skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As Friedman said, the ultimate end is the search for the acceptable means, and I think your little exchange highlights this pretty well.

Turns out, ideologies are rather good at branding themselves to appeal to all kinds of people, and at first blush, most ideologies sound eminently reasonable. That in no way implies that the actions of adherents to such ideologies are the same, or that the overall structure of the ideology couldn't lead to disagreeable outcomes.

The whole declaring equality and rights for all is the easy bit; that's just the ultimate end. The means, the dirty work of "defining, establishing, and defending", is where everything can and does go to hell. Feminists are just as susceptible to this problem as everyone else, and when they get it especially wrong, they create the blowback you are seeing.
The automated mechanisms use both methods to control the aircraft, depending on the mode they're in. One of the links in the chain of errors that led to the crash of Asiana 214 was that the AP was in the wrong mode for a period of time (during a critical part of the approach).
It's precisely about noise. I suppose you haven't had to deal with the kind of people I have or else you may not be regurgitating this politically correct trite. It is simply objectively superior for one man to be understood better than another. It is about the other persons ability to understand them with as little effort as possible, and when you need to ask them "Hey, wait, explain what you mean by this [fucking gibberish noise]" you have just lost time and patience. Respect is not something one is entitled to.

I mean, shit, how is this any different from me jumping in and contributing to a Git repo the language of which I haven't mastered? Should I not lose respect when my PR's have syntax errors or use bad practices? Fuck that noise indeed.
> This is a dangerous idea. Why? Because it starts with the idea that single-sex schools are better, then proceed to attempt to prove that point with studies

I'm sorry, someone who attempts to prove their point with studies will always be more persuasive than another's hand waving.

>But attending college and getting better grades is not the goal.

Again, there are many people for whom educational attainment is important.

>Do students who attend same-sex schools [...] push society forward in the underlying principals of a better civilization? Do they make the world better

I'd say better education is a pretty big component of pushing society forward and making the world better. Why force everyone to attend co-ed schools? If some want to attend single-sex schools and this has proven educational benefits, let them do so.

>For comparison, the United States is ranked 22nd [in the world in gender equality]

A big part of which has been played by a well-known group of single-sex schools [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(colleges)
Let's dig deeper. Is there any proof that any educational system can better prepare students to be successful in life. To put it another way, has the null hypothesis of education (education makes no difference for life outcomes) been ever falsified?

Consider this study for example[1] which suggests that schools were more tools of indoctrination than improvement.

We find that public schools offered practically zero return education on the margin, yet they did enjoy significant political and financial support from local political elites, if they taught in the “right” language of instruction.

Or this one[2], according to which, being suspended (so: missing school) makes no difference in academic outcomes.

[1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w19690

[2] http://ftp.iza.org/dp7794.pdf
> Teens will find ways to socialize with each other whether or not they're in a single-sex environment.

Based on experience, I would say that for teens (especially earlier teens) in single-sex schools have far fewer ways to socialise with their peers of the opposite sex. This should be obvious.

> School isn't the epicenter of all social interaction during a person's youth, nor should it be.

Based on experience, I would say that teens (especially earlier teens) the place where they spend 8 hours or more per day is in fact crucial to their social interactions. This should be obvious.
I don't know, that's a good question. Perhaps to where they feel most safe? Or perhaps in which learning style they most fit in?

The question also reveals the imperfection of the solution. What of the boys who identify as male, but think/learn/are motivated more like girls are? And vice versa? If we were thinking purely in terms of effectiveness, we would instead devise a test that would determine which teaching style would best suit you.

But then these boys would likely be a small minority in girls classes, would that lead to social problems for them? Would it be preferable to just go to a boys class for them?
Useful article but too small content for this important theme.
WRT anecdotes, you need to statistically correct for the vast number of guys who would agree with the same statement with "same sex" crossed out.
In the same vein (linked at the bottom of the article): http://prog21.dadgum.com/156.html
Thanks for the recommendation for SymCalc, I've just downloaded it. I had been using TouchCalc and GraphCalc but this is much better!
That struck down the doctrine of 'separate but equal' as a lie. But it wasn't the separate that was the problem, it was the equal.

If you could truly prove that you could have separate and better, Brown v. Board of Education would not apply.
It's more that classes just don't behave the same as `class` in an OOP sense. You can create a subtype hierarchy using typeclasses—Functor->Application->Monad->MonadPlus/Applicative is a great example and the `lens` hierarchy is an even more sophisticated one.

But these are subtype hierarchies, not subclass hierarchies. Furthermore, classes don't necessarily provide you with the full convenience of an object, though they can come close. Finally, people aren't used to working in codata and Haskell doesn't make it easy, so you have trouble there, too.
Choosing the singlesexschools.org domain would be poor judgement on your part; as would publishing a biased report without reference to how you ensured its veracity. If your original research was complete and unbiased, you ought to be proud to show that in your work and in your choice of headline domain.

The idealist but misguided situation you describe is not the case here, anyway. This reaseach was published by a group formerly known as the NASSPE - the National Association for Single Sex Public Education.
It's also easy enough to define new variants in Haskell if you package things as codata. I feel it's less to do with OOP/FP and more to do with whether you're using data or codata.
"The shift from procedural to OO brings with it a shift from thinking about problems and solutions to thinking about architecture."

Interesting thinking, never thought of it this way.
Clever, but not quite good enough for us to parse our notes with. If you type a time such as "14:30PM" it can't detect it, but if you put a space before the "PM" then it works fine. Also, if the time is in 24-hour, then you don't need the "AM/PM" but it can't detect this.
Well, no shit sherlock. You also don't start teaching people to drive a manual car by telling them to use all 5 gears and drive on the highway.

I would have thought this was self-evident.
I've spent time conducting basic flight training for international students (including Korean) and am now an airline pilot. Though I don't have much experience with international operations, what I saw as an instructor is freshly minted pilots going back to their home countries and immediately being put into the right seat of an airliner. Many of these students were very poor pilots, however, as long as they have the money, the flight training machine that exists in states like Florida will keep training them, and international airlines will continue to hire the product. It's a matter of national pride for many countries to be able to employ their own citizens as pilots. Many will cease learning as soon as they leave flight school due to the poor training environments that exist in some places.

Going from a small prop plane to an airliner is perfectly acceptable. It's been going on for a long time and can produce safe pilots, but those pilots need to understand basic stick and rudder flying and continue to hone their skills. Unfortunately, many get started using the automation and allow their flying skills to atrophy. This is true for long-time airline pilots as well.

In the US, by the time a pilot has reached the cockpit of something like a 777, they've gained quite a bit of experience flying smaller prop planes and regional jets, which require a little more work on the part of the pilot. The visual approach assigned to Asiana Flight 214 is a non-issue to US airlines. It's a routine, every day occurrence that doesn't cause one to become "very concerned", however, many countries choose to focus their pilot training more on managing automation than flying the aircraft, and I think that cultural difference played a big part in this crash.

Talk to a US airline pilot who has worked with a training department internationally. The stories you'll hear are pretty eye opening.
How Good Is Your Business At Reading Weak Signals?
Ludum Dare #27 had about 2200 games, from both the Compo and the Jam.
"This is a dangerous idea."

Ideas are dangerous. I think you mean "this is a flawed article because it starts out to buttress a preconception rather than examine the data and then find a conclusion."

"we don't REALLY know how random this is"

Seriously? It's probably at least as random as any random assignment to condition in US college labs (I speak from a great deal of experience here). We're talking huge n values and a system that presumably at least has some level of public scrutiny (again, unlike US college labs). Why compare to US college labs? Because that's where most accepted social science research labs comes from.

In any event, I see two major flaws in the initially cited study that are far more obvious and problematic than this.

1. Not everyone is Korean. Culture does matter. (Not everyone is a US college freshman either, of course.)

And worse:

2. The outcome is measured entirely in terms of going to a 4-year college (good) vs. not going (bad). Not, for example, being "happy" 20 years later. Or graduating from college even.

Anyway, what would we expect from a rambling rant hosted on the domain singlesexschools.org.
As much as play and experiment helps foster growth and not to take away from the point of the article, let's not forget the value of discipline and conformity in developing creative expression and, ultimately, freedom. The most creative pianist played countless scales, likely more than less creative ones, despite scales being mechanical. Same with dancers and footwork, athletes with sprints, and so on.

I am influenced by Martha Graham -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Graham -- often called the Picasso of dance, who said about discipline, conformity, and freedom:

The dancer is realistic. His craft teaches him to be. Either the foot is pointed or it is not. No amount of dreaming will point it for you. This requires discipline, not drill, not something imposed from without, but discipline imposed by you yourself upon yourself. … Your goal is freedom. But freedom may only be achieved through discipline. In the studio you learn to conform, to submit yourself to the demands of your craft, so that you may finally be free.

Few people matched her creative output and development.

I wrote more about this topic since it's important to me -- http://joshuaspodek.com/master-speaks-creative-expression and http://joshuaspodek.com/model-foundation-personal-freedom

(Edit: to jahaja's question "Do I misunderstand you when I feel that you are equating creativeness with success?", I don't know a perfect definition of creativity, but as I use it, I include some sense of problems solving. Creating something useless doesn't feel "creative" to me, so in the sense of solving a problem, as I use the term, creativity has some element of success.)
Another reason I approve of Python has a first language is Turtle[1]. It allows new programmers to approach problems in a modular way, i. e., if they have to draw a pyramid, they'll easily learn why a draw_square() function is important. You can extend this way of thinking to many other exercises using Turtle.

Additionally, it makes students have fun programming, since it gives them some graphical power and making a computer draw things is much more exciting than making a computer print things on a terminal (especially for newcomers). Plus, even though it's very simple, you can write some very interesting stuff with Turtle[2].

[1]: http://docs.python.org/3.0/library/turtle.html

[2]: https://github.com/FranciscoMSM/IPRP/blob/master/4linha.py
"Or perhaps in which learning style they most fit in?"

This brings up the nightmare scenario where in the name of equality, by law girls are not allowed to compete (including sports?) and boys are not allowed to learn by discussion / cooperation.

Given the fixation my educators had on forcing more or less all male EE and CS students to do group labs and group programming projects and group discussion in class and group participation grades, and implementing grade inflation such that your grade is pretty much your attendance record and there's not much point in competing, by the theory that girls can only learn socially not competitively then all male establishments are already doing everything they can to make life harder on the men and easier on the women, short of the proposals like outright segregation "separate but equal" and all that.
> you could shave a few bytes

This is practically axiomatic in assembly language programming.

It's just not worth it to turn you code into what you'd need to turn it into in order to make it as small (or as fast) as it can possibly be on that specific version of that specific microarchitecture from that specific manufacturer, such work being undone by the next version of the hardware.

> AT&T syntax will always look weird to me

AT&T syntax is meant to be a generic assembly language syntax; it's supposed to look equally weird to everyone, regardless of what CPU they're writing code for. GAS will accept Intel syntax, or a somewhat heterodox variant thereof. NASM is the usual assembler of choice on modern x86 Unix-a-likes, I think.

http://www.nasm.us/

> A little bit of candid swearing in the comments?

Hey, if the Linux kernel devs can do it, why not them?
I disagree. OOP is not a difficult concept and not hard to teach. For an example of what happens when "OOP must not be taught to beginners", see PHP.
Porting the WORTOMAT App to Firefox OS - Lessons Learned
It always surprised me that GCC has no source-level way of controlling compiler warnings.

Many programmers (and gcc apparently) live with the assumption that compiler warnings must always be fixed. This is largely false. Compiler warnings are there to help with additional information, not to be something to fix. There are many cases where the compiler issues a warning which must be ignored.

Many compilers support pragmas to silence a specific warning class in a specific point in the code. IMHO it's a much better approach to silence just a single warning instance where you know the compiler is getting the wrong assumption than silencing a whole warning class like the article suggests.

But it seems that in GCC you have no choice. Instead, code written with/for gcc often silences the warning by inserting some dummy code. For instance, the "unitialized warning" is usually fixed by assigning the variable to itself. It's shitty to look at, and someone that doesn't know this trick might wonder why this is being done.

I've reported a feature request many years ago, and it was quickly closed...
IMHO, the thing that new programmers really struggle with is learning how to break a problem down into the steps their language allows them to express. Lots of people have never had to logically think out and algorithm to do simple things and it takes them lots of practice to understand how to do that.

For example, suppose I'm a new programmer given the notional task of making a program to make me a sandwich, can I just:

makeSandwich();

and be done with it?

Or do I need to break it down to the n-th degree?

//make bread
bread=harvestwheat();
bread=millwheat();
bread=bread+water;
//and so on

is that the right way to even make bread? Or do I already have bread I can work with someplace?

Do I?

Sandwich=bread+jam+butter+bread;

Or

Sandwich=Sandwich.add(bread).add(jam).add(butter).add(bread);

Or do I need to do something else? Maybe this particular programming environment doesn't need me to make bread, but I have to transform a milk object into butter for some reason that seems entirely random to the new programmer. Who knows? Lots of the things that we take for granted seem entirely arbitrary to the new programmer and learning to break a problem down in a way that maps to the environment is a very hard problem to learn to solve repeatedly.

edit in a way this is a common topic even on HN with the "do x in n number of line" posts that are common.
It's easy to "go through the trouble" of picking the matching third-party sources and rejecting non-matching third-party sources. If you are an association trying to present one viewpoint (as this is), that's pretty much your first job.

The article here touts the word "random", which is essential to the science of the claim - but despite being claimed repeatedly, it remains totally unexamined.

There is bias and there is bias - this article makes no attempt to clear any source of bias, and as such is about as biased as you can get.
It looks for infrared light. This will only detect a small subset of surveillance cameras that actively use infrared light for illumination. There are tons of dome cameras, and such that don't use infrared light.

It's a cool art project.

There was a research paper I found on detecting hidden cameras that emitted high power IR light, and looked for reflective sources. Potentially, you could listen to EM noise, and then introduce visual noise to the environment. It turns out, this is a hard problem to actually solve.
Then I guess you haven't suffered through introductory programming texts like "Objects First With Java".
We're not actually measuring educational attainment (whatever that is) but admission into a 4 year college program. This is like measuring the effectiveness of the speed of your network by how many feet of cable you bought. Measuring graduation from a 4-year college program would at least be a measure of attainment of credentials, but this can be gamed simply by lowering bars. (The campaign against high school drop-out rates has largely consisted of making it easier to stay and harder to drop out (rather than actually improve any useful outcomes); the campaign to improve girls' science scores in Australian schools has largely comprised removing science from the science curriculum. Educational research is always plagued by these issues.)

Single sex schools clearly helped improve the lot of women in the US (and other countries). But it's not clear that it was because single sex schools are better than co-ed (which is at issue) or that they are better than no schools at all (which appears blindingly obvious).
Hg is working on a feature that is betaish right now:

http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/ChangesetEvolution

It's been brewing for some time. Basically, the idea is to be able to make it easy to safely edit history collaboratively, with a consistent UI. Facebook is pumping a lot of money into hg right now, and seems particularly interested in getting this feature off the ground.

A number of pieces have been falling into place for this to occur. The first was to have phases, indicators of which commits are safe to edit collaboratively or not, a feature that some git users have wanted:

https://github.com/peff/git/wiki/SoC-2012-Ideas#published-an...

Mercurial now has this feature and uses it as part of the logic for the evolve extension. With this in place, hg is able to transmit metadata that indicates automatically which commits need to be fixed up if you want to edit a commit that someone else has also edited, or if someone edited a commit on top of which you've based off other commits.

The idea is to make something like "git push --force" obsolete. History is safe to edit, and commits can't get lost, not even by accident:

http://www.infoq.com/news/2013/11/use-the-force

By the way, an epilogue to that Jenkins story is that it wasn't completely trivial to recover all lost history, and at least for some of the smaller repos, they never managed to figure out exactly which version was the canonical one.
Day 14 – Asynchronous Programming: Promises and Channels
Deer Killed by Train? 2 BIG Whitetail Bucks Crossing Railroad Tracks
I love this kind of attitude: something seems complex? Throw it out and start again!

Unfortunately, it's usually the problem domain that is complex and starting over just means you have to rediscover all of that complexity all over again. HG has more than its fair share of complicated tasks.
> Come on, real men do not use macros.

The sexism and historical ignorance in this sentence are in a race to see which can be more breathtaking.

Regardless of which wins, meshko will look like a complete fool to anyone who knows what they're talking about.
I really like your argument (probably because you make a point that is important to me), but I think we also have to accept the realities of methodology. The variables which you (and I) would like to measure are much harder to get at. They require more time, good definitions of hard to define things, and more resources. I think the multitude of different ways to measure the happiness and well-being of a person are a good reminder of this. So researchers go for something that is easy to measure in a shorter time frame and which still provides some indication (some studies show correlation between college education and happiness, college education and income). Of course you would like to measure those things directly instead of using a proxy, but for the short term this can be good enough.

You make some interesting connections between different opportunities for girls and boys in South Korea and single-sex schools, but I would be careful to correlate the two. It could very well be that coeducation is helpful in achieving equality on a society level, but maybe after equality has been achieved single-sex education might prove more effective.
Conservation of mass
"It's good practice to own your own name and domain"

Good luck with that. Subdomains make that basically impossible; even large, established corporations with big branding budgets have difficulty with this.

The real problem here is that people still think that if they see something written down, it must be true. People might as well be reading The Weekly World News, though the kind of harassment described here would be well below the standards of WWN.
Why Emacs is a better editor – case study for JavaScript developer
Trying to scare us with the PHP bogeyman? Shame on you!
Difference between spring and Struts?