skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Unilica
My experience has been that for systems of nontrivial size, the two alternatives to using a pre-existing framework are spaghetti code and an ad-hoc framework built as you go. The first is obviously bad, but the second is wildly variable. Sometimes you end up with a nice lean framework that's a delight to use and solves the problems you need to solve and not much more. Sometimes it turns out that you actually did need a heavyweight framework, and your nice lean framework gradually turns into a worse version of things that already exist. Sometimes the core design of the ad-hoc framework turns out to just be a terrible idea from the beginning.
Science is still a very creative (i.e. non systematic) process. To create new "scientific findings" you need new insights. These insights typically come from publications/conferences/discussions with other researchers rather than big machine readable datasets.
Easy to use virtual learning environment with built in social networking.
Political violence, especially political violence withe support or tolerance of the government works all the time. But that's very different from the sort of terrorism practiced by the organizations we'd normally call "terrorist", even if you could reasonably define terrorism to include the KKK.
> We should give to wherever it will do the most good, right?

It's not obvious that the welfare of Kenyans is more important than, for example, the welfare of Americans or Swiss.

> Switzerland doesn't need the money

I don't know much about Switzerland but the same sort of rationale could be used for directing charitable donations to Africa instead of America. Meanwhile, a lot of people in the United States suffer in various ways. The "that country has so much money that people there certainly don't need any donations" line of thought is very obviously wrong.
I don't know. I think that formal schooling is only a small part of the equation, especially as college becomes a pre-professional finishing school for a lot of people. Our society's priorities and values are fucked up and no one in power really takes professors seriously anymore, so it probably wouldn't do much good.

We need more people who actually care about the humanities and arts, yes. I'm not sure how much that has to do with the distribution of majors. The corporate system is pretty good, anyway, at undoing whatever good is done by college.
Dude, you're arguing against a strawman... These 4-letter MBTI type codes do not exist. They're just a helpful lookup table for the cognitive functions which do show a strong preference dichotomy like my handedness analogy and it is covered in that neurology talk I linked to originally.

I'm literally talking about the psychology of the subject, and you're talking about red herrings and road signs for what it's worth. If you want to construct a meaningful argument against Jungian cognitive psychology, then that's cool, but you're not arguing anything new/interesting here. Of course there is no I/E line! It's much more nuanced than that, or even a 'spectrum'. That would've been painfully obvious if you even glanced at the cognitive function references I linked. Introversion/Extroversion isn't a broad/clean dichotomy, but the concepts of it can be applied to much narrower areas, like the individual cognitive functions themselves.

It's been clear for ages that people can't be broadly categorized by the dimensions you're referring to, MBTI just uses them colloquially because it's a quick/easy shorthand to more insightful analysis. But again, you're barking up a strawman that's been refuted and barked up millions of times already. If you want to refute it's usefulness, you'll be better off studying up on cognitive psychology and addressing it's real underlying faults instead of all this easy low-hanging fruit that's already been picked. Jungian psychology isn't perfect, but what you're addressing here is old and widely acknowledged.

Again, if you have a problem with people misinterpreting MBTI results (which it seems like you do, as do I), that's a whole different matter that has nothing to do with the real underlying psychology behind it. I'm actually pretty sure we agree at some level, except that I've already taken the time to study the subject matter before jumping to conclusions.
Choosing to use a library should still be a carefully weighed decision. You often must commit to the library's data structures, or write a bunch of boilerplate wrapper code to insulate them from the rest of the system. I imagine this is less of a problem in languages with dynamic typing or golang-style interfaces.

If you're using only one or two functions from a big library, it might not be worth the overhead. A lot of Boost libraries are super complicated and really turn me off when I want something simple like a directory scan or a synchronous socket. Sadly there is often no alternative because the C++ community has thrown so much weight behind Boost.

I wish C++ had a module/package system and a simple version of Boost that only covers the most common 90% of functionality. But that leads to another problem with libraries: when you suddenly hit the limits and need to completely ditch them for something more powerful.

I like libraries but it's not always an easy choice to use one.
Nice concept!

Did you consider using markdown through out the text blocks?

Also a "compiler" to convert the repo into a document would be interesting. The same idea as compiling latex into pdf/ps/dvi or markdown into html.
I like your post. I agree with the fact that a framework does restrict your control and creativity. However, what you get in place of that is standardization.
So if you have 10 people working on a project you don't want them all to be doing their own thing. You want a very standardized code base that is easy to understand by everyone. Easier to maintain, change, and, upgrade.
In Sweden, I 1) insert my card, 2) enter my pin, 3) pack bags while waiting for total, card left in card reader, 4) accept
Its kinda the other way around, where extensive research led to certain conclusions... As a field this is old stuff.

One of the profs in the article, Richards, is an expert in isotopic analysis and has sixty something published papers on the topic, more or less on the topic of bone analysis at various digs implying various things about diet. He shows up in the CJ Hunt movie 'perfect human diet' or whatever its called.
This quote -

"What determines “creativity,” in other words, is the very faction it’s supposedly rebelling against: established expertise."

- is what I took from it. It's not so much about the pace of progress, as it is about an establishment that chooses what constitutes creativity.
No, thank you. And this is coming from someone that read the OP years ago. The fact that short-term reposts gain so much volume on here indicates that front paging is incredibly stochastic. It's been this way for a while; submit a link once and it gets 0 comments, and the second time 130 comments, and the third 14 comments, all within a month and using the same title. As sad it is, the only way to fight through a stochastic system is to increase the frequency of posting everything so that on the average things break through for the "right" amount of time. Though, this doesn't bode well for the future of this medium.
Looks more like a rant about factories than framework.

I define a framework by opposition to a library.
Your code calls the library, but the framework calls your code (the "hollywood principle": we'll call you).

I actually dislike frameworks because it's really hard to see what's going on behind the scene (relevant stuff).
An issue in my mind is not that innovation has stopped or even slowed. It is rather that the effort needed for innovation seems to be becoming higher as progress is made. You cannot easily put good ideas to practice due to inertia in society and economics, irrational behavior in humans, etc.

For example, for people to switch to a new idea, it is often expected to be 10X better, i.e., allow people to do something they could not do before. In principle, 1.1X better is still better by definition, but it would never see a wide adoption due to higher costs of the people to switch. If the 1.1X idea were the first one to come to market to begin with, it may have been 10X over the existing ones and thus may have seen wide adoption that the reference 1X idea saw. In other words, ideas that are 1.1X better see resistance to adoption due to what is entirely history (= past progress) even though they are ultimately still better by definition.
I tried it and it doesn't work for me: " No root device found Dropping to debug shell."
I'm not sure whether anyone was ... it represents cases where free-speech can be limited (and there are many others). You can't call your boss offensive names and expect to have a job right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
Yeah, but dude, it's fukken haskell :D. Good comment anyway, I didn't realize the drawback...
+1

There is a reason schools teach students to write using a specific template:

Thesis
Argument
Conclusion

This here is just a collection of random points. I imagine the author has a point he is looking to make but unless the article is edited it will elude most readers.
I do. Others don't care. Others act like they would rather die than agree to any other style. (tell them you're indenting with 5 space long tabs and watch them twitch)

It's really about the personal preferences and about what the project advertises as the agreed coding style. Ideally I'd like to see editors and the whole toolchain that accept and work on some encoded ast rather than text finally, so that everyone can see the text as they prefer. Until then we do need to agree on some standards in our own environment.

If you wanted an answer for stats: I program on full screen terminal, so between 120 and unlimited is my preference.
Also, and this is the part that's always bugged me: you will never know if your homebrew framework is a great one or an awful one until it is way too late to replace it.

It must be a corollary to the Dunning-Kruger Effect or Peter Principle: you can't know your own competence.
al-Qaeda, Taliban, etc are comparably in bed with various regimes in the middle east.
Yes, and there will be multiple of those, not just 1. Right now, Google and Microsoft each have their own (Widevine and PlayReady, respectively).
what's with all the jokes about killing women?
I understand where you are coming from, but your facts are not not all correct.

> I no longer die from the flu and most of the common diseases have been all but wiped out.
Hundreds of thousands of people die from seasonal flu every year, pandemic flu can kill 5% of population if let loose. SARS and the recent H7N1 flu all have pandemic potential, not realized only because of massive social response at patient isolation. Not only are we far from wiping out common diseases, a lot of them is making a comeback. Some scientists believe we are on the brink of post-antibiotics era.
> People are using binary logic to program bacteria to kill disease.
That is just not true. What synthetic biologists claim to be binary logic is basic common sense redefined. And the only reason they use bacteria is because they would be completely lost with an Eukaryotic cell. One should not mistake grant-hunting PR for reality.
> If any organ in my body has a problem it can be replaced with a donor version. Many can be replaced with artificial versions, sometimes printed to my exact specifications.
You are probably wording this wrong. No one is replacing brain for instance. And from my corner of world, considering how little we know about the inner working of the immune system, no way all organs can be replaced to individual specification. In fact I don't know any ORGAN can be fabricated to individual specs. There might be, but I would be staggered.
> When was the last time in living memory that a person could read most works of science fiction and say "Yeah, with the right kind of funding, we can have that in 10 years"

> Stop lamenting the lack of progress and look around. The world is completely different than it was even five years ago.
I don't think most science fictions are picturing a technical utopia nowdays. If anything, there is more than a little hand-wringing. Progress can look different to different people, and we are no longer so naive as to believe the unalloyed good of technology.

I share your belief progress is being made, but as always, haltingly, especially for their social impact. People here are generally technologists and want to believe in the intrinsic value of technology. But I bethink myself and remember Goethe's "Faust" and its caution against head-strong rush toward power and "progress."
No, his netbook+bank account situation does indeed show similarities to the main question.

If you read between the lines, it amounts to "What is the minimum legal standard I have to follow to make money on this questionably gotten X?"

That's a sad question to have to ask.
Maybe I'm an idiot, but I've watched several TED videos and always found them to be full of platitudes and truisms, and the speakers banal and unoriginal. Everything--from the sophisticated-looking audiences to the eclectic-yet-still-appetizing-to-the-masses speaker list chosen by some (no-doubt) "elite" committee--reeks of style over substance. Put another way, TED is: people who think they're smart, watching people who think they're interesting, chosen to speak by people who think they're important.
School kids kept advance slabs of glass in their pockets in 1989. Pockets were bigger then and the cpu was a Z80.

Rubber condoms began large scale manufacturing in the 1930s.

Flu immunization the 1950s. Very recently upgraded with modern science, but heavily practiced as it was.

The algorithm you revere as knowing yourself only ever gets trained to learn where it can get you to spend money. Which it does in an ad supported manner.

Point you on programming bacteria. Go bio.

Transplants and health have gotten better. But healthcare in general is also less accessible and more costly.

Space is no longer pioneered by nations, it's pioneered by people making money.

I agree we're amazing, but glamorous long-shot works are fading from the world and in my consideration we are settling in for a long stretch of capitalist coasting on marginal incremental improvements. We would do well to rally against settling and re-envision ways to breath life into possibility-exploration. The inflection point for progress was two decades ago.
I stick to 132 character lines and display two files next to each other at the same time. If I stuck to 80 character lines, I could have three files on screen at the same time.

There's a limit to how wide code can be while remaining readable, even though it can be wider than prose: I struggle to read prose that word wraps at 132 columns, and I expect I'd struggle to read code that used 200 columns.
My boss created a project and assigned me tasks, and tagged them all. I could see all the tasks, but not the tags, so I re-tagged everything. Now he has two of every tag.

Also, I can't see the project that the various tasks are in, so all I have is a giant group of tasks without any organization or context.

It's not that these are insurmountable issues, but I can't imagine a situation where I would want to assign a task to someone but hide from them the tags and project.
Apple is, and has been participating in EME. Apple employees are active on the W3C EME-WG ML and they are regularly scheduled to attendance of Telephoneconferences by Microsoft, to which they appear and comment.

Microsoft has become the main lobbying party in pushing EME forward, with google mostly taking a passive role. There is no standard that W3C or WhatWG develop that was pursued as aggressively by Microsoft as EME.

The last time similar levels of "standards activism" by Microsoft are documented is when they corrupted an international standardization process to push the Open XML document standard trough.

I would be very worried if the EFF, Cory Doctorow, RMS, FSF, CCC, defective by design, WhatWG and a long list of other organizations agree against a standard, but Microsoft, Apple, Google and Netflix are closely cooperating to make it happen.
I'm also moving from AT&T back to t-mo. It will save me a little money, but the main reason is to show t-mo that I support how they treat customers.
Off topic, but gwern, I've noticed you've gone on a reposting binge of your old articles (14 in the last 3 weeks). Any reason in particular that you decided to do this? And isn't this kind of thing generally frowned upon (maybe not that's why I'm asking)? Not that I mind, by the way; they're really high quality articles.
This article is specifically linked to in the actual snopes article about how this news is fake - http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/guillotines.asp
Stanford Ovshinsky: the greatest scientist you've never heard of?
In 1996 Apple's System 7 was extremely mature, and completely blew Windows 95 away in terms of reliability and ease of use for the average user.
I come to realise that modern Muslim terrorism is also a tool of discouraging force actions by other classes and layers of citizens.

What they implicitly say, "we are muslim fundamentalists, everybody despises us and think we are stupid and what we do is hurt people", which makes everybody else think "hurting any kind of people in any case is bad since it makes you look like a muslim fundamentalist, and nobody likes muslim fundamentalists".

I can see this working.
After spending years developing it.
People who read the first Jules Verne wouldn't have been fae off if they'd bet 10 years?
This is exactly what i took away from it. The rest is a bit of hyperbole to help drive the point home.
you must be way smarter than me. it can take me months / years to understand papers that are not in my field.
I haven't even read the article, I just want to say that two days ago my wife had me watch a TED talk on creativity that had at least 3 very large errors (false etymology for spanish "olé", and what "daemon" in greek and "genius" in latin mean).

Really, it bothered me too much, I had to share this.

(The talk was still enjoyable, and probably "insightful" at some level)
I just switched to T-Mobile with my iPhone 5S, largely on principle. My monthly bill won't go down much and my service has gotten worse, but I'm so happy to leave AT&T and support what T-Mobile is doing. The new international roaming policy is icing on the cake.
no, that would be wire fraud...
I'll take your word for, I've only ever entered Japan as a tourist and they really don't look that closely at Americans entering Japan for tourism.
<off topic> That is the worst web site I've ever tried to read on my phone. It took forever to render and then would only show in minuscule or huge fonts. I couldn't just pinch it to the size I wanted. </off topic>
I would really really like to join T-mobile, but I'm just really hesitant based on coverage area....
They certainly doesn't care about 'winning'. It's a pure revengeful act.
Vengeance only exist where law doesn't exist.
The main obstacle to dethroning commercial journals, as I see it, is the reputation they've built up over the decades. They're simply prestigious by default because of lock-in.

There are now ways of running an online reputational community, e.g. StackExchange, but they rely on a willingness to do things a different way. The more conservative members of the academic community aren't likely to shift their approaches, especially when they don't already participate in forums or academic blogging. They don't directly feel the pain of expensive subscriptions, either. So the academic publishers - the old order - can continue to rely on their deeply entrenched position as the arbiters of research quality - even though this quality is created by the unpaid academics who sit on the editorial committees.

(In fact, the publishers even sell this as a value that their journals provide - reputation - when it isn't an intrinsic value, but one that accrued to them while there was no feasible alternative. That value has now lost its underlying basis, but it persists because of inertia, and they're merely extracting rent from their ownership of the journals' brands, now.)

The solution, to my mind, has to be multifold:

1) Spread the dangerous idea that science should be accessible to all and free from paywalls, such that in all polite circles it should be a matter of course to believe so;

2) Build a very simple-to-use, cross-journal meta-database and community - preferably open-source - that collects papers from all open journals and aggregates upvotes, citations and prestige/rankings, and help it gain wide, career-influencing acceptance like Github enjoys now (maybe the arXiv could be evolved and adapted to fill this role?);

3) Get buy-in from senior decisionmakers and thought leaders in various academic fields by offering them a chance to shape the system.

This won't happen without the joint efforts of leading academics (like Sir Timothy Gowers), skilled technologists, UX designers, and government funders. Most of us on HN know how we could build a technical solution that fills these needs - we might even volunteer our time toward it - but we need marketers and advocates who can sell this system to the people who matter (who currently don't see the need to upset the current system). The reputational advantage enjoyed by commercial publishers won't be overcome simply with engineering.

(If anyone knows of open-source projects to this end, or about the arXiv's plans, please share them.)
So what happens when you write a seriously hard to solve bug or you accidentally misarchitected your internal framework in some fundamental way that wasn't clearly obvious until you're too far down that path to fix it? What do you do when the 1 to 10 of you that "own it" aren't smart enough to figure it out? What happens if that mistake is time sensitive or extremely costly?
I like the research that went into all this before deciding on the layout. I don't think it would fit many people's use pattern, instead anyone seriously typing for a living could take the same approach and come out with a personalized layout. Now, if only it could be easier to remap a set of devices keyboard with an arbitrary layout.

That's a kind of pet peeve, but if you are a programmer, depending of the language you use the most at a given time, the most used keywords and special characters won't be the same (i.e optimizing for lisp or perl would make wildly different layouts). For people also speaking non english languages, the most used letters won't be the same depending of the language as well. To try to come out with a new layout supposed to be efficient for everyone is a fool's errand.
I just switched off of tmobile to verizon b/c I thought it incredibly unfriendly. They said I'd get 4g in Atlanta. But I didn't on 3 separate devices. I couldn't get service at all at my intown house which seems insane for a major city. When I tried to get out of my contract because they'd said I'd get service and I didn't they pulled up a map of their service area and said I was mistaken. I wrote letters I tweeted etc. They basically told me to fuck off.
I thought that OWL (at least the Pascal version) was pretty reasonable for what it did.

I can understand the frustration with Java, though. The first time I started reading through "web.xml", I thought it was a bit much. Then I read the EJB specs...

Struts, at least the older versions I've had to maintain, is a nightmare. RoR seemed to have a lot less BS to do the same thing.
I understand his points. I am not sure why you guys are having difficult to understanding what he's saying?
Top 5 Android Launchers