Isomorphism.

Generally, much of the forward research is aimed at making the proofs more automatic and easier to use. The problem is wildly intractable by brute force, so much cleverer tricks must be employed. Some of these are quite wonderful and suggest new ways of programming as a dialogue between a human and an intelligent compiler that I really hope become more common in the future, though the industry will be unlikely to drive it. See the literature on Epigram for some talk about this.

There's also an important distinction between proof systems and "dependently typed languages" where proof systems restrict their power greatly so as to ensure the things which are proved in them are mathematically consistent while dependently typed languages which are more "practical" seek only to provide proof-like heuristic support to programming. In the former, you'll likely see a complex way of describing group theory in the language of program types and the program itself is irrelevant because its mere existence is sufficient for logical purposes. In the latter, you'll see a strong synthesis of a program and its internal logic as expressed by its types which ensure that invalid programs are wildly difficult to write as you'll likely have to abuse some crazy flaw in intuitionistic logic in order to do so.

The most canonical example is the fixed-length vector where you can write things like "append takes two vectors and results in one that's the sum of their lengths" and thus track (statically!) that you have no out of bounds errors possible in your program. It's also incredibly useful for getting nice properties like "this vector-of-vectors representation of a matrix is not ragged" confirmed at compile time... something that even an advanced non-dependently typed language like Haskell or OCaml is (mostly) strictly in the domain of runtime checking.
On the contrary, the sign must reflect photons into your eyes. :P
Maybe this means Canonical will focus more on ARM hardware now, which is kind of the point of Mir anyway - to be a lot more efficient on "lower-end" mobile hardware like ARM chips. Can't say I wouldn't like that to happen.
The central planning, linear programming-driven Soviet dream was explored in the excellent book "Red Plenty" by Francis Spufford. I would heavily recommend it.

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Plenty-Francis-Spufford/dp/B00B9ZD...
Everything is mediated by biological processes, we are organisms.

What illness has nothing to do with "biology" - robot illnesses?

The idea that there is exactly one cause for any event is ridiculous, this isn't specific to illnesses.
Some choice quotes from this:

"It is rather absurd for a technology firm to provide slides for staff to play on, and to let them wear silly propeller-hats"

"Time was when firms modelled themselves on the armed forces, with officers (who thought about strategy) and chains of command"

It always amuses me to read these lofty articles from academics and journalists about how multi-billion-dollar companies are doing it wrong.
These two concerns aren't separate. You can publish agile software frameworks like rails with assurance guarantees based on proofs. If programmers play within the bounds, they can retain various proof-grade guarantees about the software they write.

Just make better tools for Chrissakes.
Slide Presentation by a Semantic Web Expert: Intro to Linked Open Data (LOD)
Felt the same way and thought I should share. The part where he says:
"“The pattern now seems to be, everybody has to reveal, ‘I’m gay!’ ” Mr. Leedom said. “But the word didn’t exist in our life, and we just were. It wasn’t something you had to ever articulate. It didn’t matter..."
I found that particularly interesting. My understanding of modern day gay culture is that coming out is a type of rite of passage. To them that concept seemed foreign in a way.
Look at aerospace and aeronautics. It's becoming par for the course there.
With MyISAM tables you could have integrity problems. And if you are mixing innodb and myisam you are splitting buffers memory that well could go to just one kind (i.e. most memory for innodb) if you switch to that.
If innodb is slow in insertions, you could try using TokuDB as storage engine, that is pretty fast in that and have a bunch of advantages.
And if you are using MyISAM for some particular feature (i.e. full text indexing) MySQL 5.6 already have it in innodb, or you can separate that search to a sphyinx server.
please show that example anyway :P
pretty sure skylan_q means you'd run out of hardware gates if you try something infinite?
Cool implementation. Really going to be cool seeing what people experiment with when eye-tracking starts gaining traction.
Millions upon Millions of people starved before this stuff existed, and you point out that "organic food tastes much better." Honestly, wtf. Are you trying to get beheaded in the next French Revolution?

The rest of your points are reasonable concerns, but need to be followed up by a very important question: are there alternatives that produce similar quantities of food for similar costs? Because until/unless there are, fixing the issues you raised means starving people to death.
> While I'm at it, I may as well ask: who is the submitter, fejr?

I was wondering the same thing with his previous post. I can say he has some interest in Arabic, as his name must be فجر (fejr), as in "the dawn". This has a lot of literary and political connotations and is used by a lot of people these days.

As an Arabic speaker, this caught my attention at the ironic choice of language for the name. Time will tell.
Elon Musk's Iron Man Lab
I'm also getting a lot of value from nginx+lua. It's amazing how many problems can be solved quickly and easily without going to another level of coding. And with the ability to call C libraries from within lua, integrating with 3rd-party binary libs has been another way to avoid another layer.
You did a really good job of taking the example from the docker site and turning it into a blog post.

Anyone wanting this information is better off getting it from docker.io directly, where it is likely to be updated:

http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/examples/mongodb/

I know this because I wrote it.
Test your method with this (valid) address

......n..............am.eeeee......@gmail.com
Keeping track of your competency as a programmer
Wait a second, "prospective" trial does not mean that you draw patients from a pool who have no interest in treatment. Prospective simply means you have decided what the endpoints will be before the trial begins.

The inverse of a prospective trial is a retrospective trial where you have a set of data and you go looking for signals.
>>It always amuses me to read these lofty articles from academics and journalists about how multi-billion-dollar companies are doing it wrong.

What are you trying to say here? Are you suggesting that if someone has a multi-billion dollars company, they are clearly "doing it right?"
The issue with this?

1. It doesn't solve the underlying problem.

2. It guarantees that the underlying problem will never be solved because there is now an industry dependent on the problem existing. They will fight tooth-and-nail to keep the problem in existence.
Yes, but our memory is so big and our machines can have so many states that the problem is still intractable in the general case.
Hey, I'll have to check with the others here, but I think we have not been aware of 1. !!! Will certainly investigate this ASAP - thanks.

2. and 3. - already implemented to the max (of our abilities :)).
Unfortunately this seems like the trend internationally. It's just the justice systems in other countries just seem to be less aggressive, but have similar or even worse privileges.

The human rights court for example in Canada is known as pretty much a kangaroo court. But Canadian law enforcement is not nearly as aggressive and militarized, and the country does not suffer from an as large historical SES gap that can cause this aggression to develop in the first place.
Well, they're doing something right...
The authors views remind me of The Onion's editorial cartoons.
I think that if you have at least a video of real game-play, your poised to take donations like this. If you have something users can download and play with, even if it's unstable, then you could definitely solicit. But a nice website and a vague concept is not good enough. I mean, in terms of specifics all we get is:

"You've just landed on an island. Deploy your soldiers and decide when and how to attack to defeat your opponents.
Code your strategy in Python or Javascript (more languages coming up!) and prove your skill in a revolutionary programming competition."

Yeah, no.
I think we're more likely going to see formally verified software development frameworks...something like a "verified Rails" before we see programmers using proof-checking in the general case. Basically it'll be the model-checking software built into a framework and a tool that will tell you if your code plays well / is safe according to the model or not.

Having programmers use proof checkers to write proofs about their own software and then prove them is still very far away, if it'll ever happen at all. One can always dream happy dreams about the Curry-Howard Isomorphism, though.
Does anyone have evidence that blending and immediately drinking fruit has less fibre than eating the same amount of fruit unblended?
When I read the installation example, I see that you also need the python-progressbar library, which means it depends on Python. So I would say rsync is simpler.
> I'm pseudoanonymous on here, deleted my LinkedIn account ...

This isn't about you or any other drama queens, noone cares who you are and what you do in this context as long as you don't propose changes to crypto standards or conventions in browsers.

The reason why people are asking these questions in the context of cryptography software is perfectly valid, it was discussed here in the past few days.
In 2004 I was comfortable enough to release some open source code in Common Lisp. Around 2008 I stopped using it.
There is lit about what organizers — what you're discussing — face. It's not easy, when this requires you to be in antagonism with others. Many of us are obviously concerned about the threats to their species, but there's powerful antagonistic forces.

Take Graeber's recent book "The Democracy Project". It's quite an entertaining first-person view on what that entails. (http://gawker.com/5994421/a-discussion-with-anarchist-activi...)

In contrast, elite-led environmental efforts often fall for the dismal traps Naomi Klein mentions: (http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/nao...).
> If those documents were not supposed to be viewable, the server should reject the request.

It certainly should, but it also should be obvious that this was not information that he was authorized to have, and he was prosecuted for intentionally scraping it after noticing the misconfiguration - not for making an HTTP GET request.

The idea that a GET request is like asking a clerk for an item under a counter is appealing, but doesn't really work because granting access is not the same as granting authorization. Authorization requires intent, and an HTTP server is incapable of intent (at this point in history, anyway). The fact that the server can be misconfigured and is fundamentally incapable of realizing it means it makes a lot more sense to think of it as the counter rather than the clerk, and items with 403 responses as items that are under a glass counter. For this same reason, the FOIA request example doesn't work either. A human (or many of them) processes that request.

Additionally, the items he took were not items the store sells, they were clearly items the store should not have out in a public place (so yes, the "store" is absolutely not blameless).

In light of these observations, I think a better analogy is this:

A man walks into a store. He spots a binder on the back counter, just close enough he can reach it without actually stepping behind the front counter. It contains a printout of the store's mailing/cold-calling list that they use for [whatever silly purpose]. The clerk is busy elsewhere, so he starts flipping through it page by page, taking a photo of each one with his smart phone.

Now, I'm still not sure what I think of the legality or morality of the situation, especially when you try to factor in intent. I'm also not a legal professional of any kind, so I know even less about what a court would think about all that. But I do think that these details are relevant, and leaving them out of an analogy creates a false impression that there's nothing even debatable about the situation.

Edited to add: FWIW I do agree that AT&T is very much at fault, mainly for the reasons phaus gave in the comment sibling to yours. I just don't think it is obviously the case that their guilt excuses the person that takes advantage of that negligence.
Brunch - a build system without the Grunt-work
Grand Theft Auto V is the most expensive video game production in history
The Revenue Model Will Take Care Of Itself
Software patents suck [2010]
I don't think I've ever heard "not enough documentation" as a complaint about Go. It's always seemed fantastic to me. But, I don't use Lua and Python much, so maybe they are even better.
> So, the vast difference between a modern hybrid high-gluten version

Modern wheat is not high gluten. It's actually probably lower gluten than what our ancestors had.

They even invented https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process in order to manage to work with the low gluten wheats that are common.
I'm wondering if we should be redesigning all software around formally proven shims.

I've been thinking a lot about what a system would look like if we re-designed it from the ground up. Nothing as extreme as throwing out von Neumann architecture, but starting with our current hardware as the basis, and reconceptualizing the OS around security and stability.

Certainly it would be more distributed, more sandboxed, and more interface-agnostic. We've been running so much legacy code for so long that the abstractions are constraining our thinking about what's possible and desirable.

Clean-sheet redesign may be both impossible and a little extreme, but it's definitely time to fundamentally re-imagine the "personal computer."
18 USC 1030(a)(2): "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains— ... (C) information from any protected computer;"

18 USC 1030(e)(2): the term “protected computer” means a computer—
(A) [computers used by financial institutions or the government] or
(B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States [read as 'is on the internet']

So you're saying intent makes the difference. But I don't know how much that helps. We still have a state of reality in which the general public wanders the internet assuming they're allowed to access arbitrary websites without any explicit authorization from the operators. The strict (and obviously insane) interpretation is that they're all guilty because they know they haven't gone to Google's headquarters and gotten something like an authorization letter permitting them to do a search on google.com, but the alternative is the void for vagueness problem the author is trying to articulate: If you have implied authorization then where does impliedly authorized access end and unauthorized access begin? The line is so indistinct and open to interpretation that no one can say for sure, which is why all the hypotheticals (and some actual prosecutions) about mothers being jailed for Facebook posts and the like.
Check the date -- the proposal is a month old. So Bruce Schneier's comments may be relevant, but one can't really accuse Brian Smith of ignoring them.
Thanks for your input - and no, we're not webvet.com
You ignore people who take it for anxiety, where SSRI are uncontrovertibly effective.
I find pv useful when moving MySQL databases between servers.

mysqldump -u user dbname | pv | mysql -u user -h some_remote server dbname
But people can install MathJax and avoid all the intermediate steps:

http://www.mathjax.org/

My online LaTex editor:

http://arachnoid.com/latex
Yep. I'd like to add that some ESPs have their own additional restrictions on mailbox names, plus it's usually helpful to verify the existence of the domain part (DNS) because people make mistakes all the time.

We (Mailgun) have a free service which does all of these things:
http://blog.mailgun.com/post/free-email-validation-api-for-w...
I know this video and he's wrong (HFCS is bad, simple sugar and fruit fructose are not). I would recommend you to read articles on http://dannyroddy.com http://raypeat.com http://andrewkimblog.com backed by a lot of studies showing fructose is awesome.
Agree. Or you show a prototype or AT LEAST a video of the gameplay concept or you won't get any donations
Cool. Reminds me a bit of http://aichallenge.org/ which was TONS of fun.
Yes - that byline is on an eminently unreadable light-grey-on-white and is easily skipped - it had to be pointed out to me that a friend had actually written an article I'd read!

Do authors get any branding past that byline? Maybe on the main page, but not on the article itself, not that I've seen. Thanks to link aggregators/HN, I've only hit articles directly and not the actual Medium.com home page.

Nor, unless everything a writer writes is on Medium, is there any continuity - where's the Medium.com link to any of Wegner's other writings?

Good for Medium, not great for a writer.

Medium is all about Medium, which is Wegner's valid point.
agl recently committed AES-GCM to Go.

http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=01d672e76b57028a...

http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=52670d783ec3490d...
I think what we're doing here is confusing a particular model with all things new. Yes, no doubt Montessori had a big impact back in the day -- it's still being felt now. But I doubt that this explains all of the changes we're seeing. More likely is that things that seem to work are copied.

Models are always faulty in some way, but using them appropriately can be a good thing. The problem many of these corporate styles addresses is that it's very easy to overconstrain your solution space without realizing it. This turns out to be extremely important in creative tasks. Not so much everywhere, but in places where teams are supposed to be both creating and radically optimizing their work streams? Makes a huge difference.

We're also seeing the emergence of a personal corporate brand, where companies are supposed to have personalities, like people. Employees are encouraged to get Twitter accounts. Everything that faces the public is supposed to look like "Hey! We're having a blast here, and we can't wait to help you out." The majority of the corporate submarine pieces we see on HN have this subtext.

These are major changes. Perhaps you can lay it all at the door of the Montessori style, but I kinda doubt it. Instead, I think the author is just making a blanket assertion, creating a bit of a straw man in order to set it on fire. As long as it encourages critical thinking about these things, that's not a bad thing.
>the same process also makes it possible to create drugs, games, and services that are ever more addictive than before.

Not necessarily. There very well may be a limit to the propensity of the brain toward addiction, unless we delve into deep sci-fi territory of complete reward structure take over. Opiates have passed their 200th birthday and we certainly can't conclusively say that we have found anything more addictive than heroin (150 years old).
Good point, I missed that on the first pass, I look forward to an update from him or a comment on this from Schneier.
I feel like people really overthink email validation. I just look for an "@" and a ".". If you really need proof that an email address is valid, send an activation email. Otherwise, who cares if a few emails in your database are invalid?

Additionally, lots of 3rd party mail systems have some mechanism to notify you of bounced emails, so you'll figure out which are invalid at your first attempt anyway.
Beside the authentication highlighted by the article, any other use cases/problems that can be solved by nginx+lua?
What It Means to Be Popular (When Everything Is Popular)
ah ok, cool - good luck!