skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Beyond getting good at chess, fast, if you want to get great at chess, slowly, then GM Rashid Ziatdinov has the instructions you seek.

GM Ziatdinov is unique in that he gives the blueprint that he claims will get anyone to master level (2200+) [1], and it's dead simple. It's much of the same:

1. Study tactics a ton [2]
2. Memorize 300 key positions and games
3. Now you are a master

His definition of "memorize" is that you understand the key position/game instantly and without thinking, the same way you walk or read your native language. 300 doesn't sound like a lot, but to understand each key position to the depth he advises, we're looking at the 10,000 hour rule for all 300 positions.

For comparison, either he or another GM claimed that super-GMs know 1000+ key positions/games, and Magnus Carlsen has said he has memorized 10,000+ games.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/GM-RAM-Essential-Grandmaster-Chess-Kno...

[2] He used to have a few thousand tactics problems on his website. He said to do 1-10 quickly until you could get through them without a mistake. He emphasizes quickly, it's about getting new patterns in your brain, not figuring it out on your own. After 1-10 are perfect, do 11-20 until perfect, then 1-20 until perfect, and repeat until you can do all 1-4000 (or however many). At that point he said you will have the tactical ability of a GM.
It's somewhat transformative, though mainly in the lyrical department; musically it doesn't use the original recording but it does employ the same compositional elements virtually unaltered, so it's not as transformative as it could be (eg 'quoting' a short musical sample as a motif in a more original composition). But losing any prong of the argument is a problem, and even the EFF admits the length amounts to almost the same as the original, while offering the weak excuse that it was necessary to show a sufficiently elaborate machine.

I do agree that the harm that would be suffered by the band/publisher is negligible, but 'they can afford it' is a weak rationale; the band/label are in a much stronger position on this prong because they've consistently refused to license their work for commercial purposes, so they can argue that this represents brand dilution rather than the relatively paltry cost of a temporary license, leaving the door open for a finding of more significant economic damages. Now if they counter sue Goldie Blocks the court might not look too favorably on it, but as it is GB's suit IMHO amounts to little more than a temper tantrum about the company's inability to get what it wants. Of course, the firm may consider the publicity value to be greater than the legal costs.
it was just advertisement that targets java developers.
We already have. You think the CO2 in the atmosphere is going to go away by itself?

The only question is how long we're in for the ride. The most pessimistic but fact-based theories speculate thirty years before the increase in methane and CO2 emissions produces a 4+ degree increase in temperature and begins the truly profound changes that could result in the death of billions.

The rest is just speculation; depending on how big the exponential curve is (that's the problem with exponentials, small variations in the parameters have huge long-term impact), it's anywhere between 30 and 300 years.

Now, if we get the more drastic theories out of the way or if we pretend that the melting of the Siberian peat bogs won't matter (that is, nothing that I wrote about is particularly outrageous scientifically), then we're looking at 80 years before the ocean's Ph drops to the point where a substantial amount of molluscs simply die off because of their inability to incorporate calcium to their shells.

The thing is, the only thing that can save us at this point is incredible developments in energy technology (10x battery storage capacities, fusion power, more politically acceptable nuclear) coupled with a global reduction in per-capita consumption on a massive scale.

None of the superpowers in the world are willing to drop the current model of the consumer society, and fusion is, thus far, just a dream, so in most ways we're at the mercy of the climate now.

There is a very real possibility that we'll be the last generation before the Earth becomes a profoundly different, far less ecologically diverse, desert planet, at least as far as the tropics go.
The usual suspects: monoculture and Monsanto and strange corp/govt hybrids (in this case wrt biofuels)
I'm not sure if it's game programming or C++ that makes him say what he's saying. I can't speak to his level of competence, but in writing my own game library (mostly for education, but also out of discomfort with tools like Unity) I have found myself ambivalent about visibility and find myself making a lot more stuff public than I otherwise would due to the (wonderful, why oh why don't more languages steal this) constness in C++. Constness can often replace private visibility for data--i.e., I don't need getters or setters. A field may be immutable once the object is instantiated, in which case I make it a const field, or it may be mutable, in which case the object's constness will handle it for me. (There's still the case where I need to perform transformations on a piece of data either on the get or the set, of course, and it's there that private usability is still of use.)

I came to C++ through a circuitous route and a lot of my early C++ is very Java- and Scala-influenced - private vars all over, getters, setters. I find my code becoming much more "public-first" as I get better at what I'm doing. That said, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of public being the default visibility; I think I do prefer to have to make that decision consciously while designing my APIs.
Worse than goto?
This famously came up during the Apple/Samsung suit, where the jury's foreman went around making misinformed statements about patent law in mainstream media: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120830/02063020214/
Precisely, C++ code is usually not riddled with all kinds of bugs and buffer overflows. </sarcasm>

This argument is so backwards. Having a garbage collector or a VM that ensures memory access safety, now that's what contributes to less bugs. Enforcing the freaking default visibility of class members to be private, does not. If you try to make this argument, which defies common sense, then show me some numbers.

And btw, good API design is not measured in the number of public members you have on a class.
There's a presumption of innocence in fraud cases as well. I'm not proposing handing out fines in the absence of a conviction. I strongly disagree with his claim that governance by the FDA is equivalent to punishment, in fact I think it's total bullshit.
>>I guess RAM disk is fine?
>It works, but it's a hack and major technical debt to hold.

Why? It seems like a pretty reasonable solution to me.
There's no reason that the compiler should even optimize strlen out of the loop. Here's the proper way to iterate a string if order doesn't matter, take notice:

for (int i = strlen(str); i--;)
...loopContents...

There's a right way to handle values that are repeatedly used, and a wrong way, ie. relying on the compiler to optimize. Many dynamic languages store the length of a string buffer, as part of a String object. ie str.length, and it's very cheap to query, just an accessor/property/getter.

What is misguided in this rant, is the attack against strlen which operates on pointers to zero-terminated strings. The length isn't stored, the only storage is for the string's bytes. If you want to have fast access to strlen, and you find yourself being pained by the extra variable to cache the value, then use std::string.

This blog post needs a refactor.
An open source stream processing framework (https://ghostream.com) - it isn't really ready for the limelight yet, but you can find the code base on github (https://github.com/ghostream/ghostream) - final steps on the to do list are a few more example projects, a couple more functional operators and to polish up the documentation.

It has hit the 80-20 scenario. The last 20% is taking 80% of the time :)But it has let me quickly prototype a few little ideas (http://jamielewis.me.uk/posts/2013-11-03-Mapping-Earthquakes...)
[Reddit] What do you think makes a player a superstar?
Next generation of kids toys: Qboo from Kreyonic launches indiegogo campaign
Is the next generation of kids toys already here?
Congratulations, you have convinced me never to use your database. You can't ignore CAP, because machine failures, momentary high latency and bona fide network partitions happen.
> As long as you aren't doing something egregious and make a good faith effort to work with them they'll often be pretty reasonable within the confines of the law. However if you ignore them, they'll come down on you like a ton of bricks.

This is how all government works, in general. There will always be multiple opportunities to bring yourself into compliance, since it's in the government's interest for you to comply.

Contrary to popular belief, the government would prefer compliance over a fight.

23andMe on the other hand ... is either grossly incompetent or they're looking for a fight.

FDA's regulatory oversight over this new industry is not established. If 23andMe wanted to challenge them in court, this would be the way to do it. They need standing.
There's a lot of incompetence on display in that technical description.

"Our private server facilities" sounds like they were trying to run their own facility for some misbegotten reason.

"A double salted SHA-512 hashing algorithm" sounds like a weak homegrown password hash. I'm guessing it was something along the lines of SHA512(salt1 + SHA512(salt2 + password)), which is pitifully weak compared to any sort of iterated hash (bcrypt, scrypt, PBKDF2, etc). It could also mean SHA512(salt1 + password + salt2), which would be even worse in a kind of sad, hilarious way.

"AES RIJNDAEL 256 encryption" is a perfectly normal SSL cipher. Referring to it as "RIJNDAEL" is a bit of a tipoff, though: Rijndael is not an acronym, so it shouldn't be capitalized, and it's simply an older name for AES, so it's entirely redundant in this phrase.

"2048-bit, highest assurance Extended Validation SSL certificate" is something you can get from any number of vendors. It isn't actually any more secure than any other SSL certificate.

"Industry-leading security and fraud protection" probably means nothing. Or, at most, possibly that they're using an off-the-shelf fraud detection service like Maxmind - which would have done little to nothing to protect them from a determined fraudster, let alone an attacker.

"Tape backups" just make it sound like they're using equipment from the 90s.

"Secure Card and Google Authenticator" are both decent features to implement, but suggesting that they result in "up to 3 levels of authentication" is amusing. Multiple possession factors ("something you have", like a security token or a cell phone with Authenticator) don't add together; to have three factors, you'd need a knowledge factor (a password), a possession factor, and a biometric factor. And they definitely don't have the last one.
So these guys have one of the biggest days of their year coming up, seem to be running a large operation, and are only just realising this now. You get what you pay for, and from the sounds of it they haven't paid much.
Hold...

AdBlock features "Acceptable Ads", by means of which advertisers are blackmailed to pay AdBlock so that their ads still go through.

Ghostery belongs to an advertisement business. And sure enough, they disable tracking for third parties while proceeding to track you on their end. Priceless.
It's pretty simple actually: We don't have an HTTP server software budget. The expectation is that the tech team will choose the right tools for the job and ask for paid tools when we need them (eg. New Relic). NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost.
To be fair, Thailand and Indonesia do drive on the wrong side of the road, but both have fairly strong automotive lobbies that try and keep the cars out. Eastern Russia is not only close to Japan, it is (a) not Korea (who love Korean cars), and (b) it is really far away form Moscow's influence in getting them to buy more expensive cars of lesser quality made much further away.
Ahh.... That's pretty devious. I was thinking of blocking the entire article, not rewriting content. Still not worth the work IMHO, but who knows what censorship servants would do.
> Precisely, C++ code is usually not riddled with all kinds of bugs and buffer overflows. </sarcasm>

Sarcasm aside: having more experience with C than C++, I find my C++ code rather significantly more resistant to buffer overflows, off-by-one errors, etc; it's when I'm interfacing with primarily C-based APIs that force me to do pointer math and so forth that I hurt myself. I don't have the confidence to write in C (fairly) quickly and correctly as opposed to C++. In this way C++ does come from that earlier era that the grandparent poster referred to: where Java didn't exist yet and the managed options weren't particularly fast, but C++ (even in its nascent form) could help you provide yourself tools for encouraging correctness that C could not.

Today, it's a different story. The STL (particularly as of C++11) is advanced to the point where it's very possible to write code that is, relative to Java or other managed languages, generally very fast and definitely very portable, while retaining pretty solid guarantees of safety. And I either I or the compiler are more likely to either notice my mistakes, which I inevitably make, in C++ than C.
No. Even if they lose, they've won.

The whole point of their strategy is to discourage the next patent troll from trying to shake them down. Even if they lose this case, they will have continued to demonstrate that they are no push over.
I sense a new STIG -- system shall not have acoustic generation capability of any kind, or microphones of any kind. ;)
The FDA isn't meant to stop snake oil. See all of the perfectly legal alternative medicine out there. And this is far from snake oil. They are meant to protect against dangerous drugs. They even do that badly. I remember seeing a statistic that more people die from drugs being delayed from going to market than are saved by preventing bad ones. The high standards also make new medicine and innovation ridiculously expensive, though it's debatable whether it's worth the cost.
When I was a kid I had a VHS tape—I think it was a National Geographic—that was about Monarch Butterflies in Mexico and also Fire Eaters in Mexico City.

Does anyone else know what I'm talking about? I can't find any titles or clues on the web.
These drugs gives your momentarily high with changes in chemical and hormonal level and you feel good, but when this goes on for a long time, you body gets accustomed to that level of chemical increase and you get addicted.

Stay away from drugs and drug users. These things look fabulous in movies but never works in real life.
i dont think he gets c++
In the demo, is all the bounciness necessary? Does it have to zoom when I click on any of the dots? Why not just show me the data when I mouse over? The zoom does not give me anything new. May be you have good reasons, just my 2 cents.
Erm, if the work was created in 2011, then 2013 is a future date. Remember, positive numbers go up. Negative numbers go down. Try to keep up!
Article starts with the most important two words:

MARSHALL, TX

From Wikipedia:

Marshall has a reputation for plaintiff-friendly juries for the 5% of patent lawsuits that reach trial, resulting in 78% plaintiff wins.

I've stopped myself getting surprised for any patent suits where troll gloriously wins and that decision comes from a court in Marshall. This town's economy probably runs on lawsuits that trolls bring in and jury members from the town seem to have special incentive to favor plaintiffs almost 4 out of 5 times!
The government doesn't produce them or set the price, they merely buy them. It's still a free market.
The opportunity cost of mining Bitcoin
My experience as a Westerner living in Japan for many years is so obviously different than yours (I never had sound issues when I lived in apartments, my new house is shockingly well-built and designed when compared to the American houses I'm used to, I've never seen a non-electric powered kotatsu outside of a museum, etc.) that I think we'll just have to agree to disagree for the most part.

However, regarding the lack of central heating in Japanese dwellings, I think that's a true cultural difference between Japan and America. It's strange for an American to wake up in a cold room or have to turn on the heat (or AC in summer) when we move into the bedroom after dinner--but it's equally strange to a Japanese person when they see we're heating an entire American house 24 hours/day. It some ways they're right: when the entire family is in one room watching TV or using computers, why should you waste energy heating the entire rest of the house when you could just heat one room--or even just heat up 6 or so cubic feet of space underneath a kotatsu or electric blanket?
So when using a class as a struct (all public member variables and unless I missed it, no function), it's better to use the keyword "struct" rather than "class"? Say it ain't so...
is a reasonable response to people saying 'Lack of women in tech is clearly a sign that women don't want to be in tech/aren't suited to it because anyone can enter tech and pitch a VC if they want'

Is there any argument against your views for which an ad-hominem attack would not be a reasonable counterargument?
Thanks for the pointer, that looks interesting. Any idea if the full text is available anywhere for free?
This is "open core" model and it won't fly (and that's a good thing).

They want to compete with an established, mature free software project. You can only do so successfully in the long run if you stay 100% free(dom) software. Why don't they sell real adaptations (not basic features they actively deny) + support?
They could set up a torrent as well and almost assuredly people will seed it full time on servers.
Amen! Having programmed in C++ for close to 20 years now, I converged to using struct a while ago and yet to run into a case where it would create problems (some conditions apply, see below).

You want to make a part of a struct private?

/* private */

Need a stronger deterrent?

/* private, don't touch */

Need to protect against random people? Sure, only then -

private:

But if you are working in the confines of a smaller team of people who read comments and generally abide by coding conventions that aren't enforced in the code, then it works beautifully and results in a slender and more readable code.
Isn't SSL in this context a shorthand for SSL or TLS? A quick visit to Newegg's site shows them using TLS 1.0. Has RC4 been publicly broken?
Could NewEgg simply be wanting to escalate their appeal to a higher court, and thus have their eventual verdict carry more weight? This operates on the gamble that NewEgg believes they would be eventually triumphant and that the cost of a longer fight is less than the damages of a lower court. (Speculation, but perhaps reasonable, given NewEgg's previous victories.)
Slaapproblemen? Deze kruiden doen je beter slapen - Plazilla.com
Using todays technology SWIFT (or any other online messaging system for the matter) does not have to be expensive.

I did not study extensively the banking system, but I figured that the central bank was the missing part of the post right away. How did I do it? Because the central bank should do exactly that: CONTROL THE BANKS IN ORDER TO AVOID THEM GOING BURST without anyone noticing (rings a bell?). Now the fact that they NEVER do, is a nice topic for discussion, why exactly to we pay them? Just to guess what the right monetary policy for the next 6 months will be?

This post explains why sending money from a bank’s perspective might be expensive. But what it really shows is that it does not have to be if everyone was doing their job right (central bank included) and be held accountable when shit hits the fan.

As of today exchanging BTC (an asset anyway) to currency is expensive and not straight-forward. How exactly is someone going to exchange 150m BTC in USD/EUR without getting noticed? In what amount of time???

BTC is not optimal for this kind of transactions. An inflationary e-currency, widely acceptable and easily exchangeable would be one hell of an option, but good luck persuading people to use it if you re not a government.
This is a problem in most imperative-paradigm languages, unfortunately. The issue is in the semantics of the `for` loop, which make everything confusing both for the programmer and the compiler.
Infinity is weird - what's bigger than big?
Amazon Logistics Services in India
http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/248.pdf
Given the magnitude of the traffic, I assume the revenue will be proportional. What to bitch about of paying for something that adds value to one's business?
JavaScript numbers are just floats and susceptible to precision loss as well as overflow to Infinity, aren't they?

In fact, if incremented repeatedly, 64-bit floats lose precision before 64-bit ints overflow.
That's an application of the Dependency Inversion Principle, part of the SOLID methodology. You always want your code to depend on abstract forms rather than concrete ones. By abstracting database calls into a class, you avoid having to constantly write brittle methods digging deep into concrete implementations.

One way your company's method might evolve is into the Active Record pattern. You define a class around a particular table, implementing domain logic inside that class. You see this pattern used in Rails. If you're using one class per table, I think that's the way it will eventually go.

I like Active Record ORMs for many applications, but only as a persistence layer. Implementing domain logic in a data class is asking for pain, it violates the Single Responsibility Principle. Each class should do only one thing. The thing handling your data persistence should only read/write to the database, it should not also perform calculations or perform actions on anything other than the database.

I refactor domain logic out of models when I see it into Plain Objects with no dependencies, and let the domain have its own abstract world of classes minus ugly database wrappers to play in. I can then write an adapter to the data classes. If it's an existing application in production, then at this point I would start to re-design the database, inevitably it will need work.

I do this by creating another database schema, generating the data classes, simple as pie now without domain logic getting in the way, then create the adapter from examining the existing one. I can then import all the data from the database, represent it as abstract plain objects, then shoot those objects through the other adapter into the new database.

But it only really works if everything does one thing. Your domain objects talk to each other. Your adapter classes go between the domain and the data. The data talks to the database. Achieving this requires hard-won experience with programs that break the principles. You have to feel the pain and recognize where it's coming from. No kata will give you this experience.
> Members of a class in C++ are private by default, but members of a struct are public by default.

It's not a bug, it's a feature. The idea is, you should always prefer private to protected and protected to public (by transitivity, private > public). This is good practice which helps build compact interfaces and maintain encapsulation.

Another reason to use "class" is because it's OOP terminology. There's no notion of "struct" in OOP (in fact, structs shouldn't even be there, they're an atavism).
To the best of my knowledge, you can use methods in a POD struct so long as it's not polymorphic. With no vtable, it'll be represented as a C struct would. It's not header-compatible with C, though.
Do you think it will boom like iPhone/Andriods?