skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not "just an example", it's the core of their argument. They say "Pythonic code uses a hash table-like data structure" - but that's completely wrong.

His other argument, about summing points, makes no sense either. He doesn't seem to have even profiled his "slow" point summing code or tried basic Python optimisations like using a list comprehension or generator to sum the points. And if that doesn't work well enough, and point summing is a critical part of your program, then you'd use a library like NumPy to handle that, rather than using raw python.
In the sense that we're actually laughing with him, yeah his is funnier.
I too have had decent interactions. It's when it goes wrong, it goes horribly wrong with police. Which is why you must have a higher standard like you have higher standards with space shuttle software engineering vs. your casual game app.
I think the redesign could benefit from better organization and more contrast. I felt like "search by" was unnecessarily cramped in a corner, the input fields weren't standing out, and the options at the bottom could be better visually organized.
You aren't aware of it, so it isn't so? Really? Next, you'll tell me that Fox News really is "fair and balanced".

Good police exist, and will continue to exist, despite civilian hostility and shifting definitions of what it means to be a "good cop". I'll never claim that no police are bad, or that there aren't many bad police, but I know that I'll never envy the good ones as long as the people filling this comment page comprise the majority of our population.
Social engineering applies to pretty much everything. It has nothing to do with Bitcoin (or whatever else a social engineer wants from you) and everything with your own lack of due diligence and gullibility.
You keep describing all aspects of this situation as hilarious. It's condescending and not adding anything to your argument. If you're trying to be persuasive, this isn't how you do it.
Just use IPsec, and then use UDP normally.
That doesn't do anything to answer my question about where libertarians stand on the question. I still don't get what a civilization without a "monopoly on laws and law enforcement" would look like.
Thank you for the nice article. Especially for the documents camera tip. I use phone cam, but this one is better.
For remote work timekeeping per project is indispensable. I recommend Freckle. But pen'n paper with timespending cards is also ok.
ah, we've gotten to the "i know you are, but what am i" stage already.

well, i'm glad you made it to the ted bundy part, but i can only assume you read one out of every 8-10 words, as that last bit was about hypocrisy in general (and why it's pointless to claim someone is a hypocrite in order discredit someone's argument). in no way was a "slippery slope" argument invoked.
No, because being a cop is a shit job and it wears on those who take it on. So, the nice guy eventually becomes a prick.
I tend to keep completely separate physical machines. I have Thinkpad provided by work, and a personal Thinkpad. When the workday starts, the work machine goes in the dock, then at the end of the workday, I swap it out for the personal machine.

I'm a strong believer in using company hardware only for work, and never using personal hardware for work related tasks, if only because it makes things slightly less complicated with regard to who owns what IP.

EDIT: Correcting typos.
Upvoted for discouraging tax fraud.
If I answer, will you explain why you've commented 25 times on this thread?
ROP chains.
Europe has similar stories of being horrible in spots too, look at french jails for example: http://www.newsweek.com/french-prisons-are-becoming-embarras...
> I, uh, don't know about that, but I will say that thought and intent are not the same.

True, but it's to some extent splitting hairs, because intent is often (but not always) constructed from thoughts.

> Thinking about murdering someone and not taking any action to that effect, then actually killing that person; VS taking action to do it, strike me as different.

Most courtroom battles on these issues revolve around trying to reconstruct intent based on things that actually happened and that can be presented as testimony. Premeditation, for example -- the difference between degrees of murder in many states -- might be inferred by a person's actions leading up to a crime, and afterward.

> It's possible that they are legally the same, but I doubt the court can do much to prove thought without a confession.

It's commonplace for prosecutions to proceed on the basis of a record of actions that are used to infer thoughts and intents.
> Why in the world would you do that? Languages are the biggest timesuck in the history of humanity.

A language not only express the ideas of the speaker, it also carries a lot of historical and cultural data, I love learning new languages even if I don't become proficient in that language. Being said that, I don't think it's a good idea for non-native Portuguese speakers to ask/answer questions in pt.so

> Uhm, no? I know English and my native language (Dutch) and that is more than enough. The only language I had to learn besides my own was the one that most of us on here see as the universal one: English. And for all I care the Dutch language can die a quick and silent death.

I'm a native Spanish speaker, being the second language with most native speakers in the world only behind mandarin, why would I settle just with English?, Spanish is more useful for me in all other activities of my life, I only use English on the Internet, even my Brazilian boss is a fluent Spanish speaker.
It's very easy, actually - the quality difference is substantial. If it's shit, don't buy it.
> Note to self: don't pitch to cops at scene of accident.

B-b-but I feel it’s a way to make the world around me better, to bring people joy through better food!
In the San Fran startup world where iphone taxi requesting and self-deleting video clips for 14 yr olds are the cusp of innovation, thank god for bitcoin and all the fun that comes with it.
DTLS is probably one of your best options. Protecting UDP is hard. It more or less requires you to implement "all" the features DTLS has (like sequence numbers). Depending on the application, one could argue that your protocol maybe shouldn't implements encryption (wouldn't be the first protocol not to do so). And it should be left to the user to protect the traffic in their network. In some sense it's better not to try (and be open about it) than to fail.
I'd like to believe you (I really would), but you've made quite the extrapolation here, given one single link to a Wikipedia article about a guy who once succeeded at routing some bad police.
I don't follow. Care to explain?
It's weird that government tends to side with government.
I was thinking similar. If police will crap on someone like this when they misperceive that they're wealthy and can afford a lawyer (wannabe billionaire) imagine what they do to people who can't defend themselves. It's a very sickening abuse of power. Perhaps the one good piece of the story is that it gets the word out.
You must understand why this is not possible to do. D.O.T. rules apply to any agency that collects money for air travel. Everything on that page is subject to rules that change continuously and you can get fined massive amounts if you guess wrong. My employer's lawyers are incredibly paranoid about any UI change as we in the past had to pay a huge penalty because a few words were incorrect. So we wind up being stuck with all sorts of idiotic messaging and other crappola.

Now anyone who does not collect money is exempt, like Google Flights or Hipmunk, and they can design anything they want. But an airline or OTA that collects the money has to deal with the DOT and its insane rules and the paranoid lawyers.

I like the design though, very nice.
I've talked about this before. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7086399

You won't be able to find me without the authorities forcing the exchanges to provide info since they make their own cut helping me move the funds around in transaction-fees if they keep quiet about these kinds of things. As long as I'm not too greedy/eager and don't rush things, I can collect on these funds over the course of several months. I can even spice things up by sending a bunch into an online bitcoin-gambling-site. Gamble a little bit; perhaps lose some then withdraw after a few days. So now if I had sent 10 BTC in then 9 BTC goes somewhere else, you don't know if I lost 9 BTC to the casino or if I lost 1 to the casino and 9 is going to another wallet of mine.

All this will look pretty crazy to anyone trying to follow me on the blockchain. You can't know which coins are actually mine and which belong to the exchanges & casinos. Maybe I legitimately won the jackpot; who knows.

Also, there's this: http://www.bitcoinfog.com/

Sidenote: Casinos are a great business to launder real life fiat money too...
The article isn't very well thought through. mongodb is doing very well just selling support
I noticed that as well - One wonders what % of that expenditure is on improving R&D processes to lower costs, assuming that most of that cost is on non-renewable hardware modeling (hurling one-off test cars at brick walls and such).
Also, is racing considered part of the R&D budget?
Haha, our friend professor is mentioned in todays "the nation". Good lord.

"Knight’s innuendo prefigured a purported report on Ukraine by Yale professor Timothy Snyder in the February 20 issue. Omissions of facts, by journalists or scholars, are no less an untruth than misstatements of fact. Snyder’s article was full of both, which are widespread in the popular media, but these are in the esteemed NYRB and by an acclaimed academic. Consider a few of Snyder’s assertions..."
http://www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia#

Liar liar liar
Nuremberg trials are not a paragon, merely an example where a majority of the people believe that ethics/natural law trumps the laws of the state. This says nothing of its actual conduct.
My girlfriend lives right there. We go to that bar sometimes. She recently broke her elbow on a bike accident. We would of called 911 in the same situation. This could of easily been me and her. Wow. What can I do!?
I started reading this article waiting jadedly for the inevitable call to move to "X as a service!!!!1oneone".

Sure enough, the article did not disappoint.

XAAS pretty much requires a cloud-based system, and public trust in the cloud is rapidly diminishing.
Disconnect.me works similarly, and is free software.
The trouble is that even if great engineer moves up, his work will require zero engineering work. Few years later he is just another formerly great engineer out of touch with superficial ideas about current practices.

I have seen that happen with programmers that moved to pure architect positions or to pure management. Just a few year later (2-3) and they start to have naive and idealized idea about programming and development process.
I notice you don't question the "everyone is greedy" assertion, however.

As I understand it, libertarians believe that justice can be attained through the adversarial institution of the market.

That is, by everyone greedily fighting within the bonds of normal commerce, a just (but likely not equal), situation will arise.

The gaping hole in this scenario is that those who are greedy and, say, losing or just not getting what they want from the normal framework, have every incentive to cheat in this competition. By lying, by hacking opponents computers, by assassinating opponent or whatever.

I understand also that some combination of collective pressure and private enforcement is supposed to stop that from happening, sure. But all this is supposed to happen automatically, it's not an "ideal" but supposedly how things. Well, clearly things didn't work this time and given that Zed's comment on greed actually tags it.
No, but your TB device wouldn't have read access to physical memory (where keys would be)
You can easily throw that trust away and profit some bitcoins if your face is unknown. In the real world someone would come after you sooner or later. In the world SR1/SR2, Bitcoins and Tor? Only if the NSA has an interest.
I was speaking in general terms.

Do I think MLK was? No. Do I think there are secrets in his files that would be embarrassing to him and his kin? Oh sure, there are no saints, and everyone has a couple of skeletons. The assertion in this thread what that he was a pervert - that does not inherently equal pedophile it likely means pervert by the standard of the time - which by todays standards would be merely kinky.
"Build a scalable service on top of something open source, rather than T&M services."

37Signals/Basecamp are an interesting example of this. Rather than building a business around supporting Ruby on Rails, they've built products on top of the framework they created. It's certainly an outlier and I can't think of many other examples like them who both built a popular tool, but then just used it as a tool instead of trying to monetize it directly.

DHH wrote: "External, expected rewards diminish the intrinsic motivation of the fundraising open-source contributor. It risks transporting a community of peers into a transactional terminal. And that buyer-seller frame detracts from the magic that is peer-collaborators.

It also holds the threat of corrupting the community at large. We plant the seeds of discontent by selective monetary rewards."

http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/2013/the-perils-of-mixing...

I've certainly seen this recently in some open-source communities. The peer-to-peer camaraderie transitions to a dictator-to-underlings relationship and people start defecting. It's sad to see, but happens when an open-source company isn't vigilant in nurturing the community that got them where they are.

Kudos to those companies that are able to pull off maintaining a strong community while still staying focused. It's a rare thing to be able to do well and behind the scenes there's a lot of work that goes into that kind of nurturing.
See also this super nerdy discussion of these nutjobs [1] on LessWrong: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jje/decision_auctions_aka_how_to_fai...

[1] Yes, that's actually me and my spouse (also cofounder of http://beeminder.com and if you think our auction-based lifestyle is crazy, wait till you see Beeminder! :)).
The parts that do what Red Hat do are; the overall lack of profitability is because Canonical is losing money on other market segments. (In other words, they're generating money to be invested in developing new products, exactly what the article says open source companies can't do.)
I agree with your point. Buttons facilitate sharing at the expense of poorer design. You can mitigate this somewhat by nudging people towards sharing it where you want them to put it.
Me, I'm European though.
Why is the lead photo of a delicate blonde white woman, when the story is about a grizzled bearded man who could pass for some various ethnicities?

That totally changes that context. The story is much less sensational than if it was the pictured woman.
The police cannot be trusted, and that is not childish nonsense. It is a rational response to the fact that the police consistently act like thugs, and the problem is only getting worse. One of the most important problems is that the mechanisms for righting these wrongs are almost wholly ineffective or out-of-reach. Peretz talks a little about that in his piece.

The most practical thing you can take away from this is to not trust the police. Reform will take years, and in that time you are at risk. Reform is a great sentiment - but what specifically can we do? I would say: you can at least think about the nature of the systematic problem that takes away essentially all accountability from city police departments. Why does it seem like the public is no longer outraged when police abuse occurs? Why does it seem like government officials don't admit any wrongdoing or apologize for anything anymore? Why are lawsuits so expensive?

What it seems like to me is that, somehow, the public has been convinced of their ineffectiveness. They have been cowed into submissiveness. Besides, there are bigger fish to fry, and I haven't been abused by the police. It's just not that big of a problem. And the monotonically increasing complexity of government has provided amazing levels of defensive cover for bad actors. It's an almost perfect shield of immunity to prosecution and incredibly expensive litigation barrier-to-entry. "Reform" sounds nice - but what do you think we should do? And in the meantime, are you really advocating that the police should be trusted in the absence of any reform? That's childish nonsense.
Come visit East Texas, you'll change your mind. Stupidity is a lifestyle choice.
Harder than you might think, pard'ner. Only you can change you.
I'm sorry, but the fact that I received the same one link to a single instance from two different people in response to this question doesn't give me a lot of faith about the general response a cop gets when he tries this sort of thing.
It's rational for a police officer to respond to civil disobedience in some circumstances with detention. That is not unreasonable in some situations, particularly one where lives are at stake or where there is clear and present danger.

My point is that while the arrest may have been bad, what happened after is egregious and clearly definable as awful. There's lots of blame to go around here but blame does little good.

We should all want justice because it makes our society a better place. It's all we can ask for and it's all we deserve.

Edit for clarity: I'm not saying what happened here was right or good, I'm saying that there are other situations where the police response might've been appropriate. While it's possible to have a debate about the initial arrest, it's impossible to justify what happened after. Rather than muddy the waters of this discussion with anecdotes about the arrest, I was attempting to place the focus onto the portion we could all agree on in an effort to move forward faster.

To be explicit, I do not agree with how SFPD handled this situation in any way, shape or form.
How Airbus Is Debugging the A350
> code is for people to understand and only incidentally for machines to execute

This was a clever quote that has been taken way too far and simply isn't true. Even Hal Abelson backed off of that quote in SICP when pressed about it: http://www.gigamonkeys.com/code-reading/. Code just is not primarily for people to read – it is primarily to make computers do things. Just think for a second about what you're saying:

> The reason we use code is to allow people to discover, understand and build on ideas.

Really? The reason most people write code is to express an idea with that code? I don't think so. People code to make computers do things. The things the computers do may facilitate communicating ideas (e.g. wikipedia), but the code itself is not primarily about ideas. Honestly, the only exception I can think of is when I'm writing example code to convey ideas about programming.
"IPsec" doesn't always protect you against replay attacks for encapsulated UDP packets (unlike TCP which protects itself).
Writing Third Party JavaScript Widgets
Sorry took so long to reply.

I hate to be one of those people who say you're doing it wrong but it sort of sounds like it. I manage just fine with cmd+p and large projects.

I would have to suggest installing a few plugins there are quite a lot of "perfect php sublime setup" blog posts around to give you ideas.

We have a large symfony install and a large api I work on and never really feel "I wish I had an ide" I guess to each their own. Sublime and vim are really what you make it. As for any tech, ides included you have to master them before you can get the most out of them.
Well, no, your comment is equally information-free as the two that proceeded it. "Things are the way I say they are because I say so" remains unpersuasive.

Look, the whole notion of assigning moral value to places based on an arbitrary measure of "racism and xenophobia" is annoying, and if you think that's what's going here maybe you're understandably annoyed. But it feels like you're not even trying to understand what we're actually talking about, and more importantly, it actually IS important that we have measures for social progress if we are to continue to improve. I hope you'd agree.

So, the thing is: it'd be interesting to know what measure you're using such that a place with "institutionalized racism and the undercurrent of subtle racism" (undeniably true! of the US or, one suspects, anywhere else!) is somehow to be regarded as more "racist and xenophobic" than a place where a genocide occurred in one nation against an ethnic minority while its neighbor nations looked on uselessly. If you regard "subtle racism," income inequality, criminal justice problems, social rudeness and so on as a greater problem than that, well... okay, say so. It's obviously ridiculous.
I suppose i was reacting to the picture associated with the essay.
Ask patent trolls about shopping around.
I agree with Levine's conclusions, but the reason Red Hat is successful in spite of "selling a slightly better road" is simple. (The car analogy really helps this.)

Unlike the other open source efforts Levine lists, Red Hat sells Free Software. Now, hang on just a second and hear this out: it's not that Red Hat is _evangelizing_ like the FSF does.

Red Hat has simply capitalized on the model that GPL Linux is better than _any_ proprietary server OS. I know I've never seen anything come close to it. Feel free to point out a server OS that competes successfully with Linux – gratis!

Red Hat can't charge for the razors but they make up for it by charging for blades: stuff your company _shouldn't_ be doing in-house. You can outsource it all to Red Hat: installation, maintenance, QA, everything. They're basically an early freemium model.

Levine is correct that the market potential has not exploded for Red Hat (yet) but he concludes that nobody else should try what they're doing. I think he doesn't understand exactly what Red Hat is doing.

Due to the unique pricing structure caused by Free Software, a "differentiated service on top of the platform" model would fail. For Red Hat, that would be something like selling proprietary system management software on top of Linux, and assuming it was sufficient.

If Red Hat were evangelizing Free Software they might be content with a sub-par product "because freedom!" Take laptops, for example: System76, ZaReason, and laclinux.com remain small. Their product does not represent a tier 1 product, even though they make a differentiated laptop on top of the same base of laptop ODMs.

Levine correctly concludes that Red Hat will not grow as rapidly as a Google or Amazon. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Instead, compare Red Hat to Microsoft, CA, or Oracle who compete directly in the "razors & blades" market of enterprise IT support. (Those companies do have other markets as well.)
Yep. A bit annoying to say the least, plus he clearly hadn't used it as all his suggestions around looping, pre-made automata patterns etc. are in there. For one thing, it has the concept of 'immortal' cells which have a surprisingly big effect in making repeating patterns - perfect for LFO-replacement duty.

That review was a huge buzzkill personally, and it had a very big effect on DLs. 2-3 a day, down to 1 a week or so. Prior versions had a good number of 4 and 5 star reviews, nothing lower, with some good comments.

Easiest way to address it would be to push out another update, but that review was months ago and it kind of knocked the wind out of my sails (not to mention my sales!)
We're talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard libertarians, not classical libertarianism.
Web Design Weekly – Issue #126