skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As someone who has spent entire months not doing work, just doing things like studying Japanese, watching TV shows and playing chess online... I have to disagree.

I think the source of my motivation problem is having the feeling that what I do 'Does Not Matter.' Some months I can't shake this feeling and get absolutely nothing done. Other months I feel like I can take over the world - and end up making the progress of a normal programmer.

I "want" to implement my ideas, but there's not enough feedback or incentive to "make" me do it. There's also too many options. I have 100 ideas, which should I pick? If I haven't been successful with any ideas in the past, what's the point in dedicating myself to this specific one? Does it even matter? No one noticed last week when I wasted all my time (when not at my part-time job)... why would anyone care this week?

I made a chrome extension that helps me stay on task when motivated... but what I actually need is software that can help build my motivation. Anyone know of something?
I can speak from the other end of this communication - that of the candidate - and say that I would really appreciate some kind of feedback from the startups that have rejected me so far.

I am actually going to write a blog post about this during the weekend - will pingback!

EDIT: "But somebody who spent a day interviewing with you deserves more than a form letter."

This. Exactly this.
NASA engineers release open-source model Hyperloop
How about the usual reason? Because it can't be pulled into non-GPL projects.

This is actually relevant, at least, to me. I've been porting Twitter's fatcache[1] to iOS, and wouldn't be if it was GPL'd. I haven't even looked at Facebook's code, due to the GPL license, which makes it—literally—unusable to me on iOS and Android.

[1] https://github.com/twitter/fatcache
Eclipse has something similar, which it calls "code templates." Features like these leave me wondering why "excessive typing" is often cited as a criticism of Java. As far as I can estimate on the fly, I type less than half of the characters that make up my Java code.

And as the article points out, for readability, verbosity is arguably a good thing. I sure believe it is, perhaps because I am more distracted by poor symbol selection and syntax than most programmers I know. Speaking of, I don't particularly like the C-lineage syntax, Java included. I don't like the braces and parentheses. I prefer a syntax with fewer symbols and more keywords. Crazy, I know.
Longboarding isn't like skateboarding very much. I never skated before but earlier this year I bought a $60 longboard of Craigslist and used it to get to work. It was a bit weird at first but I got there about 25% faster than walking. On the way back it felt pretty OK and next day it felt natural. I skated every day where it was dry outside since. It's exhilarating.

If there was one thing about it that had a learning curve then it was pushing. Knowing where to put the food and how to evenly push off takes some getting used to but that's not even something you have to do with the boosted board.

It's weird that skateboards became popular and longboards took much longer to go mainstream. Skateboards are roughly like BMX trick bikes, cool but limited use and hard to learn, longboards are the road bike equivalents.
That part is easy...just require logins and don't serve the content at all unless they are authorized to see it.
How much would one pay for an alternative implementation?
Languages like Matlab are best suited for expressing calculus. Why are you choosing a poor tool for the job?

Most Java programmers don't care about expressing calculus. They care about expressing interactions between web services, sql, and applying rules as the data flows through their modules. Or between user interface elements and service requests. It's all about moving data around, working on that data when you've got it, and triggering actions.
And large lookup tables create potential performance problems for large numbers of simultaneous connections. Plus there is non-trivial per-key setup time for the GHASH tables, which hurts key agility. Both of these things tend not to be measured well in benchmarks, which makes even "fast" GCM software implementations somewhat slower in practice than might be expected.
If someone presented this fix on my team they'd be fired.
You should! Have you gotten any feedback so far? As somebody on the other side of the equation, I really have no data on what most other startups are doing.
I used to do it all the time. Then HR told me it introduced legal risks (and backed it up with real-life examples), so I reluctantly stopped.
Many painful minutes spent with slow-like-sloth-taking-a-shit Java desktop software lead me to believe that your statement isn't entirely true.
dkuntz2 said C++, not C.

But in any case, it's perfectly possible that a platform written in C could produce results faster, because it's not an interpreter but a compiler that translates the application directly to machine code, and which could benefit from optimizations not available ahead-of-time.
I think you have a valid point, but then the same could be argued for Wikipedia vs. Encyclopedia Britannica or pretty much anything else that's successfully crowdsourced online.

Of course the artist would have to curate at the end and only pick parts he loves and fits his vision for the song, I just know for a fact that there isn't an objectively "right" part for any song, so an amateur kid in a remote country might actually create a bass line that fits the artist's vision for a given song better than what a professional session player has come up with on that specific day the artist had to work with him. It won't sound as good, obviously, but then the artist can re-record it properly. And the positive side effect is, of course, a lot of fan base engagement.
Is it possible to avoid the problem of potential lawsuits by asking candidates to sign an agreement in advance saying that they will not sue you based on any feedback letter sent after the interviews?

(This would still leave them with the option to sue based on how they were treated in general during the interview.)
Indeed. Studying vocab is even the example I've used for years on the dual n-back mailing list to explain how a previously valid measure can be rendered meaningless by training: just memorize vocab and boost your scores on the vocab subtest. Of course, if you took a bunch of people who studied SAT/GRE words and looked at the factorization on a battery of tests, you'd find that the g-loading of the vocab subtest had gone way down, but that can't be done in this sort of case and so all you're left with is a meaningless measure.

this was in relation to Moody's critique of the original n-back study: he thought that all the n-back training, which involved tracking moving squares in a grid, was effectively training you to be able to manipulate shapes on a grid better than you would normally, and destroying part of the validity of the matrix tests. And indeed, in the later studies which used more than just matrix tests, the n-back training tends to show more limited gains. It's not officially out yet, but an example of this would be "Adaptive n‐back training does not improve fluid intelligence at the construct level; gains on individual tests suggest training may enhance visuospatial processing", Colom et al 2013.
The CDM can render frames itself if required.
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...
The paper specifies Poly1305-AES, which is a little different.

In Poly1305-AES, the point at which the polynomial is evaluated (r) is random, but the value added at the end is calculated as AES_k(nonce). Basically, AES was used to map from a counter to a secret value. It's very important that that value not be reused, because the security the system falls apart.

In my draft, I'm not using AES. Rather I use a block of ChaCha20 to generate the value to add at the end and a different r value for each message.

But there is essentially the same problem: an nonce still needs to be fed into the cipher and it must not repeat. (Additionally, repeating the nonce here breaks confidentiality too as the keystream will repeat and the attacker gets the XOR of the two plaintexts.)

TLS already has a counter for this, which is used here.

(Alternatively, some AES-GCM implementations in TLS use an 8-byte, random value as the nonce, which stands a good chance of repeating after 232 records :( )
I've run the Java Users' Group in Philadelphia for almost 14 years, and I specialized in Java recruiting between 1999-2010. I know a lot of Java pros.

Our meetings still get pretty strong attendance (80-120 per meeting), but I'm seeing far fewer new sign ups and the faces are much the same. There could be several reasons, but young engineers that I speak with rarely have any interest in Java work (though JVM is still popular).

Some members have taken to coming up to me and saying "Java is dying, you know?" at meetings. It will become harder and harder to find engineers to maintain the Java code as the first generation of Java pros start to move on to other languages or retire. Java needs some new blood and better PR to maintain interest from younger devs, and Android may be the best hope.
> We sent a long message explaining our reasoning, and, surprisingly enough, the student said he understood our reasoning, but thought his roommate would be a perfect fit.

Pay it back. Next time you interview somebody great that isn't right for you, direct them to a company that they seem just right for. :)
I have the exact opposite experience. I think giving unsolicited feedback to candidates is unwise:

* Sometimes the candidate just isn't good at what they
do. Telling people that, even in the most constructive way
possible, can generate lots of negative emotions. You don't
know who you're talking to, and if they'll take it well.
* Sometimes the candidate is pretty good, but doesn't quite
clear your bar. It's rediculously hard to communicate that
without hurting people's egos.
* Sometimes it's a matter of taste -- the person is good, but
you know the delta between what you want to accomplish and
what they want to accomplish is too great. Some people won't
understand that and will interpret it as you not hiring them
because you're an egocentric asshole.
* Sometimes they're really smart, but you know they'll spend
time futzing around with different technologies for
technology's sake and will not be productive. Most people
like that won't hear what you're telling them.
* Sometimes something just rubs you the wrong way. What if the
candidate seems to be jumping to conclusions too quickly and
doesn't seem thoughtful enough? What if it feels very nuanced
and any given example seems petty, but you just feel off in
aggregate? It's extremely hard to communicate that to people,
and will likely open up lots of emotions you don't want to be
dealing with.

I agree that it's a good idea to give honest feedback if people follow up and ask for it, and agree with not using form letters. A simple personal note can go a long way:

Hi Bob, it's Jim at CompanyX. I discussed the interview with the
team, and decided this isn't a good fit. Thanks for taking the
time to interview with us, and good luck!
> And you're limited to 1 decoded instruction per cycle
> when executing instructions brought into cache for the
> first time

I don't think that's true for any recent processors. For Sandy Bridge, you can get a throughput of 4 instructions decoded per cycle as long as they average 4 bytes or less in length and are well aligned. The exact details are a bit messy given the different layers, but you can mark up to 6 instructions or 16B per cycle, and you can put 4 into the queue each cycle (or 5 if the is fusion): http://www.realworldtech.com/sandy-bridge/3/

> It can hold 1.5 K uOps, which is certainly something but
> not so big that you won't be missing it regularly.

You'll be missing it frequently, but it's big enough that it should hold almost any tight loop. Intel is claiming it's equivalent to a 6KB instruction buffer, and has about an 80% hit rate.
If the data was generated for testing and escaped accidentally, why not say that? Their claim that it's last year's data runs directly counter to this perfectly reasonable explanation.
Very sexy build photos!! I asked on their post, but I'll ask here too: "How about LiFePO4 batteries instead?" They're slightly lower energy density, but much safer that LiPoly. It's the type of batteries we preferred for big robots...
The feeling seems to be that the analysis of Salsa carries to ChaCha and that ChaCha is slightly preferable: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg10222.ht...

I started out with Salsa but switched because I also slight prefer ChaCha and people seemed to agree.
Then ask them! "Hey guys, I'd really appreciate some feedback on how to improve. I won't get defensive and could really use your advice -- please be honest!" This can go a really long way.
> "Somebody who was involved with fixation of election results "

That's your assumption.
The brain is not a muscle, as tempting as the analogy may be.
Lukeprog wrote a great and well researched blog post on being happy:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/4su/how_to_be_happy/
You'd fire him/her instead of suggesting a better solution? How do you retain employees with that kind of threat looming over their heads?
What are the domains?
Maybe someone here is interested...
That's a very good point, and of course you flag your test data with a special "TEST" flag.

Now remember the lack of sleep for a week before the election, and imagine a possible bug where your client code somehow fails to put up that big TEST DATA message that you thought was there.

It happens. Happened to me. :-)
And that's precisely why they should have picked that excuse--a plausible one!
The problems of pushing bits from one server to another aren't that complicated and the pomp and circumstance of java gets in the way of actually accomplishing those things.

As you point out when you have a reasonably complicated problem like applying functions java fails miserably and other languages are a much better choice.
List of countries here:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2425436,00.asp
That's the actual funny part: They get back to you with the same b*llshit, just using different words.
The Samsung Galaxy Curve: The Greatest Thing since Sliced PVC
Not sure what you're hoping to gain from this vague question.
Oh, I see now. I misread the part about 550 models thinking it meant they produced and were selling 550 of these.
This is a totally reasonable, fair-minded, and simultaneously terrible idea.

Just like when you turn someone down for a date, or break up with someone, anything more than "this just isn't the right thing for me, right now, but I wish you well" is often seen as an invitation for all sorts of exhausting pain that benefits no one.

And in the case of employment rejections, the potential legal issues are just overwhelming. Thank them for their time, wish them well, and walk away.

Candidates, like suitors, can get advice, feedback, and consolation from friends, coworkers, and peers. As much as it might seem "nice" to do more, it really isn't. Not for either party.

EDIT: I do strongly support a personal note saying the above, and of course believe that a prompt response after the interviews is an absolute requirement for professional courtesy.
Uh, no. My intuitive notion of intelligence is that it is trainable. That is not its only attribute, come on.
Why the heck would you even write this in a blog post.

It's not nearly as ridiculous as you are making it out to.

It's pretty clear that you couldn't take enough time to realize what you were buying, not exactly amazon's fault.

I'm really getting dissapointed with all the people who use medium.com for blog posts but post such crud like this.
Yet again I ask what makes java good for high complexity / performance code and get told it's good for managing mediocre programmers.
From what I could imagine, this is using De Bruijn sequence, and only tracking 2D, right?
Automatic memory management (especially with a garbage collector) is antithetical to high performance.

The LMAX Disruptor pattern would like to have a word with you.

http://lmax-exchange.github.io/disruptor/

http://martinfowler.com/articles/lmax.html

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6559308/how-does-lmaxs-di...

I'm not just namechecking the Disruptor pattern. I have extensive experience with it. It's about 10% slower than what could be achieved with C -- which is to say, the benefits of not having to program in C far outweigh the 10% loss of performance. And its performance is almost always far higher than what's needed, i.e. the bottlenecks are elsewhere.

I strongly disagree that Boost really adds "so much complexity"

We'll have to agree to disagree, I think. Importing Boost is often a sign that something is awry with the design goals of the project. Either the choice of language is wrong, or the project is too ambitious. Though there are some aspects of Boost that are pretty good, such as its unit testing framework.

if you seriously need shared_ptr, your code design is probably just Not Very Good.

This I fully agree with.
Good idea. We've definitely tried to pay it back in other contexts, e.g., helping a person to whom we didn't make an offer fundraise for their own startup. (In that case, I sure regretted not making the offer. :) )
I have had quite some interviews for my age[1]; both with startups and with mid-sized companies and the number of them that gave me actual feedback is minimal.

[1] Yes, you could say that I enjoy finding interesting-looking companies and send them my CV even if they are not actively looking for someone.
New method better than Gini at measuring economic inequality
Here's a great talk on dutch street design for those interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0GA901oGe4
Yes, Sedo is the biggest. Your domains are probably not very valuable though, unless you very regularly receive significant offers on them already. Most people drastically over value their domains.
Fine. Then I'll do it. I'll save you the trouble, too. My account is over 3 years old.

It seems like the circlejerk du jour is anything that has to do with governments. At least the Rails circlejerk was on topic and the Bitcoin one was sort-of kinda of. This one, nope not so much.
are these the same thought leaders that ditched ruby for scala or node or clojure?

ill be coding with libgdx and pushing to html5 and android while the thought leaders decide their next move.
It's indeed terribly unfortunate that you can't take free software and make it nonfree.
What's the problem just telling it straight -

Hi Bob,
It's Jim at CompanyX. I discussed the interview with the
team. It's difficult for me to say this and I don't know
how to say it properly, but we think you're pretty good but
doesn't quite clear the bar for us.
We'd like someone who has more experience in X, Y, Z, but
in our interview, we thought A, B, C. I know our interview
probably is no where near perfect and may not have
presented the entirety of your skills, but unfortunately
this is our interview process and we will have to abide by
it.
You're certainly welcome to try apply for jobs at our
company in the future.. XYZABC... Thanks for taking the
time to interview with us, and good luck!

'Good fit' tells nothing to the candidate what they can improve, and deters them from applying at your company in the future when they further develop their skills and attitude.
I just picked up the Asus Q501 from best buy, I upgraded the ram and SSD, overall was about 1k spent. I put fedora on there and it's running like a champ.
I remember this appearing on an exam in my C class back in '89 or so. It was basically "What does this code output...", and had "if (a = 3)" instead of "if (a == 3)". Thing is, I recognized the mistake, and though the instructor made a typo. So I answered based on what I thought the instruct had meant. Of course I got the question wrong. (I was fairly cocky back then, and normally I would have answered the question at face value just to "be that way", but I was trying to break that bad habit and it ended up back-firing on me anyway).
Most religious statements set themselves up to be unfalsifiable, and that's really the main trick behind most of these ideas, but to work they have to make certain claims about the nature of the universe that are exceedingly unlikely, or in other words: just completely made up.

The kind of evidence we gather through scientific observation points to a world that works completely without supernatural intervention, and with advancing scientific knowledge the kind of acrobatics you have to perform just in order to keep escaping the light radius of discovery become more and more elaborate, outright denial of evidence becomes necessary.

For example, to claim that the Earth is 6000 years old, you have to discard a lot of paleontological evidence. To deny evolution, or any other established scientific model, you pretty much have to make the conscious decision to ignore data. The way this works is usually by some invocation of all-powerfulness: my deity is all-powerful, so due to that it not only faked all the evidence, it also made itself invisible and undetectable.

I agree though that it's not possible to disprove arbitrary fantasies on their own terms. All we can do is measure and model things within reasonable limits. Far, far outside these reasonable limits, everything is theoretically possible, it's just not compatible with reality in any meaningful way.

From the perspective of a person on the outside looking into this religiously contaminated world, the most upsetting and depressing thing is that people know their beliefs are completely made up on a whim, and in full knowledge of how that process works, they still believe all this crap without an ounce of skepticism.
How do you know the random value used by the other end is actually random, and not backdoored?
The star in question is 93 million miles away...

sun
Fordham jumps into top 10 of coaches' poll; three new teams enter rankings
... No. He's saying there are virtually no _similarities_. Might want to check your parser.
It's always a good idea to ask for feedback in a thoughtful way, put people at ease, and communicate that they won't have to deal with emotional fallout. When people do that, I always take the time to give good feedback. If people still give you a BS response after that, they're just jerks and you shouldn't be paying attention to their feedback anyway, even if you got it out of them.
Does it control for genetics? Depression is known to have a large genetic component (if you have a family history on either side, you're much more likely to develop it), and so that would be the logical first explanation that I'd reach for. The article mentioned it briefly in one paragraph but then glossed over it and played up the stress hormone angle, which to me seems much less plausible than common genetics.

The way you could tease out this effect is to compare mothers who were depressed at other points of their life - before they had kids, for example - vs. ones that were depressed while pregnant, and see if there is an appreciable difference in incidence of depression in their children.
Definitely! It's plausible to me anyway, having been there and done that. :-)

But I can imagine myself in the place of a PR person who doesn't fully understand the technical issues. And somehow it sounds better in the moment to say "that was real data from a few years ago" rather than "that was fake data that we just made up!"

Of course I don't know what actually happened in Azerbaijan, but I can sure relate to the possible scenarios.
I thought C was dying out. I must be living in the dark ages.
I don't think you can legally waive your right to protection under the Civil Rights Act.