skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What does that tell you?
You'd need a hub motor in each wheel, which causes the vehicle to have an excess of unsprung weight. So, not at the moment. If electric motors were to drastically come down in weight, possibly.
I both farm and write software professionally. I find the differences in reactions that I get, depending on which career I claim to have, to be quite amazing.
1. Monads are an exceedingly common abstraction that can help you avoid code duplication, especially the duplication of control structure code. In Java:

String postIdString = getHttpRequestParam("postId");
if ( postIdString == null ) {
return null;
}
Integer postId = Integer.parse(postIdString)
if ( postId == null ) {
return null;
}
return db.getPostById(postId);

It gets even uglier when you can't just short-circuit out of the whole function in the error case by returning null. This pattern of checking for null between statements is captured by the Maybe monad. In Haskell it would look like this:

runMaybeT $ do
postIdBS <- MaybeT $ getParam "postId"
postId <- hoistMaybe $ fromBS postIdBS
MaybeT $ getPostById postId

The Maybe monad implements the core pattern, then that behavior is extended to other contexts by the MaybeT monad transformer. This example just lets you handle failure without giving you an indication of where the failure happened. If you need error reporting along with that, you can get it very easily with the Either monad and it's corresponding transformer EitherT like so:

runEitherT $ do
postIdBS <- noteT "getting post ID" $ MaybeT $ getParam "postId"
postId <- hoistEither $ note "parsing post ID" $ fromBS postIdBS
noteT "retrieving post from database" $ MaybeT $ getPostById postId

2. Monads in Haskell provide a way to isolate and control side effects. I gave a presentation about this almost a year ago.

http://vimeo.com/59215336

The presentation is built around two real examples of software engineering problems that I encountered in my career. One encountered in a Java project, and one in a Haskell project. The thesis of the presentation is that monads are much more useful when combined with Haskell's strong static type system and purity. This also suggest a pretty good explanation of why pg doesn't talk about them--he's more of a dynamic language guy.

Here are a few of the concluding bullet points from the presentation.

Monads can:

3. Help you prevent data corruption in concurrent applications in pursuit of shorter critical sections and reduced lock contenion.

4. Prevent bugs that might arise from confusion between different phases of execution.

5. Guide exploration of complicated problems

6. Expand your dictionary of concepts and ways of thinking about a problem.
What services do you use for A/B testing on ios?
What's the common practice for A/B testing on ios? Do you release an app with all the possible variants and toggle them selectively for the users?

Any one know of a service that lets me do this easily?
Consider for a second that in all the semicolon languages you know, the semicolon is a redefinable function.

Think hard about what you could do then.

That is why the Haskell community sometimes dubs them "programable semicolon"
Pain Behind Knee
This makes a lot of sense in fact, if for nothing else than the simple reason that most people really don't want to be sick or pretend to be sick so bad that they actually spend a lot of time at a hospital.. They have better things to do.

In Canada, where I'm from, most of the people I know avoid doctors and hospitals unless they really aren't feeling good. They don't want the hassle of waiting and waiting again to see specialists or get a procedure of some kind done.

The canadian socialized system is still really, really slow though for non emergency care but I never believed it was because of parasites wasting hospital resources.
Getting the attention of the American media is one thing, but Klein was a political dynasty.

Ford has yet to claim that longevity.
What I learned from Howard Stern about interviewing people
I find human opinion fascinating, and look forward to the glorious future when we can do better than up/down arrows.

Looking at a site like Rotten Tomatoes, where the metric is "professional reviewer thought thing was at least decent" and seeing that there is surprisingly little agreement even on such a simple metric (even a terrible movie, like Season Of The Witch, has a 10 so 10% of the reviews like it; even a great movie, like wall-e, only has a 94 - so somebody didn't like it - and most movies are in between with lots of critics liking and lots of critics disliking the exact same thing. Yet we still try to arrive at a truth by considering all their opinions equally as a group. This is obviously doomed to failure.)

It's even more clear when you think about something more abstract, like a favorite color. My favorite color is purple. If yours is yellow, does that mean I'm wrong? Clearly there isn't an obvious objective "This Is Good" when it comes to taste or opinions. Why then is up/down arrows the current state of the art?

I know Netflix has managed to do more by looking for similar reviewers and weighting their opinions, and Pandora does audio classification, but I'm not aware of this concept catching on well in other areas, and I particularly don't know of it being applied to multiple things at once - if I want a recommendation about a new movie that isn't on Netflix yet, or if I'm tired of the repetitiveness of Pandora's stations, their clever algorithms don't help me a bit beyond their limited walls. I don't know of a site like reddit or hacker news or videosift trying to capture more than 'good/bad' for evaluating links on the web. I don't know of a site that is really trying to help me pair my taste with other reviewers, so that I can get personally curated content and we can end up with a world that recognizes some people love action movies and others love romantic comedies and recommending a movie for me to see should take that into account. How wonderful will it be when there is finally a site that can suggest I should read these three articles because -I- will find them good, maybe I should be sure to catch Pacific Rim, and a new band I might like has a video out; while giving completely different recommendations to my sister, without trying to limit to an objective non-relative definition of "good", because we're talking about taste and opinions aren't wrong.

When one of you smart folks makes that site, please let me know.
I misunderstood your parent comment then I think. I prefer the Haskell tutorials (especially for beginners) that use the function and then provide the shorthand symbol to do it with.

You can also search those symbols on Hoogle[1] or if it is a builtin keyword the Haskell keywords page[2] can be useful.

1. http://www.haskell.org/hoogle/
2. http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Keywords
Do you mean an electric motor, battery, and regenerative system built into each of a cars wheels?

I think that a system like that would not be practical when scaled up to the size and energy demands of cars.
"A larger firm is more efficient"
really ?
I have seen people in large firms doing nothing at all and still getting paid.
Agreed. Also, the favicon is pretty disappointing.

I do look forward to keeping an eye on it though. I hope it takes off. Thanks for sharing.
But (>>=) is a control flow abstraction, just like your for, while in imperative languages.

We call it bind, but there's no pragmatic point in writing bind in it's infix form because of the prelevalence of the pattern.

Would you rather have that, or

(m `bind` f) `bind` g = m `bind` (\x -> (f x) `bind` g)
But they're not transmitted from host to host so the only way it would be passed from patient to patient is if a patient himself had genes for resistant cancer and that somehow made him more likely to spread his genome.
well then it seems the faulty assumption is that the HIV virus in his body only can attach to the CCR5 receptor, when what is likely is that some nonzero pool of virus has mutated to attach to another receptor altogether or have slightly less affinity to CCR5 but a hybrid affinity with another receptor.

These virii will then have the capability of hiding in a different cell type from immune cells, and come back later.
Using that logic you could say that Demand Media did better SEO than everyone else until Google changed their algos.
There are no $5-10 per month phone plans in the USA aside from things like Tracfone with 50 minutes per month.
And if you made something and are trying to make it perfect, make it good and get it out there. It is better to publish to not, and there will be haters. But there will be fuel from the ones that like it, and some good insights from critical ones. Learn more about what people like and get better.
I wish you luck, I just don't understand why you wouldn't make a fun place on the Vine service/name, and avoid using the name itself :)
some 30 years ago, land rights in that region were made conditional on the nuclear ambitions of the time. which is why the locals have had to bear the indignity of a uranium operation on the world heritage listed lands they own.
it's called radioactive racism.
http://bit.ly/1d73XYz
So what ends the entanglement? Or is the idea that particles once entangled are forever entangled?
If you're using cabal to install applications from hackage, it gets a bit hairy. But if you just want to resolve your dependencies

mkdir project
cabal sandbox init
cabal install dependency
cabal repl # for a ghci instance inside the sandbox

Recommended is still to generate a .cabal file and specify your dependencies there.
Six months ago I created an e-mail course for teams that are using Agile, Scrum, Lean, and Kanban. I called it the "Agile Tune-Up Kit" (shameless plug: http://bit.ly/15sz0Pl)

Man that was/is a freaking lot of work. Over 30 mini-classes so far. People get one each week. When people sign-up, I ask them for comments, and I hand-reply back to why they're there. When people unsub from the list, I apologize and ask what I could have done better.

I am learning this lesson, but very slowly. Whenever somebody unsubs from the list, I always look at what the last email they got was. Can I make it better? Am I writing the series too long/too short/wrong reading level/to the wrong audience? It's enough to drive you nuts.

But it's been a great lesson, because with any email list, you're naturally going to lose people. It actually doesn't have to have anything to do with what you're creating. Maybe they don't have time to read it any more, or their job changed, or they just clicked on the spam button on Gmail because they had too much stuff in their inbox. Yes, it might be something I can control. Or it might not. All I can do is do the best job I can, ask for feedback, and move on.

Every second and every bit of emotional energy I spend worrying about what I can't control is taking away from the things I can control. Creating things and interacting with people ain't like programming. Things aren't boolean, there are tons of hidden variables, and "debugging" doesn't work the way it does in code. Tough thing to learn.
If you add a little sugar and all the other problems go away, it might be worth it. Email is not irrelevant.
You'd have better success explaining this to a Cocker Spaniel than an MBA grad.
> There is no way they are going to cure this horrible disease. There is no money to be made in the cure.

The "they" who treat cancer are not the same "they" who will cure it. It's like saying auto mechanic design cars to fail. Auto mechanics don't design cars at all, and have nothing to do with that.
The Guardian Creates Hyper-Local Newspaper For A Single Coffee Shop
MBA != stupid and greedy
This is just garbage. It doesn't matter where you want to put our nuclear waste disposal facility, some group will invent a story about how they're being exploited to have what they'll paint as "landfill" being put on their land.

Clearly a much better solution is what we do now, where we store all our low and medium grade nuclear waste in random sheds and basements at universities and hospitals all over the country!
In Short: It depends on your project.

That being said, you might want to try out these other middlewares: http://www.mira-project.org/joomla-mira/ , http://plasmodic.github.io/ecto/
Are you sure? I just installed the community edition of IntelliJ 13 and changed the JVMVersion to 1.7* and IntelliJ is definitely running under the Oracle 1.7 JDK
well, to be fair, if this is any indication of how deeply integrated markup, data and code are in an Arc application, making any kind of changes to the rendered document would be potentially horribly painful: https://github.com/wting/hackernews/blob/master/html.arc

(sorry... I'm sure people think this is awesome because zomg Lisp but in any other language it would be derided as "spaghetti code")
No, you have a completely incorrect understanding of Monads.

You're using jquery as a functor not a monad.
While there might be some structural similarity of function chaining to bind operators in Haskell, jQuery isn't a monad. The burden of proof for being a monad is explicitly demonstrating adherence to the monad laws. To quote prolific Haskeller Don Stewart "I am pretty skeptical that the jQuery API as a whole could satisfy the monad laws".
I think there is some confusion. The Berlin patient, the one who was transplanted with CCR5-negative donor stem cells, is still cured. Therefore, none of that explanation is needed.
The viral reservoir of the Berlin patient has been examined and it is competent for X4 tropism. The fact that the virus has not re-infected cells (via the CXCR4 receptor) is some combination of factors/luck that we do not understand fully. The leading hypothesis is that the number of X4 tropic infectious particles are simply too low to reseed the replaced immune system.

For background I recommend the original studies of this patient (Hutter 2009, NEJM and Allers 2011, Blood), they contain a wealth of interesting information.
It is not about the money. I don't mind having no money as long as I can work on something that I own and love. And I can do it when I want to and if I want to. And in fact, I think my future projects will be donation based, and as long as I can make enough pennies to eat and pay the basic bills, I think I'll be a lot happier than a lot of people who have tons of money and meaningless corporate jobs.

You guys should check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEZkQv25uEs
Absolutely ridiculous article.
As opposed to coal, oil and gas fracking? I sure rest assured that when the local groundwater and aquifiers for my city are too toxic to drink, well at least I'll only be dying of organic and heavy metal poisoning.
It's time to overhaul the way math and science is taught.
Someone linked to this illustrated introduction in another thread: http://adit.io/posts/2013-04-17-functors,_applicatives,_and_...

It should give you an idea of what monads are, but probably won't tell you why they're useful. They pop up in lots of places in programming, but you might not notice them at first because most languages have a way around them. They're more explicit in Haskell because the type system is powerful enough to make them both explicit and easy to use, via the combination of parametric polymorphism and type classes.

Here are some examples of monads:

* Option types (sometimes called nullable types).
* Many kinds of collections: lists, arrays, trees (but not sets, strictly speaking, because some invariants don't hold when treating sets as monads).
* Types with logging attached (Writer monads).
* Continuations.

Furthermore, Haskell's list comprehensions can be thought of as syntactic sugar for monadic operations, in addition to the usual do notation.

Monads are useful because they let you add context to normal values -- any context you want, really. Often, the context just gets called "state", but lots of things are state, really. The monad operations are also useful because they allow you to force a sequence of execution, which is partly why they're also so useful for performing IO: Haskell is designed so that the compiler may re-order operations when it makes sense, and bind lets programmers place a sequential order on parts of the code. This is why the "pipeline" analogy is sometimes used.

An excellent article on monads is "You Could Have Invented Monads", which guides you through discovering several different monads using practical problems: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/08/you-could-have-invented-monad...

As for pg, monads don't pop up too often in untyped languages. While you can implement the monadic operations in an untyped language, it makes much less sense to do so. This is especially true for impure languages such as Lisp.
Don't worry, "environmentalist" movements have gotten way out in front with opposing the ITER project.
People like the things I make, but organizations don't.
p("stupid and greedy" | MBA) > p("stupid and greedy")
However, the best way Howard gets the truth out of his guests is by lying directly to them about a specific piece of their life. By telling them a lie about themselves, the very first reaction they have is to correct it and by doing so, they give the answer he’s searching for.

This is very useful Usenet+ trick to get an answer to a question. You could be nice and simply ask a question: "How can I do X in Y?" and you might get an answer. Maybe.

Or you could simply assert, "It is impossible to do X in Y", and get a flood of replies because, well, xkcd 386 should cover it.

http://xkcd.com/386/

edit: It occurred to me that there may be a practical way to spin this when getting software requirements. For example, you could simply ask, "Is <some quality or feature or behavior> important?" Ir you could phrase it as an assertion: "OK, so I'm assuming that <some quality or feature or behavior> is not important." Or some variation.

I wonder if that difference in phrasing leads to getting better details. That is, in what way does how you phrase something (question or assertion, positive or negative) push a response in one direction or another?
You should also remember that anybody giving you a negative reaction might just be having a bad day for totally different factors. This is especially true on social media, where it's so easy to blow off some steam by writing a snarky remark without thinking about how it's going to be interpreted.

So whenever someone isn't very nice with me, I prefer to assume that they're a nice person who just happens to have bumped their toe into a table leg or something.
K so you got an MBA and want to work for your big $$$ corporate employer. Carry on. But please dont blog crap.
True enough. In hindsight, I made a silly generalization.
That's neat, but is something wrong? I get this error on your site: https://cloudup.com/cti8Egu8fQS
> One of the great benefits of business school is meeting entrepreneurial people.

Sadly, this puts the article into perspective right from the start. Not to put BS people down, but this is going to be a very limited perspective on the goals, dangers, and prospects of doing a startup.

> Is a cupcake shop making $100k successful? Depends on the owner. If his alternative is a $65k factory job, yes. If he left a $250k legal job to do it, no: the business destroys $150k of wealth every year. Yikes!

I can think of any number of reasons why it might still be a win. You might be much happier making a 100k with cupcakes than spending your life doing soulless lawyer things. You might make amazing cupcakes, enriching the world around you. Your legal job might be a dead end. You might feel that life is short and you want to do something you like. You might want to experiment. You might have a really cool idea for a cupcake shop concept. And, technically, no wealth is destroyed at all.

> I have no problem with someone going this route, but it doesn't make sense for me: my lifestyle would not be improved by working more hours for less money at greater risk.

If you're not willing to work more hours for less money at greater risk, my intuition says you're probably not going to create something really outstanding either. If immediate and assured rewards are what's driving you, keep going up the corporate ladder because this is exactly what your personality type warrants. But without taking risks, being creative, occasionally working your ass off, and potentially failing sometimes, your chances for achieving greatness will also be significantly reduced.

> Corporate can be fun.

That depends on your personality. With everything stated so far in the article, yes, corporate is the way to go for you. Other people? Not so much. Going corporate is not intrinsically fun, and nothing else is either for that matter. If an environment fits you, chances are you'll thrive there and find fun in it.

> Value gets us paid.

That depends on your definition of value. Clearly, I would say the danger here is the tendency to simplify this, by assuming pay is always tightly coupled to value, and hence the value of something can be derived from looking at the wealth of the person doing it. Which is a bad path to be on, in my opinion.
You spend a significant part of your life working. If you enjoy it, it's worth more than if you hate it.

Time isn't money; time is infinitely more precious.
From the "outside", it doesn't end. But consider world A and world B. They are pulled apart from interacting with each other, so they can't do anything to the A-B superposition like they used to. From inside world A, the entanglement seems to have ended because no matter what scientists(world A) do to coin_1(world A), it doesn't affect coin_2(world A). Likewise in world B.
My feeling is that it's very interesting book even for high school kids.
I would read it like this:

The result of the computation m bound to the function f. The result of that bound to the function g.

...is equivalent to

lambda x where the result of f of x is bound to the function g.
That's awesome, especially for a help site. My company does the same thing with our documentations.
Nothing wrong with it, it's just mildly unpleasant having to scroll through multiple pages, and the membership isn't quite worth it if you only view an article once in a blue moon...
Is there some reason to think health-care related "Job Lock" is a thing in the US after COBRA and HIPPA?
I really like the idea that a product has legs if people love it or they hate it. If everyone is in the middle, they're apathetic, and you're not on to anything.

I'm relaunching a website I've been running for years and I'm relentless about customer service and community management. I don't know how EVERYONE is going to react that's already a member of my site, but I know some people are going to love it, and that's way better than thousands of apathetic users with only a tiny fraction coming back every day. I can't wait.
Quite a few statements made here with little personal experience to back them up. I'm a startup founder for the last four years and would not trade it in for anything - even the difficult experience of taking my company through Techstars and then having a split with my co-founder right after.

Startups aren't for everyone but what you learn about yourself, doing business, customers, markets, etc... should not be ignored.

Corporate jobs are also not for everyone but there are many this you learn on that environment that is invaluable too.

I say fuck the odds, keep your job and build something, and sell it. If you can't sell enough of it then figure out why and what's next.

On my phone please excuse typos.
TL;DL !
e.g a huge earthquake or a tsunami as
in Japan's case, or maybe an attack
...
faith in the human operators

To enumerate some regretably normal human factors:

1. deliberate procedural over-complication in the name of job security (political hazard)

2. disgruntled operator sabotage (political, but maybe that qualifies as an attack?)

3. operator error

4. operator laziness

5. operator incompetance

6. operator experimentation (experimentation was the cause of Chernobyl, after all)