skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think I could disagree more.

To your first point, Haskell is less complex than imperative languages. You get to functional by removing things from imperative: mutable state, side effects, et al.

To your second point, case studies indicate that it is actually much easier for people who have no prior experience with programming to learn functional languages than to learn imperative ones. They also show that it is easier for novices to learn functional languages than it is for experienced imperative programmers to learn functional languages.

To your third point, the finance industry uses functional languages quite a bit, and almost every mainstream language has adopted some aspects of functional style (at the very least lambdas and map/filter/fold). Further, the historical trend for the past 50 years has consistently been that mainstream languages adopt new features from functional languages, which means that learning those languages will help prepare you for advancements in whatever language you end up using.

Laying a foundation in C is like teaching how to cut down trees in a first class on woodworking. Yes, the lower-level stuff is important to flesh out a thorough understanding of the subject, but it is absolutely not the correct foundation on which to build pedagogically. Following that notion through to its logical conclusion, rather than starting with C you would start with electrical engineering and only move on to programming after the student had built their own computer from scratch.
> the only politicians willing to put money into that fight are either already outnumbered, or just crazy (or smart) enough to vote against their own future reelection

1. This division doesn't fall strictly on party lines, which was my point.

2. With a modicum of cleverness you can get around the immediate issue (politicians don't want to give their opponents a leg up in the next election) by engineering the changes to phase in one position at a time and "lock in place" only when beneficial to the incumbent (e.g. in a year when corporate support backs out for one reason or another).
Paul Adams (macarthur fellow 1986) teaches a class on self organization of the brain, and he begins with similar physics analogies involving phase changes. You can check out his stuff here: http://www.syndar.org/
When does a perceptual schematic become the bitter mote of a soul...
That sounds great, and will definitely help alleviate headaches when the clashes occur.

Have you started playing with strategies to proactively identify potential clashes?
o_O

No. No he did not learn CS from reading Proggit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra#Life_and_wor...
FYI, you can fit about 4370 bits in a Tweet ( https://blogs.oracle.com/ksplice/entry/1st_international_lon... , https://blogs.oracle.com/ksplice/entry/the_1st_international... ).
The G1 was released as a high-end flagship smartphone to compete with the iPhone. The ZTE FxOS phones are low-end smartphones competing in the feature phone market.
My bad I meant Intel but said Google. I had Google on the brain.
Im only posting this because it annoys me that I thought it.

"Knowledge is not power, acting on knowledge is."

At first, I totally agreed. Thought I'd tuck it away as a keeper, a small pearl of wisdom. A good thing, right?

But then the bloody NSA thing floated in to my my mind and ruined it. They have knowledge in the form of all that data they slurp. They haven't acted on the vast majority of it, but many people, including the sort of people the NSA are unlikely to ever be even vaguely interested in, have changed their behavior as a direct result of knowing what the NSA has and what could be done with it. So, NSA does have power from knowledge they are not acting on.

Shame, because I do know what you are getting at.
Well, computers are ultimately matter, but nobody calls, say, a microkernel architecture a "state of matter".

Granted my knowledge of physics is nil compared to that paper's writer, but as far as I know, a "state of matter" doesn't mean "Duh, it's made of matters." It has a (more or less) well-defined meaning. Liquid or plasma is a state of matter. "Having a pleasant smell", "moving on its own", or "with a rounded edge" isn't.

So, you can't just say it's made of matter. You need to justify that "being conscious" is more like the former than the latter.
I agree that describing the actual matter itself as conscious, rather than the object it forms, is a stretch too far. When I die the matter I'm made of will still be exactly the same stuff, but the object it forms will no longer be a human being.
This is a very valid point. It is not clear at all that a single repo for the world is desirable in the long run, despite some of the individual advantages that sort of setup has. It is part of the reason that I don't think we will see the "next generation" of VCS anytime soon. (Which in turn makes me think that "holding out" for those systems, hoping they will rescue you from your scaling problem, is a bad decision. It is best to move to multiple repos sooner rather than later).
I wonder why they didn't list Anita Sarkeesian in the list. Oh wait.
How effective was your algo?

Presumably it would false-negative texts with neologisms and spelling errors and such.

There must be trigrams which simply don't appear in dictionary-English? Do you have results posted somewhere.
They are not refusing to debate.

They have debated this many times over in the past.

What they don't do is repeating that debate every week. It would take a lot of their time and is largely pointless (in the sense that person that starts the debate with 'go sucks because it has no generics' will not be convinced that it was the right (or at least practical) decision to make regardless of how cogent your arguments are).
Why power grid collapse-measures to contain it
If a car company has their own self-driving technology, will they ever pay Google for theirs?
Apparently AMD makes one at least, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7024581

And so does NVIDIA, never heard of their NVS line though.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?gclid=CPr5wO6T77s...
Regarding 1., I actually had an idea for a complete communication suite (email, voice, texting) but anonimized.

The realization came when I was exchanging contact info with a stranger on CL who was selling an iPhone.Why was this person now privy to my G+ profile? my phone number? etc...

The service would create "channels", each with a temporary telephone number (that works with texting) and an email. You use these to communicate with the seller/buyer/whatever and when you're done you disable the channel.

To communicate you would download an app to your phone that allows you to view messages and reply, or even place calls.

Anyways I didn't build it because I wasn't passionate enough about the idea, and I figured it would mostly be used for nefarious purposes. Also, there are some legal implications if somebody becomes the victim of a crime while meeting someone using my anonimized communication service.

Implementation of this technical problem left as an exercise for the person who "steals" this idea.
The purist in me hates the explicit join syntax.

The pragmatist in me remembers too many painful times fighting with overcomplicated "WHERE" clauses and the bizarre (+) syntax in old Oracle servers.

Advantage: pragmatist.

There may be some magical hypothetical relational-theory language where this sort of approach can be cleanly expressed, but Oracle PL/SQL isn't it.
My personal opinion - the best languages for learning are script-able, dynamically typed languages like Ruby or Python. You can build very basic programs in a procedural or functional style, and then get introduced very softly into the world of OO.

Haskell is great in some ways, terrible in others. Like the fact that you can't apply a normal function to a monad, and monads are hidden with do <- syntax, so you need to use monadic functions, and then there's type classes and shit... In Haskell it seems the complexity goes up exponentially and building anything beyond trivial is a huge hassle - no wonder 'design' patterns like FRP seem to be all the rage (while the entire computing landscape is being built on languages like C++ and Java).

Lisp/Scheme are conceptually very simple and easy to learn, but the syntax is hard to follow, and some of the keywords make no sense to someone who's never done any programming.

I personally think Ruby -> Java/C++ would be a great progression, with maybe some SML/OCaml on the side somewhere along the way. I spent way too much time dabbling in various 'trendy' languages like Clojure, Haskell, various Lisps and other FPLs, Ruby and JS/Node, etc... Now I'm at the point where I just want to build things, so I'm using a very practical, OOP, statically-typed, compiled language that many people have already shipped many practical apps with.... Probably not going back to 'trendy' languages.
It's not that Java is a bad language to write programs in per se (platform agnosticism can be a huge help for educational purposes). It's just a bad language to teach programming.
The cited Google paper used a simulated mobile network via USB tethering to a machine with traffic shaping. The AT&T paper used an actual air interface.

The conclusion I drew from the paper was a little different from "SPDY no faster than HTTP on mobile." My conclusion was "Mobile sucks equally hard for any application layer protocol."
> 1) How do you get at the value itself ? (Casting ? That's bad)

You could add the usual map method to the Maybe type - a Maybe<T> can take a Function<T, U>, and returns a Maybe<U>. If it's None, it doesn't call the function, and just returns None; if it's Some, it calls it with the value, and wraps the result in a new Some. If you want to do side-effects conditionally on whether the value is there, you just do them in the Function and return some placeholder value. You could write a trivial adaptor to take an Effect<T> and convert to to a Function<T, Void>, etc.

> 2) How do you prevent in Maybe<Integer> x; x == null ?

You're right that using a Maybe does not exclude the ability to use nulls. Nobody can deny that. The point i was making is that there is nothing useful that you can do with nulls that you cannot do with a Maybe instead.

> 3) How do you prevent someone from extending Maybe<T> ? e.g.

You can trivially control extension by making Maybe an abstract class, giving it a private constructor, and making Some and None static inner classes of it. It's a kludge, but it works!
It may be better for commercial users, because they don't have to give back their improvements, but it's worse for the project itself for the same reason.
No one said that it wasn't possible to use high-frequency sound as a communication vector.

It was the sheer seamlessly interconnected complexity of the entire badBIOS affair that led to skepticism.
Does it need a Java Runtime to run?
Most open offices I have worked in have been quite noisy. Most people end up wearing headphones of some type. I'm not sure how that contributes to information flow and collaboration.

I have worked in some open offices that are designed quite well with noise baffling and spaces broken up such that there wasn't an additive effect of every noise in the larger office being heard.

I prefer some mix.
Is that model similar to the Geeksphone Peak? I have a Keon and it is a bit slow, but the Peak is just as fast as (maybe even faster than) an iPhone, re. launching and switching apps and overall responsiveness. Quite impressive for a HTML5-based system UI.

Regardless, Firefox OS is not actually competing with Android/iOS right now, it's goal is to bring smartphones to the very low end of the market and push open web technologies at the same time. It seems to be working.
Well, the question is, best for what? If the goal is to maximize the amount of Free (as in libre) software, then the GPLv3 is arguably the best choice. If the goal is to provide liberty, as in letting people choose what to do with the code for themselves, then MIT might be a better choice.

The GPL is infectous by choice: If some part of your project is under the GPL, the whole has to be licensed under GPL. This is not the case with the MIT license.
Poof! Zappos Drops Bosses, Invites Bickering
This. Plus why would anyone want to remove fatal injuries from life expectancy? It certainly looks like a legit concern to me.
I'm an early user of Observu. I find Observu a convenient service for monitoring website availability. It is easy to use and thanks to the Observu monitoring dashboard you can drill down quickly to find the reason why your website is slow or even not available.
Also very important to note: being strict works only when the teacher is actually competent. I've had high school teachers whose understanding of math was basically the textbook + epsilon. They were strict in order to keep the class under control, but they did not inspire me to do my best at mathematics.
The idea is that you should not have to modify git or mercurial. Instead of modifying git or mercurial to handle a single repo for your entire company, you should create a system that uses them to handle many repos in your company. You don't need C programmers to do this with git.
As an Spanish speaker it doesn't sound very good. But it is Spanish looking if that's what you are looking for.

Edit: It doesn't mean anything in Spanish but it is similar to "FireFighter" and "BullFighter", the literal literal translation will be "the one who makes bonds".
I look at some of the Kickstarter projects I sponsored (mostly hardware and software) and it seems most of them are a year behind schedule. It is nice to see that I'm not the only one bad at estimating project schedules. :)
How would it be proven and what would he lose?
excellent question!
Basically you could use the SDD solver http://math.mit.edu/~kelner/Publications/Docs/1301.6628v1.pd... in any context where you'd use an SVD (pseudo inverse / least squares) solver, and your matrix is symmetric and diagonally dominant.

The key bit however, is that the SDD solver as above, has really nice asymptotics for sparse matrices.

theres a few fancy algorithms that need to be engineered along the way, and theres also the question about how the constant factors work out in practice!
Why?
If their hardware BOM is $125, MSRP would be around $499. If they wanted to seed some units in the marketplace, they could sell them for essentially landed BOM and not lose anything on it (obviously they can't sell ALL their inventory that way).

If the MSRP is $325, then hardware cost should be sub-$100. So $125 might a breakeven price in terms of cost+basic expenses.
I'm not sure I agree with this, after skimming the paper. For instance, the author does not seem to be using terms like quantum factorization in the usual way (In the sense of a problem tackled by Shor's algorithm).
Can you claim a skin viewer for a specific game as your idea though? Skin viewers for various games have probably been around longer than I've been alive
It's much better to pick something multi-typed and multi-paradigm like C# and be able to show the difference between static and dynamic, imperative and functional, AOP etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_%28data_language_specificatio...

http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/~hugh/CHAP05.pdf
Because "quantum". It's the new "god did it". See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmdJtSwH9O4
The android app seems to work great. That can be a huge advantage. No one else has it :)
Fire is the New Electricity
I don't see why. The "permissive" licenses like BSD and Apache are also free software licenses — they're even certified as such by the FSF.
We can't argue whether GPLv3 is better if we don't know why you considered MIT the best license.
American Dream Becomes Nightmare for Bhutanese Refugees
Can't speak for the person you're responding to, but personally, I don't think it makes sense for a semantically-similar but different in wire characteristics protocol to be called http/2.0. Nor do I think spdy has been around anywhere near long enough, nor been adopted organically enough, to justify being rammed through a process that seems to have been started almost specifically to get it that moniker (the call for proposals for the starting point was for less than a year, with only one possibility deployed at all, it was a foregone conclusion).

The whole process had the feel of a sham. SPDY should have evolved as its own protocol, continuing under the spdy name, and http/2.0 should have simply evolved to a semantically-driven protocol with standard negotiation mechanisms for choosing the wire protocol (which could be the MIMEish thing we have now or SPDY). This would have been a good way to ensure the web has a solid upgrade path.
I've worked in both and I can't stand open office plans. You mentioned that you have your headphones in when you are busy, I did the same. I'm sure I contributed to my hearing loss because I had to cover my ears to prevent me from being distracted by my co-workers when I needed to concentrate. What about when I want to concentrate in silence? Can't do it.

Also open office "productivity" devolved into my co-workers being able to easily turn around and interrupt me constantly for trivial items vs. if there was a bit more friction in them getting my attention: walking to my office etc, they would go figure out the problem themselves. These two things were major reasons I hated working in an open workspace.
I haven't used one, but I was wondering why it had to be blurred and in the corner of the video.
Probably to win over a different target: Nokia.
Sorry about the capitalization, its a paste from the original website where it's upper case as well.
and one could also say that it's the job of the producer of the API to set safe and secure defaults for an API :)
alias returns an IP, CNAME returns a name.
Yes, it's a stunt to get some PR for a job listing website.
Twitter Co-Founder Unwraps Jelly, a Visual Social Query App
>Being in my late 20s and having only worked in open-office environments, the thought of having my own office seems archaic and counter-intuitive to productivity and communication

Being in my late 20s and having worked in cubicles, open-office environments, and now with my own office, the thought of not having my own office sends shivers down my spine.

For me, an office with a door is mandatory. It's now the second or third question when I'm interviewing. I would not work at company that does not provide one to me. Period.

The surprising thing is that I was like you - when I worked in the open floor plan environment I really liked it, and felt like it improved my collaboration and teamwork. I wasn't able to see how damaging it was until I got my own office: ambient noise is now nonexistent, I don't have to rely on a clunky signal (headphones) to tell people I'm available/not, and I'm able to sit down and focus on a problem without playing my music at full volume.

Again, yet another anecdote. But I haven't seen any study that indicates a cross-generational difference in office preference; open floor plan settings are universally panned, and rightly so, IMO.
English speaker here. I can't bring myself to say, "Pat climbed the mountain by themselves."
What they're trying to do is address Copenhagen indeterminacy by assuming that the collapse of the wavefunction involves the ontologically similar definition of mental states. How does a mental state cause a collapse of the wavefunction at all? — This is the Quantum Measurement problem. [EDIT:] A better question, then, is when does a mental state cause a collapse, assuming that it can, or should be able to ontologically speaking. Does a materialist framework answer this question?

Statistically speaking collapse of the wavefunction and quantum decoherence have the same signature, such that we never know when observation (mental states) causes collapse. To investigate consciousness as matter is to assert the ontological underpinnings of mental states as part of the internal causal nexus of the quantum system.

I'm still collecting my thoughts on this subject here: https://gomockingbird.com/mockingbird/#xl6a68x/NLd6c9

The gist is that observation (including our tools used for observation, along with indexical subjective states) itself has to be treated as a quantum system, not as a classical system[0]. And matter can be described by quantum mechanics.

[0]: http://quantum-ethics.org/
Is grit truly innate, or can it be changed through circumstance? In other words, can combat in a hellhole develop grit in some people?
You can buy one today. It went from concept/prototype to full production with the help of kickstarter.

Whether it's any good or not is a separate problem.
Interestingly, some early wireless TV remotes used sound this way. The battery-free remotes would strike a tone when a button was pressed, and carefully tuned forks in the TV set would resonate in response, triggering the remote function.

http://www.tvhistory.tv/1957_Zentih_Ad-Remote1.JPG
Yves Béhar on Re-Inventing the Way Silicon Valley Thinks About Design
I think the "wasn't joking" is in reference to the "less than $1000". I think many people assumed the usual marketing phrasing here indicated that the display would likely run $999 or similar. $699 is dramatically less, which is surprising to me.
One correction: POUM was anti-Stalinist. By the end of Homage to Catalonia, Orwell describes how POUM was driven underground by pro-Stalinist parties PSUC and PCE (I think these were the two).

POUM was definitely left-anarchist/communist though.
It all depends on the writer. If the content is useless, the summary would be too.

I often use tl;drs (or do a content scan first, in case tl;dr isn't present) to see if the content is useful and will add value, before reading in full.
I agree this is a very superficial article, although it is somewhat relevant to folks interested in self-driving vehicles. Despite regular procrastination on Jalopnik, I hadn't previously heard about self-driving tech applied to anything in the motorsports arena.

Nevertheless you raise a good point re. the fluff content here and encroaching redditification. Lately a lot of "witty one-liners" have appeared up in the comment section, and downvote-enabled HN users should feel a duty to discourage them.
Here's a promo video of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL_enMPWT7s
> The proprietary side is taking those hundreds of millions in ill-gotten licensing fees and pouring it back into the next generation so they can continue to seek rent. Meanwhile those fighting for our rights are getting along on shoe-string budgets and buckets of passion.

Rent-seeking is defined as manipulating the political environment to achieve economic gain without creating value. The process you yourself describe isn't at all rent-seeking. If the end-result, H.265, is better than open source alternatives, then clearly value is being created. What you're describing, in your own words, is the use of licensing to fund capital-intensive research that cannot be adequately performed without capital investment (on "shoe-string budgets.").

Your central complaint seems to be that MPEG/VCEG isn't giving away the fruits of their capital-intensive research for free. Well I hate to break it to you, but neither is Google (WebM). Indeed, I think its far better what MPEG is doing: simply taking money in return for a license, as opposed to what Google is doing, which is subsidizing WebM development with their advertising empire.
Is there a nesting limit too?
25% of UK and Canadian businesses are moving data outside the US
Penrose addressed this (poorly, IMHO), but it gives a good idea as to his approach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Mind