skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One more note: When you are in a room with an air conditioner running, if after a few hours someone asked you do hear that air conditioner, most people would say no. If the air conditioner suddenly turned off everyone would notice how loud the air conditioner really was the whole time. This is similar to what ADHD was like for me. It wasn't until it was gone and then suddenly back that I finally started to grasp its real affects on me.

I spent most my life post high school life wondering if I had "ADHD". In high school I was clueless. I didn't know any one who had ADHD or about the disease. I just assumed I was super lazy. So even though I was feeling horrible everyday, because it was everyday: I couldn't compare it to anything. I just assumed I was feeling normal.

In fact there was so much stigma about "Is ADHD real, do I really have it?". Even after I was able to turn it off and then back on, at first I really didn't accept that it was that different. I was in major denial (I wanted to take responsibility for my laziness and not blame some "fake" disease). It wasn't until I was on Paleo full time for about 6 months and then I had a piece of bread and the horrible feelings started rushing back into my brain that I started to finally admit to myself that ADHD is real and that I have it.

And then my girl friend started to point out and get upset every time I cheated on Paleo because I would turn in to "Mr. Hyde" being rude, immature and very annoying. At first she hated the idea of me trying some fad diet. She loves cooking and hated what this change meant. Now she is my biggest cheerleader. Partially for my happiness, but to a large degree for her own.

So I can I can identify with a lot of the people who are advocating ADHD isn't a real disease, I was there. I can also say that attitude of shaming people (blaming the persons attitude, will power and not their brain chemistry), really fucked me up, to the point where I couldn't admit to myself how real the disease is for a long time. I went on and off Paleo for about 8 months before I finally, told my self this helps enough to be worth while. From my relapses, I can tell you it helps me in HUGE, HUGE way. I was in a lot of denial.

I also want to point out for me it was hard to admit that Paleo actually proved I had ADHD (I am not just super lazy). Years of beating myself up made this very hard. So if you do decide to try paleo, do it for at least 30 days. Keep a journal of how you feel at least once a week and then on the 30th day eat a bunch of bread, milk and sugar and journal how you feel. Try to get some work done. If you actually have the same allergy I have, the sooner you fully accept it the sooner you will start to heal the emotional wounds.
Reflex and intuition can be at odds with creativity. They embody things we already know. There is often a natural, organic-feeling quality to the "spark of genius," but the process leading up to that point (considering problems from other angles, reasoning abstractly) is itself more a "System 2" thing.

Or at least that's one idea. Certainly we should separate the claims that "creativity requires discipline" and "executing on creative ideas requires discipline". The latter is certainly uncontroversial, but I haven't thought long enough about the former to know whether I agree with it.
AVA ESCORT GAMEPLAY
Do you think 4-5 months learning Java, C# or C++ are enough to start taking on projects? I doubt honestly. Contrary to learning one specific language and getting decent enough (to take on projects) at one of its frameworks like Rails, Node or Django would be a lot faster and feasible within 5 months.
I see that the link was hit by some kind of penalty before a moment, and dropped from the frontpage to the third page. Annoying.
This may be the wrong timming, but I'll dare say it anyway: OOP (and OOP-like namespaces) is the best known approach for creating modularity. Other approaches are so far behind that they are not even in the same game.

Yet, there is an entire generation of programmers that learned OOP at school, and are hitting that hammer on everything, hoping for it to be a nail. That's all that's wrong with OOP: it does not solve all the problems in the world.
Answer to auggierose's comment above: Yes you can prove that sqrt(2) is irrational.

This is actually a great example, because it doesn't need excluded middle. Equality of rational numbers is decidable, which means that classical reasoning is provable. And yes, even if it wasn't, it would still work.

Edit: Ok, this was apparently confusing, so let me repeat it here. Yes, the same proof works. This form of excluded middle is entirely unproblematic.
DISCLAIMER: I've written a lot of ebuilds (Gentoo), but only tried Deb a few times.

I'd argue it's way easier. Here is an example of packaged nginx https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/servers/ht...

In a nutshell, you need to know the following:

- be familiar with basics of Nix language (shouldn't take more than an hour reading that chapter in Nix manual)

- be familiar with basics how mkDerivation function works and how are the phases of packaging bound to it (shouldn't take more than a hour reaind that chapter in Nixpkgs manual)

- take a simple package you want to try, copy some existing one and modify it to fit the needs

Also see https://nixos.org/wiki/Main_Page#Contributing_to_Nix_Project...
That wasn't a fix since the Senators are no longer beholden to the states so they don't consider budgets. Look at the debt and bills that negatively impact states. It just moved the corruption and added lobbying in DC.
Probably what will matter is not just detecting your face, but what you do with that, like https://github.com/thearn/webcam-pulse-detector

Anyway, would go a bit forward into computer vision/opencv, not just face detection, but body/objects detection using that information to build things.
I guess he means for the people who commented on things he did, ie: his relatives. They did not know of his experience/the projects he had worked on - they did not know his "Github" work, and only recognized bigger brands & universities names.
If you read the comment carefully again, its author is not excusing this kind of behaviour, but simply saying that he/she understands where this kind of behaviour is coming from.
Pah. Chickens are for the budget low-end steadicams. Real pros use owlcams: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hBpF_Zj4OA
It may have been naive, but you lost me the moment you said she is "partly at fault".
Just... Wow. I suppose essays are the same, cut and paste from Wikipaedia?
First, your use of the word "most" is inherently incompatible with the phrase "quite safe".

Second, why would a version control system make it so difficult to roll back to an old version that it's easier to restore from backup? This is insane.

Third, I'm well aware of this, and of course you should be making backups of your git repositories (and everything else). But those backups should be there to protect against hardware failure and other external data-loss events, not protect against git itself.
These principles taught me to think in object oriented ways.

Object orientation is a black box to many and many people think they program object orientated, only because they program in Java or C#. But that's not true. Object Orientation is about program architecture. Learning OO-Pattern is essential for this task and to know the guiding principles of good architectures. Start SOLID and you are save.
The comment takes pains to separate Lena Chen, who provoked her harassment (by writing a blog that the commenter disapproves of), from Kathy Sierra, who is at least pure of heart. Later downthread, the same commenter diagnoses Lena Chen as mentally ill. No, I don't think I've misread the comment.
Anyone willing to take a shot at a good, concise definition of creativity?
so you wish, for example, that more soldiers on both sides had died during WWII?
> maybe even more useful for some students

Maybe. But I've never met those students at real life (ok, I have a very small sampling set). The imperative paradigm is easier to learn.
Data Center Energy Retrofits [pdf]
Sadly, a single chapter doesn't make the whole argument - you do kind of need to read the whole book. But your immediate objection is covered in the immediately following chapter, called "The Stability Problem". That one doesn't seem to have been webbed as a single page, but you can go to the book pdf, search for "the stability problem" in the index and click the link to jump right there. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

From the intro:
> Anyone with a little imagination can dream up a radical new structure for society, anarcho-capitalist or otherwise.
The question is, will it work? Most people, when they hear my description of anarcho-capitalism for the first time, immediately explain to me two or three reasons why it won't. Most of their arguments can be reduced to two: The system will be at the mercy of the mafia, which can establish its own 'protection agency' or take over existing ones and
convert them into protection rackets. Or else the protection agencies will realize that theft is more profitable than
business, get together, and become a government.

The text that follows explores and answers that objection, always keeping in mind that utopia is not an option - our existing system already is a cartel that screws its customers in many ways and is very hard to hold accountable for its actions. "perfect" isn't an option, but "better" might be achievable.
No full tcp stack in assembly? =p

(Yes there's no point as it's better in hardware blah blah)
Try the game at http://test.notch.net/ld28/ld28.html
Show HN: Weelin
What is it about "today's world" that makes software require a larger code base? If anything, we have much higher-level languages which require far less code than in the olden days. Anyway, my point was more about the unix nature of building small programs, that do one thing well, and using those progams in combination.
Except there are quantified types, so `forall a. Functor a => a` is the type of "all types instantiating Functor" and `forall a. Applicative a => a` is a subtype. These are commonly used due to the implicit forall quantification.

Edit: I'm rusty here, but after re-reading the LSP I'd also say that existential types could exhibit subtyping as the set of statements provable about them is often exactly those provable about the universally quantified type.
Perhaps they have warehouses full of chickens who do the video stabilizing, just like their armies of pigeons for search? - http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html
sooooo much better than SASS or LESS which require additional tools that break workflow.
I would love to see some good examples on how to create custom development environments. ie one for erlang, C, oz etc
Since there seams to be no online video (yet), could you please list the principles added?

Also, not everybody has the possibility to visit a conference in Australia.
Just to be clear: are you thinking of buttering the inside or the outside of a sandwich?

In the UK, standard practice is to butter sandwiches on the inside, ie on the surfaces of the bread which interfaces with the filling. Are you by any chance talking about buttering the outside?
haha, yeah, i remember having to learn all the blending functions and about render order for transparency, etc. writing my first open gl game. he's a better coder than me, but I think he would be better off looking up some sample code or a text book sometimes
Of course they have the right to say how they feel.

But if they keep saying, screaming really, for 5 years when it's not really relevant to the discussion any more and only keeps damaging her life, then it's (IMO) wrong.
Ultimate Compilation of Reddit's Favorite Books
I miss my TI-92+ as well. It feels like an iPad has enough screen real estate to be able to simulate the same experience, and I was surprised that nobody has done it yet.

Edit: looks like there are some good options for Android that actually emulate TI calculators, and apparently TI has Nspire for the iPad.
It's true that if you make programming more difficult to learn then you will self-select only programmers who are especially dedicated or intelligent.

I've never quite got this. Spend any time writing code that's not using classes and you end up reinventing OOP anyway.

I think that letting beginners rediscover this for themselves and then exposing language constructs that make this easier probably allows a smoother path to enlightenment.

It's often not obvious to beginners why copy-pasting code a bunch of times is bad compared to using loops and functions for example. It certainly wasn't for me, until I tried to build a program that was not highly trivial.
I agree with the author for the most part, however here is my experience:

I have taught three people how to program (not a large sample size I know...) each one I have chosen a different approach. It honestly depends more on the individual than the language.

Individual 1: They were interested in history, video games, politics and desired to learn programming. For him, he seemed more interested in the history of programming, so I chose to help him learn BASIC as his first language simply because of the history associated with it (I could have chose FORTRAN or COBOL). He enjoyed it more because he could connect, he thrived off imagining the other early programmers writing in BASIC. Further, he felt as if he was building and learning in a similar fashion to most programmers and that made him want to learn more languages advancing in a similar fashion.

Individual 2: For her, NetLogo was the simple choice. She understood nothing of programming and honestly did not want to at the time, but knew she needed programming knowledge to help her obtain a job in biology in the future. NetLogo offered a way to both teach her the basics of programming (objects, loops, etc.) while being pretty fun, we made an eco-system. This actually excited her about programming to the extent that she is now learning python and joined ACM.

Individual 3: For him Ruby was probably the best introduction to programming, he was interested in learning how to develop website applications. Due to the fact he had no programming experience and was interested in web applications it seemed clear (to me) that Ruby was going to be the easiest way for him to learn to program. He loved it, and has since moved on to learning C, since it turns out he loved the control programming offers him.

The point, is that each programming language has a community/documentation and specific uses, it depends on personality and what ones goals are when determining what language to learn first. Since I have always been interested in both improving myself and others I have read a few books on the subject, my favorite is The Talent Code [1]. The book explains that each person has a different personality/experiences and in turn "learn best" in different ways, which is essentially what I employed here (without explicitly meaning to).

I agree with the author that Python (in many cases) is the best language to have a want-to-be programmer learn. It offers simplicity, logic, standard libraries, community, and tutorials in abundance, however it may not excite a person or have applications in what a persons interests are (which can reduce enthusiasm and in turn learning).

[1] http://thetalentcode.com/
Exactly. As I understand it, HLE programs that use XACQUIRE and XRELEASE should run fine on older hardware. I suspect Intel's play here is to get the technology into mainstream compilers and libraries quickly, to make their Haswell and newer processors look good on benchmarks without special compiler flags.
I think they don't do this because of consistency with other declarations like url() and the sort. CSS needs to be fast to process and easy to understand.
I moved from the US to Ireland a year ago, and while I love it here the constant vigilance against sandwiches slathered in mayonnaise and butter can be exhausting. I go to the sandwich shop and they helpfully ask "Butter or mayo?" - to which I respond "mustard", and immediately reveal myself as an outsider.

I thought garlic fries, like the sort at Giants games, were delicious! Some garlic, olive oil, parmesan, etc. I was shocked to discover that here and in the UK garlic chips consist of chips (fries) with garlic-accented mayonnaise spread all over them.

And don't call it Aoli. That's just dressing up a disgusting condiment with a fancy word.
Actually, some authors define objects as functions with an internal state. In that sense, objects derive from functions.

For instance, in OCaml, the function "counter" defined as:
"let counter = let x = ref 0 in fun _ -> x := !x + 1; !x ;;"
is an object with one method that increments and returns the value of a counter.

In my opinion, OOP is intrinsically more complicated that FP because you can't really avoid complex patterns even to do simple things.

An example that comes to mind is the "Visitor" pattern. To me, it requires more mental gymnastic than what is found in most functional programs. It amounts to mixing higher order and functions with state which is something you try to avoid in FP.

But I admit that I'm not well-versed in OOP. I've always found it complicated. Not Objects per se, but design of big programs using classes with complex relations, UML, design patterns and so on...
I TAd a CS101 course in grad school. I saw a number of students try do something like this:

func(if(x == 5) foo else bar)

In other words, treating an "if...else" statement as something that can be reduced to a value. This frustrated the students because it did not compile. We had to train them to think in terms of sequential execution, despite the fact that they did not become any better at programming in the process (worse, they had to un-learn a perfectly valid way to think about programming -- only to have to re-learn it later if they took the programming languages course).
The fact that you can't know all of your future targets will support that is a problem.

Endian issues are also a big problem here. The need to byte-swap everything eliminates a lot of the convenience.

It's also way too easy to make breaking changes to the struct, since there's no standard way to mark a struct as being something that you serialize/deserialize, and normally you can change struct fields at will in C code.

Just take the extra five minutes to write code to translate between your struct and a stream of bytes. It'll be easier to understand, less risky, and more compatible.
I've found that nested rules are useful on almost every stylesheet. That, and variables, are the two main LESS features I use.
We don't have good examples documented yet, sorry. There are some (rather poor) wiki articles how to achieve that at https://nixos.org/wiki/Howto_develop_software_on_nixos#Obtai...
My terminology isn't great, but what I'm talking about in practice is usually what happens as the next step after someone gets talked down from using existential types all over the place.

I'm personally a big fan of existential types, but they usually don't need to be explicit. One place that shows up on Hackage that's worth studying is Edward Kmett's `folds` library. The type, Data.Fold.L.L is a codata type

data L = forall r . L (r -> b) (r -> a -> r) r

It uses existential typing for efficiency, but doesn't need to. Instead, it just helps to show the encapsulation going on here---you literally cannot examine `r` in any way besides applying some of the bundled functions (methods, destructors).

The existential type highlights that L is acting as codata, but it's usually not recommended in practice as existential types are a little hard to manage. You could write L more simply and eliminate the `r` data

data L = L b (a -> L)

by just pre-applying the existentially typed data to each of its destructors and rebundling new L types where necessary.

In any case, the point is that it's easy to build a variety of L variants, but hard to extend new operations on Ls.
You are knee-jerk reacting to what you perceive as victim-blaming. I am arguing that the beliefs of people need to change for it to be possible to 'just ignore it'. So yes, the solution ultimately is 'just ignore it', but because circumstances are such that ignoring it is possible. And because that is possible, it wouldn't happen in the first place. So I'm not saying either of the women mentioned could solve their current problem by 'ignoring it'.

Though experiment: suppose there were only three people in the world: you, a girl I vaguely knew and someone you both didn't know and didn't communicate with. In that case, the 'someone' couldn't possibly harass the girl by posting nasty online comments, because you and her just wouldn't have any reason to care. If there was a fourth, an ex-boyfriend, who posted nude picture online, but was otherwise not a threat and not being an ass, then there still needn't be any reason to care. Extrapolate to a world.

P.S. What do you consider 'big words'?
The road to hell is paved with agile intentions
Agreed, and also the filesystem. I think you may be looking for lwIP and Contiki.
At my Uni, we learned C first, then OOP in C++, then Java.
Would understanding structures be useful before trying to learn classes in any OOP language? If you understand how structures are stored in memory, would that provide the foundation for understanding class instantiation? I feel the answer is yes, and the optimal language before OOP is C. Other aspects of C that help prepare for OOP - pointers: how they are stored and referenced, pointers to functions (so you will understand object references), native data types and the memory that they consume. A foundation in these aspects prepare one for any OO language.
Yeah, the problem with OpenConnect is that every time they bump the 'cstub' binary on the cisco remote end, OpenConnect stops working until you grab the new one somehow.

('cstub' is a wonderful program that is downloaded over HTTP and runs as root. It's supposed to monitor security, or something. I did mention I run this on a VM, right?)
> Later downthread, the same commenter diagnoses Lena Chen as mentally ill.

Right, just like you have a habit of casually, publicly diagnosing michaelochurch as mentally ill (I think this is the fourth time I've seen you do this just in the last 2 months).

Anyway, small nitpick: Lena actually did have mental illnesses. On her blog she's spoken of substance abuse, self-image issues she had, paraphilia etc.
> implies acts that were legal for the first 150 years of the USA and will also be legal tomorrow, just happen to mean long prison terms today.

It was legal for a long time for private parties to discriminate against racial minorities as well, but majoritarian consensus eventually made that illegal. Adulterating food products wasn't illegal but now is legs, most financial crimes didn't exist, etc. Society's views evolve over time and the structure of the law should keep pace.

> That is indefensible, yet it is what your theory commits you to defend.

What's indefensible about it? Why shouldn't people be allowed to structure their society the way they want? What makes you think that the structure people want won't change over time?

The alternative is to bind people to fixed rules that they can't change, as if they're handed down from God.
Future will never arrive. It is present always.
The notion of warnings is not that it the behavior is broken, or even wrong, but rather dangerous. A good solution would be to include a pragma or such that that would allow programmers to say "I recognize this is dangerous, but it is correct".

Even better would be a pragma that allows you to say the above, and also point to a test/test_suit that verifies that the specific case is still working right and warns on "something has changed, test foo no longer holds, here's the associated warning as a hint".