skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is called the fundamental attribution error: If I do it, I know the circumstances so it's understandable, whereas if you do it, the circumstances are unclear so I blame your (assumed to be unpleasant) personality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
There's a huge difference between knowing:

* your name is Alice Smith

and knowing:

* your name is Alice Smith

* your age

* your car's license plate

* the street address of where you live and work

* the names and identities of your close family members

* the fact that you are worth ~$400M
Well, I partially like the taste of Keurig coffee. I can drink keurig coffee, or fancy coffee shop coffee and they end up tasting pretty close to the same for me. I like having a hot beverage with a bit of flavor, but I'm not all that picky about the flavor.
Congratulations! Will use it. By the way, thank you very much, Mr. Hartl, for the rails tutorial. It was life changing for me, a former completely non-tech guy, now running my customs brokerage business trough a collaborative database tool horribly coded by me myself :)
edit: misspell
How is making an (possibly incorrect) assertion without providing evidence an argument from ignorance?

I can't for the life of me figure out what was so offensive or trolly about a8da6b0c91d's comments.

>You can't just go around spouting "facts" without any basis.

Really?
*unconfirmed
Your claim is that my examples are "outrageous", which implies they are unusual or uncommon. But they aren't uncommon and therefore can't be outrageous. If my examples of common behavior is outrageous, then every behavior, from common to rare must be outrageous by the definition of the word.

In fact my original post is questioning why examples like this are so common.

If really pressed, I suppose I could go through my FB friend's walls anonymize and take screenshots of the thousands upon thousands of posts by Government workers and contractors I know who endlessly post things similar to my example. But I'm not sure I should spend my time trying to make you aware of a phenomenon that's plainly obvious for anybody to see.
> Generally if you are feeling that "unit testing sucks" or "mockito sucks" it's often that case that you're not doing it the right way.

Well explain further. I hate these smart arse sounding comments - "you are doing it wrong" without any indication why, or how to do it better.
Its ok to think this way - if you're not about the money. The guy who IS about the money will eat your lunch. Spread rumors about your quality. Suggest you're not a professional product. Snag your domain name right before you rename yourself. Cut you in a hundred ways.

Nice to think everybody will play nice, and in some imaginary world that might happen. But here, its important to keep looking out for number one.
Natural Language Processing with Python (2009)
Worth noting that this only works for Chrome. For what it's worth I don't support the practice and think it will not help prevent "self-XSS" at all. The idea of self-XSS being ridiculous to begin with.
> "What?" The police officer balks. "This is the guy who created Bitcoin? It looks like he's living a pretty humble life."

Wow. Bitcoin is pretty mainstream if a random police officer knows the name of the guy who invented it.
It's an old argument. I don't have real strong feelings about it. I think there is enough code doing one or the other out there that the end result is to understand well the ramifications of both, so it ends up a matter of taste.

The documentation is pretty clear about it:

http://docs.python.org/release/3.3.4/library/stdtypes.html#t...

Which leads to this:

>>> a=object()
>>> bool(a)
True
>>>
It wasn't deleted. Just the title was changed by the mods. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7353283
How is this insulated against the future regulatory environment? For instance, the Feds have already come down on the KYC side of things. A trustless exchange is immune to such regulation. So, why wouldn't they outlaw participation in or operation of (as a gateway or other node) same?

These are earnest questions, not statements.
This is not about anonymity. He posted his name in the original Bitcoin white paper after all.

This is about an individual's right to privacy. His finances and personal life have just as much right to protection as yours or mine, and just because you may have the power to disclose that information does not mean you should.

For god's sake, you even cite the leaked documents in your argument. Do you remember why that's a big deal? Why we're all so upset that the government has been invading our right to privacy despite our knowing all along that they have technically had the capability and we only expected they would exercise proper caution and due process in wielding it?

You're not some internet economics superhero detective, and I don't care what the impact to the economics of bitcoin would be, that still does not give you the ethical right to harass Satoshi Nakamoto.
or false confirmation. He might not have invented bitcoin but know all about it (because of his name). He would know that acting all shadowy and evasive would make him seem more like the real Satoshi.

tl;dr - Give me proof, not vague "seems like he confirmed it."
There's a lot of maintainers who seem convinced otherwise.
> To start your own business you just need to send $500 to the Secretary of State's office and congratulations! You're what makes America great!

This reminds me of a scene from 'Searching for Bobby Fischer', http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v38lu0Bi0Kk, only two minutes but it has stuck with me ever since I watched it as a kid.
I'm one of the few lucky ones with a beta account. I love being able to read articles from different news papers without having to buy them all. Articles usually cost about 15 to 25 cents and you can ask your money back when the article is not what you expect it to be. This is pretty useful because the moment you click on an article you pay for it. I haven't found this to be a problem for now but I guess people will sometimes click without noticing. Money is being refunded without questions asked.

The service works great on an iPad and the crew behind Blendle is really responsive to questions. Great work.
One small thing is that the responses aren't consistent.

For example, sometimes this is funny, and sometimes it isn't, depending on which label is assigned to which color (seemingly random).

http://api.chartspree.com/pie.svg?Crips=35&Bloods=20
A big red flag is this -- "On average, the participants consumed 1,823 calories over the day"

That is the average amount of calories consumed in certain sub-Saharan African countries along with very poor places such as Haiti.

Alternatively, in the US the average daily consumption is somewhere around 3,770 calories and the UK around 3,440.

Scroll all the way to the bottom of this list to see countries which match the average reported in this study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energ...

Under reporting or just lower historical consumption combined with the age groups, it just does not match up to typical Western behavior today.
I think it just got renamed to "The Face Behind Bitcoin" which is the title of the Newsweek article
It depends on the type of site that you have.

Some mainstream audiences love how convenient they are and some more technical audiences despise them.

Personally I hate them, but I can sometimes see a business case for making them available.
That has the dank stench of an urban legend. According to the CDC, death rates increase monotonically with age once you pass early childhood, and begin to increase dramatically at about age 65:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/MortFinal2007_Worktable23r....

Here's another breakdown from the Social Security Administration that shows each year individually:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html

The latest age where the death rate decreases is 27, and the decrease is extremely small.
Yeah that burp is awesome. Most of the plane is gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger
DailyWorth: Financial and Career Advice for Women
"no Javascript" is very misleading. There are several <script> tags embedded in each svg, including at least two scripts that are loaded from external sources.

In fact, nearly 1/3 of the data transferred for the first graph is javascript[0].

https://gist.github.com/hughes/c876b02aa06f897c99e2
> Individual unit tests should be on the order of a millisecond or less so you can rip through them very quickly.

So now we have to write tests for all our code, and tests that run fast. We have to refactor our code around the tests. Something seems a bit back to front here. Or is the assumption that if we have 100% test coverage that runs fast then it means that we have written the best code possible?

I think I am siding with the author of the article on this one.
I imagine that a few depleted uranium rounds are a cheaper way to kill a tank than a hellfire, though?
I'm paying with my credit card and larger sizes are disabled for me (NY1 location).
Among the Daily Telegraph readership? Absolutely. They're generally contrarian on public-policy matters.
Bad example on my part, perhaps. I did not believe that TSA contractors swore such an oath. I agree that in the example I gave, that would be hypocritical.

I believe my point still stands for all those federal contractors who have not sworn such an oath, but are similarly suckling off of the federal teat.
Load remote Rails links and forms in Bootstrap modals
Whoa. Cool.
Simplifying Postgres Permissions
Yes, yes, but what a glorious 18 seconds!
Well, when you say "link" sharing, its really more than that; Look focuses on sharing links and viewing them/talking about them in-app and then holding onto those cool links forever. Usually in a messaging app, the link/pic starts a discussion and is lost in the long string of messages (and text messaging had annoying notifications from every recipient of the text.)

And yeah I'd love to join, I'll send you an email.
I would generally agree with this, but the one exception I would make would be for the original British version of Ramsay's show. (It was called "Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares"; they cut the title to just "Kitchen Nightmares" for the US version.)

That show, especially in the first couple of seasons, skipped the usual reality-show tropes and really dug in to the nitty-gritty elements of running a successful restaurant -- which it showed pretty clearly are the same as the elements of running any successful business: know your customers, watch your money, care about your work. There was real human drama in that show that you just don't see very often on TV.

Of course, then they brought it to America and threw all that insightful stuff out to make room for trumped-up shouting matches and canned sound effects of rattlesnakes. What a disappointment.

Both versions are up for streaming on Netflix, if you want to see what I mean; make sure to look for "Ramsay's" in the title to get the UK version. Watch the first episode of the first season and you'll understand the difference.
The original Newsweek article has a picture of his house. Is that really necessary?
> As part of our No More Bullshit stance for 2014, we've become totally honest with everyone who contacts Ethercycle. Brutally honest. We tell people: Your non-responsive website is giving your audience a subpar experience. Your website is huge and slow and it's driving people away. That font is unreadable. Why are there so many steps in the checkout process? Where's your call to action? How does that make any sense? Why do you think that's going to work? Did you think about this at all?

The first few comments were constructive criticisms. The last three are just beating someone up, and are generally dick things to say. There's no excuse for being mean to someone who's asking for help.
Bacon alarm clock for iPhone: Wake up to the smell of bacon every day
Taking everything literally, tits on a boar could actually provide fairly good close ground support
As a side point, that fundamental urge to taxonomize is a large part of what zen seeks to overcome. Satori (enlightenment) can be seen as the ultimate discarding of categories: where all distinctions are removed, between the self and others, between the self and the universe, etc. Thus, the self is in fact annihilated altogether.

This is one interpretation of the oft-used phrase "one with the universe."

Doubtless I've mangled some of the concepts as bit, for which I apologise, but it's unavoidable when discussing zen.
What's wrong with light heroin use? I doubt it's a problem. You seem like some sort of puritan.

I don't think much of anything you've said or linked has bearing on a cigarette a day in the context of a healthy diet. Are you as dogmatic about not living in cities? Because urban air pollution is a known stressor.
If you say, get paid in Bitcoin, one transaction a month, and that's the only way you earn Bitcoin. Will you use the same source address all month?
Not to nitpick or anything, but the first example on the site shows a bar chart with the example code being:

<img src="//api.chartspree.com/bar.svg?Foo=1,1,2,3,5">

However the actual embedded code for the example and the resultant chart is:

<img src="//api.chartspree.com/bar.svg?Foo=1,1,2,3,6">

My immediate reaction to seeing the wrong chart being displayed for some example code was that your system just didn't work properly.

As this is the first thing anyone sees when visiting the project, it might be a good thing to change.
Thanks! And just you wait, a few years from now, you'll be addicted to Look, sending all your colleagues links to cool hacker articles and funny youtube videos :-)
The DMCA prescribes a dispute policy, that allows the accused to refute the evidence provided by the accusers.

I've seen numerous complaints indicating that Digital Ocean abides no such policies.

http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digitalocean...
The hack-ssembly of the web.
Alternatively a seller gets paid in something else relatively valuable that they sell or trade later such as liquid laundry detergent.
... but they clearly did A in this case. That's why we're having this conversation.
I think your comment just made me understand what was nagging me about testing: writing tests is a form of decomposition. The method/function is complex/complicated, and therefore hard to reason about. The unit tests limit the scope of input so that the in particular instances, the method/function becomes more simple to reason about, enough that a test can be written.

Sadly, I feel there are things for which tests can't be written. If a function takes two integers, and adds them together (the typical 2+2=4 therefore n+n=n). Does this work when the integers are near-infinity large (trillions of zeros -- theoretically possible with python)? How would a unit test validate this?

If you wanted to test all combinations possible, you would have to brute-force until the end of the universe, or until the machine runs out of hard drive space (or SAN space), whichever comes first. If you wanted to take a statistically significant sample, you would only have an elevated level of certainty, not an absolute level of certainty.

I think that what the author is pointing at is that like mathematics, which, let's face it, the human brain is much better at than computers, programming is best done in the human brain, and that once the human brain has satisfied itself of the proper of the program, the coding becomes simple.

And the program no longer needs to be decomposed, because it is understood as a whole.
Petition: Release the Senate Intelligence Committee's CIA Torture Report
Isn't the Spectre Gunship (AC-130) also in service and suitable for a similar role?
I'm more surprised about this:

> 23% thought an “MP3″ was a “Star Wars” robot. It is actually an audio file.

I'm sure most people don't know what an MP3 actually is, but I would have thought that they would know it's music related. I remember a teacher shouting "Is that an MP3 I see in your pocket?!" and having to answer yes rather than face the far worse consequences of correcting a teacher.
boolean blindness http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/boolean-blin...
This looks great! I'm a little jealous because I started making a list app that I eventually got bored with that had very similar functionality, in 2012. Definitely downloading this though and giving it a trial run!
This is the most original and convincing argument against libertarianism that I've heard.
Why do with a missile what can be done with a bullet? Hellfires are pretty pricey...
> HTML is a programming language

Seems like the author doesn't know what it is either!
I'm using actor-based concurrency extensively, with multiple actors which stay alive between "requests." I don't hold on to cores for a long time, but I hit them extremely often and let them go. It's a pretty intense mix of fibers and threads.

There are always multiple pools of actors always remaining available, and one request might use multiple pools during the course of creating its response.

If I don't have many cores, a lot of time goes into actors waiting for a core to run on. This means a lot of blocking/suspended pauses. With 8 cores of significant priority, certain operations take 2 seconds that would take 11+ seconds with 4 cores, or more with 2 cores. Looking at stacktraces, the majority of that time goes into purely waiting to resume one actor until another completes a task, then looking further, that actor completing a task is just waiting to get onto a core at all. That isn't supposed to be the case. I need to scale vertically, and I'll end up "using" a lot less than if I scaled horizontally.

I need to get away from using a local machine, specifically my actual development "console" if you will, with my IDE etc, because running all my application on this local machine causes the virtual machine on my local hardware to need to schedule out tasks on its threads.

Because of this real need for actual cores, I can also tell when CPUs have true cores, or "hybrid" cores where there are really 4 cores which simulate being 8 cores.
"0 is False" is extremely useful to a Pythonista. Ever indexed into an array with a boolean offset? Yes, you can do that. (False is 0, True is 1). Makes for very succinct code.
Charming Python: How to actually close a socket by calling...
Not the same. You can't opt out of paying into SS. You can choose not to take a government job.
Don't mind me, I'll just wait here till you're ready.
Rocksteady reliability, I've had zero unplanned downtime on Linode over 2-12 nodes in 5 years.

DO had lots of hiccups with it's networking when I tried them (though was over a year ago so ymmv).

Everything I have on Linode earns me money in one way or another so they pay for themselves, I currently have 3 nodes for a total of $60 bucks a month, DO I could do the same for $15 but really $45 a month is nothing compared to the cost of a machine going down even briefly (even if it takes me an hour to fix, I bill more than that).

For me Linode hits the sweetspot of price/reliability.
Well that line of reasoning is exactly what I was referring to. The reporter doing due diligence and fact gathering is in ill taste, but responding in kind and releasing personal information about her is justified? That doesn't hold water, logically. I don't think anyone is that naive. It's alright if you're upset about divulging Nakamoto's personal details, it's the tit-for-tat mentality that comes across as childish.
Re: wrong: it's not only wrong, but your admission that you didn't go through the logic carefully (that is, you didn't pay attention to the comments, you didn't pay attention to the spots where it was called, etc.) says that you didn't actually pay attention to the design of the system. You refactored for a nonsensical version of “object purity” (trying to satisfy for those metrics) instead of correctness. You claim to have tried to make a point about the design and failed, because your refactoring at best did not help readability, didn't actually improve any of the metrics that Code Climate reports about, and objectively made the code perform worse in the context of how it's called.

This is what happens when you refactor in a vacuum, and the danger of following tools like CC or even the “advice” given in the article at the top of this chain. I would never let a developer who works with me get away with the sort of refactoring attempt you did.

As far as your code being more complex and less readable, you have traded minor depth complexity for greater breadth complexity without simplifying the main comparison at all, and (as I keep pointing out) made the performance worse, to boot. Your code is less readable because now I've got some kind of comparison object that I have to instantiate—and it takes two objects called “one” and “two”. Now, when looking at your priority comparison object, I have to jump between mime/type.rb and mime/type/priority_comparison.rb to understand the data values that are being compared.

The reality is that the MIME::Type class is dead simple: it's a validated data object with the self-documenting descriptive properties. MIME::Types is even simpler: it's a container that knows how to search for its contained class. I've done some fairly aggressive refactoring (it just used to be two files) to extract parsing and file interaction from the main classes, and what's left is just what's required to interact with the data provided by a MIME::Type and to work with a MIME::Type collection (although some of it is going away because the previous on-disk data representation was too anemic, and the current on-disk data representation provides just what's needed in a fairly efficient manner).

That you look at these and say “big classes!” says much more about your own biases than about the code. mime-types provides very little deep functionality, but a lot of documented and self-documented code. It just happens that the data included has a lot of attributes, and I'm a big believer in backwards compatibility. Next year, when I release mime-types 3.0, I'll be removing the deprecated functionality—and it'll cut the code in MIME::Type by about 35-40%, but it will still leave things that will trip up naïve complexity advice and refactorers.

I misspoke, though, about improvements to priority_compare: when I feel comfortable making mime-types use refinements, then I would probably make an in-place refinement of Nil to support #<=>. That probably won't happen until 2015 or 2016, though—I have to keep supporting versions of Ruby that don't support refinements until after the interpreter version EOLs.
Why use your real name if you don't want the fame?
I like it! Very much like mimicking the nature. That type of naturally evolved patterns are common in nature (fish, birds, insects, etc.) to confuse predators.
I for one can not wait until EME expands beyond Video to include full encryption of entire web pages so the web can be locked down behind DRM.... That will be fun for everyone

Netflix and Facebook will be the first to adopt it, the kind of thinking that creates locking out the console will create the expansion of drm.
US airline ditches iPads for Surface 2 tablets
Thanks!
I used parse.com for the back end, the front ends all me.
Margins let you position an element relative to its immediate parent.

This alternative scheme lets you position an element relative to any other element on the page.
In New York, a Heart Surgery Factory With 'Obscene Levels' of Pay
Microsoft Shares Untold Story Behind Security Development Lifecycle
So a person loses their right to privacy when enough strangers take an interest in them?

Nakamoto barely provided Newsweek with any information at all. The rest was obtained (possibly illegally?) by snatching his email from a website he had done business with. After that, she pretended to have an interest in trains to spark a conversation and get initial information. She then stalked him and interviewed his family.
The secrets of success