skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The realities of the industry would seem to be to write code that doesn't collapse under the slightest strain. In order to write code that doesn't fall down, or that does what it purports to do, the coder needs to understand how stuff works. If you don't understand how to build a linked list, or other common data structures, it is quite likely that you won't know how to use it. Or where it can go wrong. Or where it is not the correct thing to use.

The realities are more stark in our breach-infested world. Sloppily implemented systems put companies in the headlines.

Examples abound, not only with data structures, but also with algorithms. Someone who has written a compiler is far less likely, in my estimation, to try to "parse" a URL with a regular expression, with negative consequences. Someone who has written a hash table is less likely to be surprised when the insertion behavior ends up being n squared.
Why would rdio make this information public? It seems like really valuable information that they are just freely allowing to get scraped
It's going to be done like any other major political change has happened, comfortably inside of that two-party system. You have to mobilize political pressure to effect the change at all, which is the same thing you'd need to do for success with a third-party strategy anyways.

But hey, please feel free to do what you want, a real libertarian third party is the progressives' wet dream right now.
The blame resides on the media and its partnership with an undiscerning public. Time after time, the same experts are trotted out, no matter how awful their track record. This is at its worst when it comes to politics, unsurprisingly.

As a prime example, remember all the experts who got Iraq wrong? They were wrong about everything: WMD, cost, duration, effects, etc. Fast forward to the brink of the next war—instead of hearing from the people who were right, we're once again bombarded with the opinions of the wrong. Cheney and Rumsfeld were both on tv constantly spouting their expertise on Libya, Syria etc.

This happens in just about every field, time after time. It's no wonder people don't care what the so-called experts think.
"If she stays at home with kids, she was also working."

I think it's reasonable to believe that some jobs are harder than other jobs. Staying home with the kids, while hard (and maybe even boring) isn't as demanding as the jobs that some people have.

I have to tell you that I'd rather the person who operates on a heart or a brain or flys a 777 (and there are many more I'm just picking a few obvious ones) focus on their job 100% and get rest to function at a top level. Raising children can be hard but it's a different type of hard.

Edited for clarity..
That's not a totally fair analogy. The adversary in this case shouldn't even know you have bitcoin or a WarpWallet; so why would they bother to torture it out of you in the first place?

Edit: but I guess I agree, it would be a nice feature to have that we didn't think much about. I wonder what a solution would even look like.
Yeah, you are right. I went a bit far into the past.
What are you talking about? Domestic terrorists already require a warrant.
> Doesn't your editor have completion?

Yes, but you'd agree it's no panacea, surely.
- The main code editors I use all have slightly different completion mechanisms. Using a consistent non-IDE editor, while certainly possible, I find much more clunky than making do. I do use the completion of my primary IDE significantly however.
- C++ completion is wonky in general due to the poor language grammar
- I don't find defining things particularly rare. Every variable (local, member, or otherwise), every function, every class, every macro...
- My muscle memory isn't built around the preprocessor, but around much more multi-context languages (such as C++) where entry as terse as yours will generally break regularly.

My mental state is brittle. Mis-completing identifiers breaks my flow and concentration, whereas typing is almost completely subconcious at this point having practiced it so regularly everywhere from this forum to my first clashes with 16-bit DOS programming. This means I could be seen as wasteful from a pure keystroke perspective on just about every front.

Even in the simple act of googling, I start entering my next, more refined search query while still scanning the results of my previous query. Dynamic search results broke this workflow (prompting me to disable Javascript) as my new text would cause the links I tried to click on to disappear because of the additional text entry, causing the results to refresh. I didn't even realize I was doing it until that change.

My use of completion is similar: Type until I scan the refined identifier to select as an early-bail. The closest I get to your completion style is some blind initial 3-5 character tokens + explicit use of completion keywords in some fairly limited contexts where I have a sufficiently low (1-4%?) failure rate. This translates to C-style free functions in C or C++, and C# members of things (classnames generally get typed out and then Ctrl+.ed for "using ...;" statement generation.) My macro names as a rule are too heavily namespace prefixed to blind-complete in that fashion, with the exception of some locally scoped 1-letter #define s which are #undef ed later in the same scope which need no completion.

While I've experimented with acronym-style completion methods rather than start-of-word-only, I find acronyming to require too much conscious thought, and disambiguation gives me outright struggle. If I'm in a context where the completion simply won't work (say that I haven't imported it yet like I thought I did), I have to go back and retype the entire thing.
> I resent the fact that I have to pay a lot of money to sit in a chair in a dark room and wait for The Expert to deliver his Opinion about whether I need the -4.5's or -5's.

In this example, is this not why you pay this expert? I appreciate eyeware that enables me to see; front row and I still can't read the chalkboard? Money is worth this. Once I get the numbers I can get the hardware for cheaper online. There are similar situations where I want someone's expertise to help me out of tough situations -- say, a lawyer. I choose what I will, and pay for it.

However, point taken: paying a premium to listen to a walled-garden oracle is not too fun.
How to Swap Out a Time Warner Modem With Your Own Faster One
And only now Microsoft is discussing the possibility of having a pure ahead of time native compiler for C#.
This is the lowest rated comment I ever got (in terms of downvoting).

For future visitors of this place, my expanded rationale:

"schvitzing" automagically reads like "schwitzen" (to sweat) to this German reader. Looking that word up on the net ([1], leads to [2]) results in either German or Yiddish origins and confirms that it is just that, just .. referenced in a weird way.

Not knowing the author and his background I assume that this was chosen for effect - and I despise choices like that. I'm among the least patriotic people you'll meet, but if you're going to make jokes about $SomeEvilScenario and make it sound more .. legit, funny, interesting, believable by adding some sort-of-German-word-or-phrase you are not a writer, you're a fool, an idiot in my world.

That author chose, according to what I can see, a 'German' (or Yiddish, doesn't change my opinion really) phrase to describe something scary. That's low. I wasn't a fan of that source before this article, but I won't visit it ever after.

1: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/schvitzing
2: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shvitz#English
Wouldn't a relatively simple fix for this be to detect this at the front end, and serve a static page with JavaScript that clears all of their cookies and then redirects back?
It's outstanding. My favorite bit is the section on building data structures with various characteristics inspired by obscure number systems (zeroless binary numbers, skew binary numbers...).

I'd recommend some experience with complexity analysis (though "ages ago in school" is probably fine). I found most of the SML examples to be reasonably transparent, though I did some OCaml ages ago and have been working with Haskell more recently. He uses laziness heavily, but it's explicit. Knowing your way around a few imperative data structures is almost certainly worthwhile; I'm not positive it's strictly necessary.
> When we started pulling consistent coding weekends, we brought in the entire management team to serve the engineers: We brought them food, washed their cars, got oil changes, took in their dry cleaning, and arranged for childcare for their kids in the office.

Sorry, but while admirable, this is not normal. I may differ from most of HN, but I simply don't see the point in making these kinds of sacrifices as an engineer just because I get free dinner or childcare. It isn't healthy...or worth it.
I don't know what's in the Python course, and they very well could be doing a decent job of teaching CS concepts. However, I'll assume it's a "here's how a for loop works"-type course.

The ultimate utility is ignoring a specific language (Scheme really has nothing to do with the book, and SICP is not a Lisp book per se) and teaching students how to think about computing. It enables problem solving and understanding of the more abstract concepts involved with programming. Scheme just happens to work because there's nothing to the language and there are few boundaries, in terms of functionality.

Honestly, your school can decide if they want to churn out Students Who Program in Python (tm) or students who are taught to teach themselves and can reason about programs on their own, and who feel comfortable understanding varied language concepts. There may be other approaches to accomplish that, but SICP does it well. It's really the only thing that distinguishes a computer science curriculum from a vocational degree, which is an idea that has fallen out of favor or even been lost in the rush to graduate more CS students and embrace "industry standards." Does your school want to educate students or simply teach them programming trivia and practicum that they can pick up on their own? It's an important distinction. Would you want a Linguistics degree that started off by teaching some travel phrases from a Spanish guide purchased at a gas station?

Plus, given the depth of the book, the course could be scaled to a relative difficulty, which would probably be necessary. Recommended pre-reading could consist of the Schemer series (Little & Seasoned) with the expectation that the students might not make it all the way through them before the course starts.

Perhaps you could persuade the faculty to offer a basic Python course and an "honors" CS course that used SICP, or have the SICP course after the Python one, since I think in practice having some basic programming experience is probably a good idea before diving into SICP.

I went Googling for another perspective, and I found http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/sicp.html, which says a lot of the same things.

People who are new to programming look at SICP and like to say something to the effect of, "Wow, it's a shitty old Lisp book from a bygone error. I actually want to accomplish something, so I'm going to read this O'Reilly Java book now, because I can actually get a job that way." (heavy condescension implied), but perhaps this is a case of the amateur not really knowing what's best for them.

In the end, interested students can always pick up the book in their free time, and you will probably be fighting an uphill battle (at least if you're in the US).

SparkNotes Version: SICP encourages a thought process. A traditional class encourages you to learn how to do X in language Y. It is possible to do the former without SICP, but SICP does it very well.
Why does it matter whether it's a hardware or software problem? If it's broken it's broken.

Of course if it's a software problem he shouldn't expect a hardware replacement to fix it, but if he wants a refund he should get it.
He wasn't able to do it as a founder - he changed jobs and found more time for his family.
Not only that, strangely people seem willing to pay premium prices to be handled like that.

With the prices Mac devices cost, I would expect zero percent failure rates with high attention to quality.
You need to remember that your usage doesn't mean others are identical. Personally I honestly find the ribbon bar is more confusing. The mixture of icon sizes, placements and behaviors (Eg drop down menus, toggles or buttons) leaves me guessing a lot of the time. Where as the old menu system might have been ugly and verbose, but I could follow it's logic easier when trying to perform uncommon tasks.

I also dislike the way how the menu bar is hidden in explorer. The only reason behind that is aesthetics so I really resent having to press alt just to display it (I know you can enable it permanently but I get given a lot if laptops to repair due to being the family's "pc fixer").

Thankfully these days theres other decent alternatives to Windows and the importance of the desktop OS is also lessoned with the rise of cross platform browsers and web apps, so it's easy for me to run another OS instead of trapping myself on a platform I dislike and growing bitter about it. But I just wanted to make the point that some people found menu bats easier to use because, for them, menu bars just were simpler to use; rather than them hating something just because it's newer
Node on Linux on Windows quickly
I wouldn't be so optimistic.

> The bar for minimal installs will go up and more proof will be expected.

Or the Store would be flooded with infected cloned extensions that some idiots will install anyway.

> Soon enough the buyer's intentions will be clear to any extension owner.

That's not the problem: developers could trivially be informed of this risk when they submit their extension on the Store.
That brings up one common conflation that I see a lot: equation of Wikipedia and "popular wisdom". People assume that because "anyone can edit" Wikipedia, it must be some kind of average of everyone's views, the "wisdom of crowds". But Wikipedia is really not a reflection of the average opinion. A huge percentage of Americans might believe in creationism or think that vaccines cause autism, but Wikipedia articles, despite a plurality of en.wikipedia being written by Americans, pretty solidly side with the expert consensus on those points. That might be due to demographics, due to the requirement for "reliable sources", or due to who knows what else, but the results are pretty different.

That doesn't mean Wikipedia is always good, and the very fact that its viewpoint is often unrepresentative of the views of the population at large might sometimes be bad (though other times it's good). But I think whether Wikipedia is good or bad, and whether the opinions of randomly selected individuals who think they know better than experts are good or bad, are pretty different questions that should be investigated separately, since Wikipedia is not saying the same things that a randomly chosen person at your local bar is saying, on almost any subject where there's a difference of opinion.

I can see why they get connected, because both things are bypassing gatekeepers in a way. But Wikipedia is doing it in a more complicated way, particularly because while the form of the encyclopedia bypasses gatekeepers (free, no bylines, no credentials needed to participate), the content of the encyclopedia puts a heavy value on citing sources, along with an ethos of trying to make sure the sources aren't kooks, which tends to attribute quite a bit of weight to experts' views on things.
Men know how to strategically piss off their opponent
Also try running sudo fs_usage in Terminal. Every line printed is a disk read/write and since you would be on an older machine with slower I/O you need to reduce the number of lines printed.

One useful trick is to add folders to Spotlight's Privacy section e.g. source code, downloads, torrent locations, game files etc.
It's a generalization based on extensive examples of hundreds of different "conspiracy theories". The uniting factor in all these things is the ability to make strong conclusions based on lack of evidence.
As a founder, it appears as if our startup's success or failure depends on us cofounders. This drives me to work insane hours as some sort of ego self rationalization tells me that more work will make it succeed.

In general I have seen the work/result correlation hold true. And yet, we all know how luck plays its role. I personally like to think some events are meant to happen or not. Especially when it goes bad - when my startup lost a client in the early days for example it was extremely tough... but we learned so much that the next bigger one went well. Would working more hours have changed anything, I doubt it, so there is more to it than work.

More than this, working many hours is sometimes just a way to reduce anxiety of success or failure, at least for me. What's tricky is understanding which hours not to do, how to make more of the ones I do, and being confident that cutting the hours won't affect the bigger picture output too much. Easier said than done.
Chrome doesn't run extensions by default in incognito mode.

> Because Google Chrome does not control how extensions handle your personal data, all extensions have been disabled for incognito windows. You can reenable them individually in the extensions manager.

Keeping your gmail tab in an incognito window might be a good approach.
I find this situation to be less about good vs bad management or good vs bad developer.

This situation is simply about a mismatch in culture, expectation and personal value.

The company would be better off finding developers who are excited to be a hacker at the company and wants to contribute as much as they can.

The developer would be better off finding a job that allows the freedom he wants. It's clear to me the developer values freedom over pay and he should find a company with the same value.

Trying to get the developer and management to meet in the middle will simply prolong the agony.
Not sure if anyone is still checking comments or not. I'm completely new to reverse engineering, ASM, etc. Looking at the cmp statements I tried the changing the endienness of the address being compared, but I still am not seeing that address. For example, when looking at 'cmp #0x3866, 0x0(r15)', to me this means add 0 to the value of r15 and look up the value at that address and compare that to the value at memory address 0x3866. So I'm changing the endienness of 0x3866 to 0x6683. Is this the correct thought process? Thanks.
The so called Mac premium pricing (which isn't really true if you compare like for like) is for the superior hardware. Better trackpads, cases that don't flex, better keyboards, better overall design. The issue here is likely a software bug for an OS that was only recently released.

You would think someone on HN would know the difference.
Closed source, no thanks. I'm going to follow their approach of "trust no one" and not trust them and warmly recommend everyone to do the same. If you actually mind about security, use GPG.
"maybe they only need mediocrity"

One thing I've learned on the employer/employee side of development (that was initially painful, but now just seems obvious) is that for most software projects as long as the goal is well defined and meets some need in some market as well as expected, all they do need is mediocrity. And I mean this is the sincerest way, not the "fuck them for thinking this" way, but the "they are right to think this" way.

You could be a 10X (or whatever shorthand you want to use for 'very good') developer compared to everyone else on the team and you might feel yourself being Harrison Bergeroned by process, tools and management designed to pull everyone toward the middle and when you quit you'll think "Now they'll see what they are missing", but then you find out they could in fact easily replace you with mediocrity and nobody would notice and the project could even go on to be financially successful if everything else falls into place.

I highly encourage all developers to maximize their talent and ability and always keep learning, but at the end of the day the results I see in the real world (on both ends -- mediocre developers becoming wildly successful and extremely talented developers who don't do nearly as well financially) are that the correlation between pure talent/skill and their financial/career success relative to other developers is fairly loose.
The title is deceptive, it would be more accurate to say SMS is on the decline. There is no evidence or suggestion that the behavior of sending short messages (typically via your phone) is on the decline, it just seems to be moving to proprietary protocols such as iMessage. Usually when I "text" I am actually sending an iMessage because most of my friends use iOS devices. It may be interesting to someone concerned about the SMS protocol that it is on the decline, but as someone interested in how people use devices this does not effect me.
It depends where you want to be employed. Java has the most jobs listed online (by a lot), but less jobs in startups. javascript has growing demand and is used all over. Though you'll also want to factor in supply.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Aq0nf5QgzTkvdHh...
There are times when, to be blunt, you (hypothetical you) don't have the background for me to explain my reasoning - and certainly not in the timeframe of a conversation when I need to catch you up on potentially decades worth of research. It is possible, especially if you're not willing to either take some things as given, that you are not qualified to understand my reasoning.

Because you are not an expert

And that's fine. There are things about which I am not an expert, to which the same principles apply. Computer science among them. Along with particle physics, Russian literature and modern cars.
I'm working on a set of tools to do functional programming in Bash (using JSON). I have a pretty good idea of how it's going to be, just need to implement it. Unix pipes are the function application. Json is data structures. And I'll have message passing concurrency like Erlang.

If only I didn't have exams! (Been working on it 50% of the time though.)
> Rather than only doing it via technical means like permissions, I'd be more comfortable with auto-updating but with some kind of human quality assurance.

I agree on this.

The best solution for now would be a meta-extension that checks if you have compromised extensions installed and disable them.

The blacklist could be compiled based on the Store feedbacks (ratings dropping sharply? disabled.), a reporting system from the app, and also using automatic testing. For example run the extension on a sandboxed machine and check for requests to known shady domains.
Simple - a few thousand (if it is that many) people out of several million people having a problem is not always evidence of a real problem but rather proof that with a large enough install base some people will always have problems and it might well be for no reason at all beyond shear chance.

If there are 10 million installations of Mavericks (and I've got no idea how many there really are) and 5,000 people reporting a particular problem, that's only .05% of users - which is well within the expected proportion of users you'd expect to have problems with any upgrades. Note, for comparison the recent PS4 release problems and Sony's statement about the 0.4% of users experiencing problems - "This is within our expectations for a new product introduction"