skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If you do end up using RequireJS, using r.js is practically a requirement. Declaring asynchronous dependencies in a production build is murder for performance.

Grunt's grunt-contrib-requirejs[1] does a good job of traversing your dependency graph with r.js and building out a single bundle, but it is not especially quick; it takes about a full 3-5s on my current build. But it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

Of course, if I were to start over, I'd run browserify and either build the files in a build step with Grunt or Gulp, or just use browserify-middleware[2] and skip the build step entirely (with something like node-sass for styles).

[1] https://github.com/gruntjs/grunt-contrib-requirejs
[2] https://github.com/ForbesLindesay/browserify-middleware
FYI using IRC over SSL is useless.
Interesting analysis. I didn't think that by this point volunteers would have the upper hand in %.
Skip the require vs browserify debate and use https://github.com/webpack/webpack.

Allows for amd commonjs and almost any other format around. With gulp and grunt plugins!
Facebook’s Plot To Conquer Mobile: Shatter Itself Into Pieces
I have actually been telling people as soon a Rap Genius released Code Genius I would stop using Stack Overflow altogether, at first glance this still has a ways to go but I'm down to use it!

I think its an awesome concept and I'm glad someone is spending time building it
http://www.geek.com/games/blizzards-hearthstone-instantly-pl...
I love this idea. It's like crowd-sourcing code comments! That has tremendous education potential, especially for people like me who learned by looking at other people's code, copying & pasting it, then tweaking it.

And the beauty here is having people other than the original programmer add comments. There are a lot of open source projects on which I'd love to see this.

There are lots of ways to extend this concept too. I echo what joeconway wrote - having a way to filter and view the comments in a tutorial-like fashion would be great. Having a way to somehow submit patches and fixes back to the original source could be cool too. And offering this as a tool for computer science professors, programming instructors, and other educators (e.g. giving the comments in their example code a nice UI, almost like a documentation generator) could be interesting.

FYI, I just noticed the other tool, Noted Code, in the comments here. I prefer how Noted Code puts the comments and code side-by-side. Perhaps there could be a toggle for both views.

Just some random thoughts. Keep up the good work!
And just like that I have one more reason to ignore them both and use Make.

Speed? Check.
Simpler syntax? Check.
No need to "fix" code that isn't broken? Check.
No need to waste my attention on every new fad? Check.
The Bush administration announced its policy on captives from Afghanistan in February 2002. It drew a theoretical distinction between al-Qaeda fighters and members of the Taliban forces. Since al-Qaeda was a non-State group, the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda was outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions, the White House said. By contrast, since the Taliban were the de facto armed forces of Afghanistan, the Geneva Conventions did apply to the conflict between the United States and the Taliban. However, according to the White House, the Taliban forces did not meet the criteria set out in the Third Geneva Convention for attaining POW status. Therefore, in practice, all detainees from Afghanistan were “unlawful combatants” who did not deserve the privileges of prisoners of war.

Nevertheless, the White House proclaimed, the prisoners would receive “many POW privileges as a matter of policy.” Included in the listed privileges which would be extended detainees held at Guantanamo were appropriate Muslim meals, opportunities to worship and correspond and send mail, subject, of course, to the security needs of the facility and the U.S. government. This limitation on the right of correspondence is permitted by Article 76 of the Convention.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/prisoners-of-war/#sthas...
Despite a wonderful article, I cannot help but notice that it is 2014 and we still need multiple ways of centering a div. :(
Buble and Zynga aren't trying to do anything new.
> In my experience it's usually the people who know the least about psychology or cognitive science claiming that the least can be known about psychology and cognitive science.

Perhaps, but in this specific example, the people who know the most about the topic agree that we don't know anything, and that a new approach is required. As one example, the director of the NIMH recently ruled that the DSM can no longer be used as the basis for scientific research proposals, for the simple reason that it has no scientific content.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...

Quote: "... each edition [of the DSM] has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity."

> Of course the brain is complicated, and of course we're a long way from understanding it, and yet I could look at a scan that showed hypometablism in your anterior temporal lobes and be able to tell you with great specificity about the symptoms I would expect you to manifest ...

This is exactly the problem that the NIMH's new ruling is meant to address -- a focus on symptoms rather than causes. Until we can explain these symptoms, until we can move beyond simple description, mental research will remain a subjective dead end.

> So yeah, there are bad practitioners and bad papers and overbroad explanations, but that doesn't mean that nobody knows anything.

As long as vestal virgins can claim to have been raped and destroy their families without anyone asking some obvious questions, yes, no one knows anything: http://arachnoid.com/trouble_with_psychology

> For instance, go ahead and take a quarter out of our your pocket, flip it into the air and see how it lands on the floor. It's pretty easy to predict whether it comes up heads or tails, right? Except no, it isn't ...

Of course it is, the outcome is perfectly reliable if the coin is fair -- the probably is 1/2 that the result will be heads. No clean room or robot are required. I mention this to emphasize the difference between observation and theory -- the theory is perfectly reliable.
Why is that ludicrous?
No, you missed what I wrote (for instance, nothing of what I wrote would qualify as "elaborate"). If you're referring to centering a div, the issue is not workarounds because the specs are half-assing it, the issue is workarounds because people are still running IE8. All current browsers ship flexbox. You can stop catering to those older browsers, but that's a business decision, not a web standard one.

Best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago and all that. CSS 2 came out in 1998. At some point, you have to let it go. Current state is very far from perfect, but the common problems you listed have been solved.
Is this article intentionally ironic with a column of text that isn't centered as the header is?
Apple could put an spend curve next to each game too presumably (if they don't have stats they could make it a requirement of entry to the store to furnish them going forward).

Then you'd be able to see easily that more than 50% spend more than $10 on that 99¢ app and factor that in to your purchase decision.
Believe it or not there are people in the world who aren't technical enough to use stuff like Make, and are perfectly fine with using tools like Grunt or Gulp to get them through their days. Mindblowing, I know.
Before the Law stands a door-keeper. A man from the country comes up to this door-keeper and begs for admission to the Law. But the door-keeper tells him that he cannot grant him admission now. The man ponders this and then asks if he will be allowed to enter later, 'Possibly', the door-keeper says, 'but not now'. Since the door leading to the Law is standing open as always and the door-keeper steps aside, the man bends down to look inside through the door. Seeing this, the door-keeper laughs and says: 'If it attracts you so much, go on and try to get in without my permission, But you must realise that I am powerful. And I'm only the lowest door-keeper. At every hall there is another door-keeper, each one more powerful than the last. Even I cannot bear to look at the third one'.
The main issue I have with Grunt and other frameworks/build tools is plugin authoring. Can't we just put this stuff in Make files and be done with it? I know, I know, Windows. But it seems like an awful lot of time is wasted building plugins that are just dumb wrappers for CLI options. Or worse, the tool's options get buried deep within the framework, ramping up the learning curve. As a recent example, I stopped using the Grails' resource plugin, and just compiled my static assets outside of Grails. The workflow became simpler because they didn't know about each other--I could use each tool to its full potential instead of relying on often incomplete plugins.
I've been using a different strategy lately: no explicit build process at all, just use middleware (like browserify) to automatically compile/compress/concatenate, and an HTTP cache in production to store the results (either middleware, or external such as nginx/Varnish/CloudFlare/whatever).

This helps with the principle of minimizing divergence between development and production environments.

It's worked well for me for small projects, but maybe there are issues scaling up? Has anyone else tried this approach?

One interesting possibility is make use of the Gulp ecosystem. You could imagine "gulp-middleware" that lets you use any Gulp compatible module on the fly.
I once skimmed Armstrong's dissertation, it was mentioned how the JVM is bad for fault tolerance, because it's possible for a run-away thread to break the entire VM. Apparently, the Erlang VM manages isolation better, in such a way that it's impossible for one process to take down the entire system. That is definitely something I want to bring along to this OS :) I'm toying a lot with Erlang these days, to ensure Clojure and Linux isn't the only prior art..

And you're right, "shine" is a generalization, I actually had fault tolerance in mind when I wrote that.
Believe it or not there are people in the world who aren't technical enough to use Grunt or Gulp, because they are much more complicated than Make... Mindblowing, I know.
I don't know, 10k compared to 100k+ at a proper four year college seems fair to me
I like to set up my node apps such that no matter what the build setup is, no matter what the dependencies are, you can execute `npm run dev` to get started.

Inside package.json, this will look something like:

scripts: {
"dev": "npm install && make && node lib/server.js"
}

The cool part about putting this in package.json is that it will install first so you get all the dependencies and devDependencies, and then npm sets up the PATH so that you can use all the binaries from all the dependencies you have installed. So you could replace `make` with `grunt` or `gulp` or whatever. And the `npm install` step only makes external requests if you're missing dependencies; when you already have everything you need, it quickly exits.

Then getting new developers up and running, even if the build setup changes is the same one and only step. In addition, if you pull new code and the dependencies change, you don't have to remember to run `npm install` because you're doing it every time the server starts.
First post!

This is a tutorial I made aimed at high schoolers and undergrads I created. Thought it might be of some interest to a few of you.
I wish.

-Someone who just spent half of a perfectly good day wrestling with their buggy installer
I just started using browserify after using RequireJS for a while, and also got annoyed at how slow builds were. Then I searched around and found watchify, and it's great! Build time during development isn't painful at all anymore.
> The NFL has revenues exceeding $4B which are nearly all "profit" (that is, revenues>opex). This cash flows through the league and then is distributed to the teams, who all of which run on essentially zero taxable profits. In other words, the revenues of the teams are the "profits" of the NFL non-profit. That is why there is no need for profits--because they distribute the cash out as 'expenditures'. The level of expednitures is aribitrary[1]...it is just set to maximize the flow of funds from the tax-exempt body with the least amount of tax.

Well, at one level the NFL mysteriously making $4B despite doing mostly organizational/marketing/legal work would seem to support the argument that the teams/games are the product. The NFL makes that money from giant TV contracts, licensing deals, and merchandise that are only popular because the sport is popular. The revenue distribution is somewhat unique -- and granted, opaque -- but not necessarily a tax-avoidance scheme. One relevant example is the MLB giving up its tax-exempt status in 2007, which had no impact on its annual taxes.

> At the lower level, the Teams are structured to run on nearly zero profits. This is why they can-not "afford" to build stadiums of pay taxes etc. This of course is also a highly-structure tax-avoidance setup, where inflated costs ("sweetheart" deals) are made with affiliate entities, which shelters the teams from paying taxes. The locations and corporate business structures of the "related entities" are likewise set up to be both opaque and tax-optimized in legal structure and jurisdicion.

If you don't consider the money they receive from the NFL, then each team runs at a huge loss. Of course, they have gigantic payrolls to their athletes and operating expenses for a stadium (this does vary by team, although the NY Jets & NY Giants funded the construction of MetLife stadium using zero public funding, for example). If you take into account the NFL's revenue distribution, then most teams make millions each year[1]. I am not sure what other tax-avoidance setups you're referring to and would be curious to read about that. Optimizing your business structure to minimize taxes doesn't seem particularly criminal.

> There is no "true sale" of the NFL non-profit's product; they take no risk in holding inventory. Their main purpose is to shield the teams from 2 things: (1) anti-trust; and (2) tax. To wit: a tax-exempt monopoly that makes no profits? Something should immediately trigger your sense of the non-obvious being present.

Of course they take risk. It's not particularly likely the NFL would go out of business anytime soon, but every investment they make carries risk. I think the one questionable aspect of the NFL's setup is that each team writes off its NFL membership dues (~$6m/year) as a business expenditure while the NFL's operating expenses (Goodell's salary, marketing, etc) are untaxed.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/
This article is not actually correct. There are really 2 or three techniques for centering a block level element. The post repeats these techniques for multiple scenarios, and is wrong about the first vertical centering technique.
Why even use Make? I just use shell scripts for automation.

The only case where you really need the incremental behavior of Make is C/C++ builds (and arguably it's increasingly inappropriate for this domain as well). For all other kinds of automation I just use shell scripts, since Make is mostly a horribly reinvented shell script dialect.
Anyone actually successfully attended this boot camps and got a job offer for their coding skills? Specially for someone who never had any prior coding knowledge.

I don't know why but this just smells like scam to me.

Why would a company hire you, who just finished a boot camp, as opposed to someone who have years of coding experience and knowledge?
Read their tax filing.
In what situations would a delayed replica be useful?
I had the same issue, and after isolating the problem to iOS clients like the author did, I had some success by having iMessage users remove and re-add me as a contact. Obviously not a good general solution, but it's better than having them delete every message chain.
The browser your employer ships only currently has partial support for flex box. Why do Mozilla employees insist on being misleading about Firefox's standards support? Flex box is not ready for mainstream use. Not just because of 'old browsers', because of your current browser.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=702508 this won't be in the stable release for a couple of months.

See http://caniuse.com/#search=flexbox for other issues
FYI, no, it's not and this stupid line of thinking is getting old.

Just because the NSA can also connect to the server, join the same channels you're in, and see your conversations does not mean SSL is "useless".

It's like saying that locking your car doors "is useless" because someone can just smash the window in.
Surely there's a better way than hitting the HN servers O(7169040) times...

Does anyone have an old scrape they can post somewhere or as a torrent? Note, for my purposes bag-of-words (i.e. word counts) would be enough.
Oh, you sent me a SIGTERM?
The one thing that keeps me from using browserify or webpack or the likes, is dev time debugging. It's not very useful to find that line 13729 of script.js threw an exception.

Source maps may help, but many browsers don't support them, and I want to be able to debug everywhere. Plus, when the browserified js actually came from Coffeescript or TypeScript or the likes, I already have source maps in place. Can browserify source map my source maps?

Is there a solution to this? How do browserify fans do this?

I guess what I'd like is for browserify to have a mode that removes the require()s from my .js files and generates a bunch of script tags in the right order.
That is bullshit. SSL on IRC enables you to:

- evade local packet inspection

- ensure no local MITM is performed

- log in to services via a client cert instead of a passphrase

Please take your FUD elsewehere.
You misspelled "fuck".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ
I've used Grunt for most projects in the last year, and just tried Gulp for my newest.

Gulp seems snappier overall to me for tasks that watch a source directory with coffeescript or sass files in it. Maybe it's grunt-watch vs gulp.watch().

I think Grunt touches the filesystem more than Gulp which could potentially be a bottleneck. The creator (IIRC) of Gulp made a slideshow[0] .

Here's an example Gruntfile[1] generated with Yeoman and generator-angular. And a Gulpfile[2] which does fewer things (no production build yet).

[0]: http://slid.es/contra/gulp

[1]: https://github.com/jjt/dramsy/blob/master/client/Gruntfile.j...

[2]: https://github.com/jjt/LUXTRUBUK/blob/master/gulpfile.js
Oh, how I long for the days when condescension was a thing reserved for Lisp programmers.
Kids these days... :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivetti_M24
At a minimum, sign
http://www.change.org/petitions/president-obama-close-detent...
The system I worked on did 40M in revenue. We are talking about 10 people spending 5k a year (ish). So 0.5% of revenue for product that never even got activated? Refunding is the only correct response.
The first PC I had with X installed was a 486SX/25MHz with 20 MB of RAM. On the rare occasion that I "needed" to use X, I would start it, do whatever I needed to, kill X, and return to the console.

I still spend most of my time in a terminal window, but it's on a machine with ~1120x as much CPU horsepower and ~1638x as much RAM. Just calculating that made me go "wow" and realize how far we've come in the last 20 years or so.
It definitely cost me much less than 100k to go to a proper college, and I got more than 60 weeks of instruction.
> In the long term, there's hope that neuroscience will uncover root causes in genetics and other objective disciplines, thus moving beyond psychology entirely.

The idea that understanding the biological/physiological basis of behavior is part of psychology has been part of the field since the 19th century. Establishing those things -- whether under the comparatively new label of neuroscience or any of the older labels under which such exploration have been done (e.g., "psychobiology") -- isn't "moving beyond psychology", its just grounding psychology in the same way that physics grounds chemistry, and establishing that grounding has always been understood to be part of chemistry.

> That's true, but clinical treatment can't go anywhere without knowing causes, which the DSM -- and psychiatry and psychology -- don't address.

This is simply false: psychology and psychiatry do address causes, and even the DSM does in some cases.
As a plant scientist, like all plant scientists, we think GMOs are safe. There is just no credible science against this.

The point I want to bring up, which the article didn't, is wheat is an incredibly hard organism to deal with bioinformatically, since wheat has an incredibly complex genome owing to its polyploid nature. Therefore, making GMO wheat will be extremely hard. So even if there is a consensus on attempting to make GMO wheat. I pity the scientists who have to work on such a task and it will take a LONG time.
I'm also wary of boot camps but this is definitely not the way; if you want to pay for something you pay for something. They are not pretending to be a college, they are not pretending to be a substitute for it.

The only scam here is this part of the USA law, is scamming people into believing that everything needs to be regulated or otherwise it's evil.
I was in a Dev Bootcamp cohort of 10 students. All of us found jobs within 3 months of completing the program. Companies are looking to fill junior roles.
Build utilities like Grunt or Gulp will be hopefully more compatible across systems than shell scripts will be. I'm not too familiar with Node's support on various platforms, but I'd wager that it's probably decent.

Gruntfiles and Gulpfiles are in javascript too, which lowers the barrier for entry for developers who aren't as versed in linux.

Is there a shell script equivalent to npm? Sidenote, that could be really useful as a service.
Yes, it works great. If you prefer hg you can push your code to github and get pull requests, etc. from people who only know git.
Or you can use git instaweb instead?
Twitter is Opening its Data to the Music Industry
I said it seems ludicrous. It just tastes bad, but since you asked, I decided to approximate the cost per unit/hour, and it actually costs about the same as California's public community colleges, so I guess this isn't crazy.

All the same, California's community college prices are kind of out of hand if you ask me, but since you asked, I guess I take it back, but lacking any actual accreditation or guarantee, it's unclear how valuable such programs are in the long run.
I'd be interested also. I did some searches but came up empty.
So the health care system puts people in a position of helplessness where they would require a handout to have any hope.

Also Hank wouldn't have been able to walk again without the treatment paid for with drug money.

I wouldn't say it is the central theme of the show but it is certainly there.
Boot camp devs who have never coded before attending boot camp are more likely to work for a significantly lower level of compensation than those who have experience.
You can easily get around that by using `display: table` and `display: table-cell` So you have your semantic HTML elements, if you're into that sort of thing, and flexible layout options, like `vertical-align: middle`.
Have any of the people moved on to more senior roles?

I guess I am curious how this kind of bootcamp can prep someone to continue to grow/learn once in the office. Companies are always looking to fill junior roles until the economy hits a downturn.