skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm embarrassed that I didn't notice my auto-correct mangling my comment. I'll comment from my desktop in the future.

I meant to say that it's amazing how easy this is to implement now and even sending one-time text message confirmation codes during every authentication attempt works.
Thank you for the additional links, but by my tally this article only cites two statistics without bothering to explore how the statistics could be irrelevant to the overall point that the article is making. I find the generalized claim that overall "trust" has declined to be an extremely difficult point to support. I would have appreciated a more thoroughgoing portrait of the point than just two data points and some generalized citations that social scientists "think x".

In my opinion this is a great example of a misuse of statistics. I'm not saying the article's claims are incorrect, but it did a poor job of convincing me of anything.
Any chance you remember where that measurement came from? I could use that with a client right now, given we're discussing a major refactor of about 25%-30% of the code base.
> Yes, you're right that Haskell is probably easier to read for someone with the mathematical background.

I am quite taken by Haskell, and I have the whopping mathematical background of two introductory courses from my institute of mathematics.

> But I'm referring to the cognitive overload incurred when you try to optimize it, thinking about list creation costs, then stream fusion to avoid i

The author didn't need to know what stream fusion was; all they did was import a library... it might as well have been called import MagicallyOptimizingPrelude and it would have the same effect.
So, Apple has to pay Bromwhich $1,265/hr ($1,100/hr + 15%) to oversee the antitrust compliance and then, additional $1025/hr to the outside counsel who would consult Bromwhich on the relevant Antitrust law.

All this because Bromwhich admits that he has NO antitrust experience. So, why was he chosen in the first place?!?!

Say I show up at your firm, get hired as a senior C++ developer. Then on the first day I show up, and tell you: "You know how you are paying me $X/hour to do this job. Yeah... You know, I don't actually know how to do this job, but John here does. He's going to be working "with" me. So, in addition to $X/hour for me, you'll need to pay John here $X/hour as well. Yeah..., so will get started now, right?"
The fight against sexism is not a free pass
What efficiency evaporation are you referring to?

I use Dropbox because it works. I tried iCloud, and hit multiple points of frustration and failure. Whereas Dropbox let me transition seamlessly from Windows to OS X.
What if Snapchat adds a feature which is something like a transient social network with disappearing posts? I for one would jump ship from fb. I don't like the idea that the information I post on fb can be searched and possibly mined by my fb friends.
In my opinion, decades of corporatist conditioning and manufacturing consent are at least partially responsible for this situation. The corporate mass media has induced distrust in Americans with one another in many ways. One of which is all those articles portraying average Americans as extremely litigious and corrupt with bunk stories on hot McDonald's coffee, etc.

http://boingboing.net/2013/10/21/the-true-story-about-the-wo...

The media focuses much more on crime and how we hurt each other than on the many more cases in which we cooperate and help one another.

In more recent years, corporations and parts of the military-industrial complex have been poisoning Americans against each other via the Internet by astroturfing comment threads, etc. and spreading general fear, uncertainty and doubt with a nice sprinkling of intolerance and hatred.

The mass media glosses over corporate welfare while focusing like a laser on welfare fraud by the poor, etc. They want us to despise each other to gain by the oldest tactic in the book - divide and conquer.

It's been working.
The title is a bit unfortunate. It reminded me of this[1] more than anything else. I can't imagine it's a deliberate reference though.

(This must be the first thread where I've actually played a comedy British person.)

[1] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mikado/Act_I/Part_Va
"Private keys cannot be guessed – Because users didn’t choose them!" I don't follow this logic. Sure they're likely to have more entropy than a user-selected password (and almost certainly be longer). However, there's nothing about the fact that the key isn't selected about the user that makes it un-guessable.
If you expand the acronym, you're saying "a ... questions" though...
Given that many neologisms are already added to the Oxford English dictionary every year, I don't see any compelling reason why a singular gender neutral pronoun (such as the Spanish "su") cannot simply be created.

Such a word might seem strange at first, but if major broadcasters such as the BBC instructed staff to use it, larger society would soon fall into place – at least in written English.
Imho the gaping hole with client certificates at the moment is that, in current browser implementations at least, I don't think they are well secured.

Notice when using his demo pages you are asked by your browser for confirmation before you use your shiny new certificate, but otherwise no credentials are required. It's relatively easy for someone to steal client certificates from my machine whether I'm here or not.

[wf9bhh4z.default]$ pwd
/home/nly/.mozilla/firefox/wf9bhh4z.default
[wf9bhh4z.default]$ strings cert8.db | grep nly.*junkie
nly's scriptjunkie.us ID

... I'm not sure if this default behaviour is a switch that can be flipped somewhere, or whether they are actually encrypted, but that protection can only ever boil down to some other credential like the users Windows password (which will be weak).

When it comes down to it today, I feel a mobile solution, like Google Authenticator that can live comfortably in my pocket, is just more workable as a 'something I have' credential, and I then don't have to entirely trust whatever random PC I'm using. With QR codes it's even almost as convenient. (I also don't think password auth need be totally disregarded, see : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6767249 ).

That said, I commend the author for seeking alternatives to password authentication and doing all this excellent work to make it easy to use. It's good, desperately needed work.
Just curious, why did you check for the existence of "console" on this line:

console?.warn 'OriDomi: First argument must be a DOM element'
In Which We Make Coffee With The Founders Of Bonaverde
Indeed. Now name all the other Lisps and Schemes in wide use that are based on immutable data structures.
When a user visits the website, they will be assigned a session ID, and it will be transmitted to them in the HTTP response and stored in their browser.

There will always be people who resist this kind of construction, not because they're sexist but because the singular 'they' sounds clumsy to modern ears, its long history notwithstanding. Instead, try something less periphrastic:

Visitors are assigned a session ID, which is transmitted in the HTTP response and stored in the browser.

Shorter, clearer, more direct, and gender-free.
Pretty much, yeah. It looks the same as doing a $http() or $resource() call.

But, if all you know is javascript, and you need something done in less time than it takes to delegate or learn a new language, and you need it done with some degree of secrecy, this is your tool.
And thus will never work with CSPs (with a reasonable level of enforced rules).
Whether they are still around in two years or not, Snapchat is still not a product in its current state. They may morph it into one, but it isn't right now. Being able to make your photos disappear is a feature that could be added to any photo sharing site (potential patent issues aside).
In a way that is the essence of political correctness, it tries to establish a general law for your preferences. The article here is a case in point - it's not enough that everybody has their own list, now there has to be a public list, under control of the feminists.

Of course feminism has more aspects than that, I don't define feminism in that way.
Help me build the developers nightmare list:
Let me get the ball rolling....

1. HAML
2. Coffee-script
3. Upgrading from bootstrap 2.3 to 3.0
I just did, thanks :)
Hopefully, because most in-practice use of C avoids undefined (or complexly defined) behavior.
Rapacious systems can only last so long before collective trust dissipates.
You'd think it would be. Regularly at bars / restaurants when I'm with other people they'll just check their streams during conversations. Usually it's because they got a text first and one thing leads to another. Even when you get a text, to me, I think it's just general good manners to excuse yourself.. "Sorry, I think my wife just sent me a text, do you mind if I check it"?

I'd like to say it was just an age thing, but I see it all the time around my tech professional friends.
I really think Jobs could've been right at the time. But, Dropbox now is much more now than what it was once was.

In fact, this is how most successful software companies get their start - right? They begin with very narrow product - a single feature, even. If their hypothesis proves correct, they will grow pretty rapidly in usage and in offerings.
Posts from Nettuts for 12/01/2013
Battle over Google Glass etiquette erupts in another Seattle diner
>WW2 had a ton of propaganda about distrusting people

Yes, but that propaganda was nothing compared to the much more advanced and sophisticated level of indoctrination techniques we have in more modern history via mainstream television and radio.

And, don't forget WWII had wonderful internment camps and plenty of racism towards blacks in America. So it wasn't the most trusting place for everyone.
Just to nitpick a bit, the Two Generals problem is actually different than the Byzantine Generals Problem. 2GP deals with the (simpler) case of achieving consensus in a distributed system with unreliable communications. That is, messages can be reordered, lost or arbitrarily delayed, but end hosts are assumed to be trustworthy. BGP deals with the aforementioned scenario where nodes can be malicious as well.
Like all tools, not for everyone or every scenario. It does suggest a way to make some of your code secret and easily reabsorb the results back into your scope.
Those devices were quite small compared to the cold war arsenals. There were also only two of them, as compared to the 15,000+ today.
Farewell to the Longest Console Generation Ever
Do we know if it was more than what the commit said? The reverse said it was a policy violation to have him commit it directly. It didn't actually say anything about being a he-man-woman-hater.
Becoming a PHP Professional: The Importance of Others
Upworthy seems to have started a noxious trend -- it's supposedly a successful marketing technique, and has hence been copied. The headline style itself has a bit of a longer history, but Upworthy was the first to combine it with aggressive social-media promotion of re-shares (Their business model is "give us a video, we will promote the heck out of it to force it viral"), so that it gets forced upon people who don't want to see it (as opposed to HuffPo, for example, which you can mostly avoid by choosing not to visit the site).

And Upworthy content is political propaganda (it's a spinoff project from the moveon.org folks, and its services are marketed as a tool to manipulate viewers' political viewpoints, not just sell stuff or generic ad impressions), not just humorous clickbait; that adds an extra layer of manipulative slime to the headlines.
I think users of for/while loops will disagree. Don't forget that =, += , ... can all be abused in the same way.
When the original blog post showed up on HN, I couldn't understand why it was penned. As best I could tell, here's what happened:

* Party A submitted a pull request for a minor change to the libuv docs

* Party B (who can signoff on changes) declined it for being an extremely minor change

* Party C merged it after getting signoff from Party D (who can signoff on changes)

* Party B reversed the change under the impression than neither he nor Party D had signed off on it

* Joyent would fire Party B for this

It just so happens that the minor change was removing two masculine pronouns into favour of gender neutral ones.

I can't reconcile the blog post on Joyent with what actually happened.

Blog post [1]:

Ben is not—and if he had been, he wouldn't be as of this morning: to reject a pull request that eliminates a gendered pronoun on the principle that pronouns should in fact be gendered would constitute a fireable offense for me and for Joyent.

The pull request wasn't rejected on any pronoun principle [2]:

Sorry, not interested in trivial changes like that.

And again:

Especially when that poor behavior transcended into the gobsmackingly inappropriate as Ben tried to revert Isaac's commit

The actual commit message [3]:

@isaacs may have his commit bit but that does not mean he is at liberty to land patches at will. All patches have to be signed off by either me or Bert. Isaac, consider yourself chided.

Unless bnoordhuis was aware the patch had been signed off on (in which case reversing the commit is a dick move), all he's doing is following procedures.

[1] http://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun

[2] https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29538...

[3] https://github.com/joyent/libuv/commit/804d40ee14dc0f82c482d...
What, livable working conditions don't matter compared to the prouct?
One of the goals is to make it easy to take your existing client side code and port it over. Specifically, I wanted it to integrate back into the browsers environment without any extra effort.
Mangalyaan, India's Mars Orbiter, has successfully commenced its journey to Mars
In true "lean marketing" style, then generate bodies for headlines that get clicks.
I think they are claiming his view would be split between a zoomed in portion of the screen and the canvas. He could then mix the color until it matched up so closely with the mirror that the line between the two seemed to fade out. I still don't really know what the setup would actually look like and how far zoomed in it was, etc.. You would think the article would have a diagram.
The balance is of course somewhere in the middle. The good parts of capitalism with the good parts of socialism. You get a much nicer society than with either one t the extreme.
Numbers stations
Results may vary depending on the number of singular his and hers in the original paragraph:

When visitors are each presented (the visitor's) personalised session page, each visitor will need to enter the visitor's name, credit card, as well as the visitor's birth date.
Improving the Command-Line Postgres Experience
I totally understand. My sister and a close friend of my wife's both have OCD, and I have also had very mild obsessive tendencies, and it's definitely nothing to joke about. I think it has been over generalized to people who have a high attention to detail, almost "to a fault" - that fault being a supposed debilitating obsession.

A lot of people don't understand that OCD doesn't have the positive effect of producing perfectly crafted things. Instead, severe cases cause panicked, irrational understandings of reality.
(This is for anyone reading, trying to understand why this is offensive.) using "OCD" as a descriptor rather than saying simply that you obsess over details is reducing the awareness of actual OCD and other anxiety related issues.
You can inject your own headlines, so that makes me suspicious that some of the truly golden ones are manufactured. However, it is hilariously illuminating how many of the headlines look authentic.

http://i.imgur.com/7yFUf4q.png

http://www.headlinesmasher.com/headlines/6751
Nice job by Joyent. A lot of people will feel that this firing is an overreaction, but this is how civil rights movements work. You inconvenience the apathetic until they realize that apathy is as unacceptable as anything else.

This is the only way it can change the developer community. Don't be a sexist and you won't run into this problem.
Thanks! Much obliged for the explanation (and damn anyone who downvotes me for an expression of gratitude!).
>There are many possible motives for Ben's actions, sexism being only one of them.

Rejects a pull request, project lead overrides his rejection, Ben goes out of his way to attempt to revert it.

Please list some reasons other than sexism why he would go to such trouble.
I always thought this "myth" was confined to C++ code (iterators) where there may in fact be code that does something analogous to what your "postincrement()" does.

Compilers are sometimes smart enough to remove the unnecessary operation in C++ (e.g. switch to ++x themselves), but I always use ++i for the same reason people simplify their usage of C in between sequence points --- it's an easy transformation, and why tempt fate?
It's not that surprising that the presence of a diverse mix of people makes it likely for imaginary people to be less stereotyped.

I must admit as a non-native speaker, I am still not quite sure how to properly use "they". I wasn't aware of the possibility before this discussion occurred.
This article, if not the study itself, is a hash of influences and results.

It seems as if the government makes larger, and riskier mistakes, but it's not as if Vietnam wasn't a similarly large disaster for its time.

The large prison population makes this "African-Americans consistently have expressed far less faith in 'most people' than the white majority does. Racism, discrimination and a high rate of poverty destroy trust." no surprise. But it seems like discrimination and institutionalized hostility toward blacks was at least as bad in the past.

So is it distrust of government? Commerce? One's neighbors? Hard to tell from the article. Some parts of society deserve less trust and we are more aware why this is so.
KaoruAoiShiho 0 minutes ago | link
... A lot of people will feel that this firing is an overreaction

No one was fired.
That requires far too much, and far too nuanced thought. BURN THE WITCH.
The example given in the article shows all the code, but your example involves a function so the code in question is hidden. The behaviour partially depends on how the function is written.

"0 0 1" is what I would expect from your code, and identifier a should end up as 2.
The point of the article, is that it does exist. It is spelled "they". I happen to agree with (this part) of the article.
A better gender-neutral pronoun FAQ: http://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/. It compares the alternatives that can be used as a gender-neutral personal pronoun (both words already in common use like "they" and neologisms) and points out the advantages and potential problems of each with a deliberately constructed text (http://www.aetherlumina.com/gnp/faq.html#one).
Agreed. The author here is talking about being offensive and/or insensitive (which is subjective and not related to intent). Hostility is something else.
For non-Hindi folks, "Aam Aadmi" means "Common Man".
The stuff we are going through right now might seem scary, but McCarthyism was not exactly the golden age of trust. It was not so long ago that "mainstream" society did not trust blacks, working women, the japanese, or jews. We (royal "we" here, emphasis on the royalty) still don't seem to trust gays, atheists, or many other groups. Mistrust is what keeps humanity sharp, but it is also what has been holding us since the beginning.
The statement of intent to fire if firing was possible?

Incredibly nitpicky.
That's a fair position to hold - I would prefer to err on being decisive & setting a no tolerance standard on this type of behavior, but your approach/viewpoint isn't onerous. However, it is risky in that this is the type of issue that can result in lost business since there are arguably enough public details here to make a judgment call.
The actual problem here is that English has become an essentially gender-free language, with its vestigial gender closely linked to sex. He doesn't necessarily indicate a male person in English; it just usually does. (Sex and gender are not interchangeable terms. European languages tend to get hung up on masculine/feminine/neuter, but it could just as easily have been human/animal/food/etc., or long/flat/round/etc., as in other languages.) They, them and their are the closest thing we have to sex-neutral third-person pronouns (if one does not wish to engage in the grammatical acrobatics required to consistently use one), but then there's the prescriptivist idea that those pronouns can only be used as plural forms to deal with. (Shakespeare used them in the singular.)
Minor detail: your summation makes it sound like Joyent would fire over reversing a change, when in fact Joyent appears to be saying they would fire over reversing the change because the change was removing two masculine pronouns.

It's a pretty extreme reaction by Joyent; I wonder how much further away "We would also fire whoever used the gendered pronouns in the first place" is.
Clickable link: http://www.skydrone.aero
Similar marketing strategy as of FPComplete. Benefits community and on same time advertises the company.
You hit the nail on the head. We use a system like that and it is fantastic. As close to DRY as you can get.
As a Joyent engineer, I feel qualified to field this one.

tl;dr: you couldn't be more wrong.

The long version requires a crucial observation: this wasn't one simple mistake, made in haste, ignorance, or confusion. This was a deliberate action to revert to exclusionary language. Speculating on the precise motivation strikes me as pointless; it's the action itself that is problematic.

At Joyent, I have room to make mistakes, and enough respect among my colleagues that I can take corrections without misgivings. Deliberate and repeated "mistakes" on my part would have consequences (but surely that's the literal definition of a problem employee).

In case you aren't already one step ahead of me, here is the corollary: I am protected from the deliberate and repeatedly hostile actions of others.

So: the ability (even obligation) to speak your mind, listen to others, and be protected from bullying, exclusionary behaviour?

That, my friend, is what you call security.
There have been a lot of other articles which have touched on this issue, but it doesn't hurt to take another look at it. Google Glass ironically highlights the idea of privacy as an endangered liberty that we used to take for granted.
Does someone have already heard or said something like "I've been offended by the gender of the documentation of Sendgrid, so I chose to go with Mailgun!" ?
This is exactly what happened.

I think with Joyent's conduct today libuv is 100% more likely to be forked than it was yesterday. Accusing a committer of lacking empathy in an official blog post is not cool.
Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5545816
re: 1

Assuredly. But assailing associates with company assets is embarrassing, too.

Name calling——especially vulgar name calling——is unprofessional.

I blame Dick Cheney. But at least he didn't know he was miked.
To answer your question directly, no I don't think so (perhaps some updated theories, but nothing concrete).

But the article does cover more than just the incident, I found the whole thing fairly interesting.

Beyond the passing knowledge I have from growing up in Chicago-land around the time and the Wikipedia article on the subject, I thought it contextualized the FCC policies around the time of the incident and how the hack worked (from a high level). It also pointed out other signal intrusions from the same period and the FCC/FBI's methods to track down the perpetrators.
Oh please. No one was sexist here. A diff of 3 characters on something wholly non-code or operations-related is hardly a change that requires attention.