skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've never ready anything by Sam Harris that I've considered to be rational and well-reasoned. The guy's whole schtick seems to be making arguments that are valid but unsound. Here his premise is "But the only way that Muslims can reasonably be said to exist as a group is in terms of their adherence to the doctrine of Islam," which is completely false. He implies that anyone who practices Islam is "deeply committed to the actual doctrines" as practiced by the hijackers, which is false. He's implying that people who practice Islamophobia are targeting people by their beliefs, when in reality they will target them by their headwear (see the various crimes against Sikhs, one of the gosh-darn nicest religions in the world). Every time I read something by Harris my blood boils a bit because of how insidious his pseudo-logic is.
Chrome to require Certificate Transparency to set EV bit
"Half of the space in Los Angeles is used for parking"
Great advice, thank you. We'll definitely work on improving it.
I would like to add all of that is possible without C and has been achieved multiple times back when C was UNIX only.

It is just the historical legacy fact that the majority of modern OS ABI == C ABI that keeps us have to link with it.
I don't think the liquidity of the job market matters, because again, the only thing a law can feasibly do is prohibit the white supremacist employer from including those ideals in the job listing.
I bought it when the Ames department store was having their final liquidation sale, the only friggin thing left in the entire store the day before closing was a pile of the E.T. game on an otherwise empty shelf marked down to a dollar or so.
Don't forget about godoc.
What's the upgrade code? :D
Out them. You're not helping anybody by not naming names.
What's the pricing like for Librato?
The real question would be if Google logs all unencrypted email traffic across their networks. Otherwise, it would be hard to go back in time to see what was sent.
Of course it's a bad idea to make unnecessary system changes (install patches) that bring system to essentially unknown state that nobody ever tested (the order and set of patches installed over your specific OS configuration).

You only patch what you need to patch. Most of the time for every production service you end up building a custom version anyway. Patching does no good to those.

So, by patching you only bring potential harm and overhead of going through change control processes.
I'm not sure I like how you explicitly market it as integration tests. I'd just explain what it really does.
It took me a bit to figure out that it targets testing website/webapp user-level interactions.
Here's a quick overview of the system.

http://www.certificate-transparency.org/what-is-ct
And the only people who would disagree with this are those who are part of the conspiracy.
$300 ;), (60/20) * 100

Or about 0.5267BTC wait 0.612BTC no wait 0.5267 again :D
I think you are homing in on a key philosophical difference between me and LessWrongsters. Don't really have time to get into it now, except to say that it is kind of arrogant to think you can design or think about superintelligences without reference to the best existing intelligent systems we have. Especially if you want to keep them goal-compatible. The pathologies of such systems are especially instructive.
While I don't agree with a more dynamic runtime(a more static runtime would be preferable IMO) removing the need for recompiling would be really nice. I am certain that this is would be a huge undertaking though. A better approach IMO is optimizing for reduced compilation speed, there have already been work done in this area. A lot of speed is gained for free from the object file paradigm and even more can be gained by using forward declarations and @import
You ever wonder why patent law proponents never ask the pragmatic question: Do all these legal/regulatory costs for the patent system result in increased innovation?

After all, if we were starting from scratch today, wouldn't we ask for overwhelming evidence that such a regulatory scheme would produce more innovation, before implementing such terrible laws?

Not only are there no studies that show conclusively that patent rights encourage more innovation in the economy, there aren't even studies to show it has a marginally better effect than no patents at all. So the legal costs are a dead loss for the economy.

All we have is the blind faith regurgitations of the patent fans ... OMG IT MUST ENCOURAGE INNOVATION MORE THAN NOT HAVING PATENTS BECAUSE MONOPOLY!!!!

In software particularly this is an idiotic argument. Microsoft and other current front-runners in patent filings hardly filed patents at all when they were growing rapidly in the 80s and early 90s. Its only after being hit by patent suits from the old-timers in the industry ... horseshit patents BTW ... that they understood that they had to play this corrupt game.

Bill Gates' early writing about software patents tells you everything you need to know from a businessman's perspective.

Patents are a way for encumbents to raise barriers to entry in a mature business. They aren't a way to encourage the development of new businesses by players will little power/capital.

This system (and many of its supporters) make me sick to my stomach.
> it's considered a settled issue that everyone is equally likely to get HIV.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Under every interpretation I can think of, it is incorrect. In the first place, people vary in their CD4 and CCR5 (&c.) receptors, so they also vary in their susceptibility to HIV infection given exposure. My understanding is that some alleles confer such resistance to infection that carriers are considered naturally immune. As ever in immunology, that's not the entire story, but it certainly enough to falsify the view that "everyone is equally likely to get HIV" _even given exposure_.

More importantly, people have different rates of exposure. Those rates depend on what sort of potential transmission events one faces, and the prevalence of infection among partners for potential transmission events. Both of those differ between groups of people.

Hence, not everyone is equally likely to get HIV. That implies nothing, of course, about what we ought to _do_ about that.
Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's right either.
So, let's pull out Occam's Razor:

- choice A: Google is logging all unencrypted communications from their staff (a rather vast amount of information altogether, I suspect, given how Google employees throw data around), in order to be able to go back retrospectively and wade through it to find leakers

- choice B: Google grepped through Gmail to find the leaker, which they have a complete legal right to do and has a marginal cost of zero.
My point is not that the Chinese gov't is better than we thought, nor that it's better in an absolute sense than the US gov't. My point is that the US gov't is worse than how we've been thinking of it.
It's very naive to think that you can protect a box from somebody with a local shell. Never worked.
The message passed in plaintext on the network. Were they sniffing and logging all traffic before the whistleblowing happened? Unlikely.

It's much more likely that they either 1) read Arrington's mailbox or 2) keylogged the crap out of the Google laptop the guy likely used. The latter method is not foolproof, whereas it's known that Google does have the capability to use the former. Occam would see 1 as the most realistic explanation.
The EFF doesn't constrain themselves to just writing briefs in an effort to make sure that only the current laws on the books are interpreted in a sane fashion. Have you not seen them advocate for policy changes or against poor policy changes (e.g. SOPA)?
Almost every ISP already offers the ability to pay less money for less bandwidth.

So not sure what your point is.
I parsed it as (open source bike) comparison and review, not as (open source)(bike comparison and review).
Great point. I'm a Christian and also a scientist. I am very reluctant to share my religious beliefs with peers. And I keep my mouth firmly shut whenever someone cites Dawkins, Harris et.al. on the part of their writings that assesses the general intellectual competency of religious people and (peaceful) religious communities.

A couple of times I've tried the philosophical argument, but I get shot down every time. It's easier to just stuff it.
One of the Node Security Project (https://nodesecurity.io/) main efforts is to audit all the npm modules in a community driven way.

We are accepting contributions from the community to build the tools that get the job done efficiently and to audit modules, disclosing vulnerabilities in a responsible manner.
I kind of tried to arrange this but never pulled it off. I was married to an introvert who was a bit of a workaholic and his career generally put us in places where I could not readily go to college. I suggested that I move to a college an hour or two away, take the kids with me and see him on weekends (in part because he really didn't want much to do with us after working all day with other people -- he needed alone time after work during the week). It never happened.

I suspect few people have really done this. You might look for experiences of college students who go away to college in another city but technically still live with parents the rest of the year in their hometown. I did for a time split my time between Kansas and Georgia when I was a homemaker and military wife. There are some remarks here about those experiences:

http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/02/ramblin-mom....

HTH.
Sans per-call profiling i'd expect the string concatenation time to be dwarved by the calls to rand.

Edit: Does PHP even have any per-call profilers?
An incredible amount, thanks for your interest
Windows 8 is a big step backwards from Windows XP?
Not saying this is the case, but giving bogus reasons makes it impossible to mount a defense. If I say you have invisible murderers at your home, it would be hard to discredit me in front of a jury that believes in invisible people.

It's a less subtle attack than "have you stopped hitting your wife yet?"
It's not survivorship bias. Facebook is an existence proof that there is no "PHP hole" that they are in, that it's largely a myth propagated by programming language nerds who have never tried scaling a site in PHP. When was the last time you heard about a site closing up because of PHP-induced technical debt? You don't. People re-write sites because of poor architecture, not because of poor programming languages, and PHP (in general) does not prevent you from building a site with good architecture, both from a software structural standpoint and an operational standpoint.

PHP's APIs are ugly. It's language semantics are a bit hairy until you get the hang of it. But there are parts of PHP that are extremely elegant and easy to reason about. It's OOP support provides all that you need to produce re-usable and easily understood code.

Facebook's work on PHP has focused on largely two dimensions: reducing CPU cycles and increasing static/runtime type checking. The former is something that only really matters at massive scale: PHP is generally fast enough since most of the time PHP processes are I/O bound reading from a database or memcached. It's only for sites like Facebook where if you squeeze out an additional 10% TPS from your boxes that you will start seeing large absolute cost reduction that this level of optimization starts to make sense. On the type checking side, this is something you might start to want in any dynamically typed language when you have millions of lines of code and want to ensure basic guarantees that it will run, and is something that you'd probably see Facebook doing if they were a Ruby or Python shop anyway. It has nothing to do with PHP but with the classic dynamic vs static typing tradeoff.

Should you be writing your chat server in PHP? No. But 90% of the code you write for a large website is HTTP response code rendering HTML or JSON. PHP excels at this and you can pretty much hire any developer off the street to start cranking out code if you give them a solid foundation to build on.
I have a novel suggestion to fix this diversity problem.

Women tend to outperform men in the general desirability of occupations[1]. In jobs like veterinary and psychologists, the competition is fierce and highly gender imbalanced in favor of women.

So in order to get more women into other fields like programming, lets favor men for occupations that has high general desirability. This will move men into occupations normally occupied by highly skilled and educated women, and move women into occupations with lower general desirability by which is otherwise male dominated.

Do not be against diversity, support this move today!

[1]: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-societ...
hosting your own email solves exactly nothing. Email still goes over (mostly) unencrypted channels and will, eventually, land in someone's gmail account anyway. Where Google and/or the NSA will read it. Worse still, you're now no longer hiding in the crowd. You have a giant blinking neon sign saying "I'm putting my mail where you can't get it."

Privacy and email do not mix, and maybe never will. Attacking the victims of the NSA spying does nothing to stop the NSA from doing the spying.
There is no reason taking seed precludes you from putting your own skin in the game. Nor does taking seed force you to not do things your way. This doesn't read like they had a choice, because their reasons don't align with why you wouldn't take seed.

Typically the companies that say "we are doing this bootstrapped" rather than taking seed, are companies that don't need money to get started, they need dev time, or they can start profiting form labor/sales right away.

You want to boot strap a HomeJoy for Llama sheering? You can buy $100 worth of software, $10 a month in hosting, $300 in graphic design, and be up and running. You'd only take money to get advertising. Why give up 25% of the company for that.

You want to build the first software capable of predicting NFL games, all you need is dev time, so you keep a part time job and code while you ignore your family and girl friend. No need to give up 25% for money so you can get it out 3 months earlier because you don't have competition.
Maybe they could inject a dye that was not visible to the eye, but that the cameras could pick up, and then overlay it digitally in some way to the tv audience.
> a Google employee, approached me at a party in person

Personally, I would have said "fuck you" and walked away. They are never available to speak to when you need them. Even when being helpful and reporting bugs, they don't even acknowledge having read it. They always need to come to you. No, fuck that, help your customers for a change.

I know this is semi off-topic, but it so bugs me about Google (and basically most other major tech firms) that this is the knee-jerk reaction to reading the story, instead of the actual point.
Minnie balls, Spenser Rifles, trenches, revetments and mechanized transport by rail and steamship contributed to the 1,000,000 deaths in the US Civil War. Slavery didn't go down without a fight and that fight was industrial.
This is relevant to my interests. :) Is there/will there be a data dump?
I've never quite understood this messaging. Popular opinion regarding startups is that a founder needs to be persevering through countless rejections and believe in themselves through it all. And yet now we're saying people may be put off by insufficient pictures of women on a homepage. Wat?

Why would you want someone so easily broken? You know how many Asian founders I've seen marketed in aus startups? Very few. Doesn't bother me.
Less scorlling?

On the other hand many young developers these days seem to think, that scrolling is good and insert lots of blank lines everywhere.
2. Eating meat is very natural. Even animals do it.

Just like murder, rape, spreading disease, slavery...

To my knowledge, animals have little to no moral consciousness, so I don't think "Animals do it" can justify any moral opinion.
You should only intentionally kill their server if you're willing to compensate them for the revenue they lost while they try to figure out what the hell happened.

An alternate analogy would be something like: "I saw you forgot to install a lock on door, so I superglued it shut."
This is 100% a non-issue in go. gofmt will automatically make all of your code look just like how everyone else writes it.

In addition most editors have plugins for automatic gofmt on save.
Computer, per se, are not bad. Computers infected with malware are bad. Infected computers can still do useful things for you - and in the background they'll be screwing you over also.

The argument I would like to make is not that finance is bad intrinsically - as you've said above. The real problem is that the current instantiation of this concept has grown a series of goals of its own, and to fulfill those goals it is doing things that use the common, shared, limited pool of resources of the global economy, siphoning off stuff that the rest of us could put to better use.

In other words, they could perform useful services for us, and they do. It's all the extra layer on top of that that's the problem.

In a strict, mathematical sense, the OP probably exaggerated when saying they are entirely parasitical.
I do not think that netflix or it's cutomers should pay for the exess bandwidth they use.

However I would consider netflix and other big bandwidth users a great sport if they would donate a part of their revenue towards expanding world internet pipes.
We are getting close to the yearly annoyance that is April fools' day, but this seems legitimate (a day would be fine, but it's starting to be more like a month, so I had to check that the New Scientists is published weekly). The article somewhat exaggerates the performance, though, by showing the copy-pasted hair, ears and earring (in gray). The PLOS paper (http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...) doesn't show any of those. Ears in particular, seem a logical next target.
Laptop motherboards are usually custom designed for the OEM's design, although sometimes that's contract work.
Nice little game, if anyone wants to upgrade to silver you can use my code:NRtZCAa7
It's just a thought experiment to gather some information.

How would you better word that statement to get the same information back? One of the keys is that the person wearing the goggles doesn't know they are wearing goggles and is in a panicked and rushed scenario with lots going through his head so that they don't have time to consider, "Wait, did someone put a virtual reality device on my head?".

Also because I realize that bumping into things and a video moving when all other senses are saying something different is happening would be clues that it would be easy to guess you are possibly in a simulation, being tied up takes away this freedom of movement (and is safer than drugs that paralyze) so I just made up a random scenario that was slightly humorous and anyone could easily imagine.

I do hope that nobody actually tries that, it would be funny but could be considered torture. I've heard of the media blacking out things willingly because they do not want people copying it, it would be an interesting article if anyone wants to research that stuff, not sure if that's ethical or not though.
"One day, the technique may even allow us to gaze into the faces of extinct human-like species that interbred with our own ancestors."

I don't know how accurate that statement is. They can predict human faces because they can look at examples of DNA and the paired human face, they would have to use unsupervised machine learning for extinct species and have no real way to validate it.
They have the right because it's their service. No one is forcing you or anyone else to use their email service. If you don't like it, you're free to move to another email service. Or better yet, do what I did and just have it go straight to your own domains email.
Alternately, he is lying. It sounds crass to outright say such a thing, but it is suspiciously convenient that Arrington draws attention to himself under the pretext of having explosive information relating to a current hot story, all with mysterious unnamed sources.
Why did I think an hour had 100 minutes? It wasn't even that early in the morning.
It's sort of like our earlier generations' expectations of privacy were set only by security-through-obscurity.
What I find most interesting is that it reads ASP Mail eXchange, where ASP is Microsoft's. Or perhaps I'm misreading it.
Yes! I love the heresy :D

I wish there were more frank expressions of beliefs that go against the status quo. I strongly agree with you, even as my core moral values and ambitions line very well up with the chase of my personal ambitions.
You missed the words just before: "my source, a Google employee, approached me at a party". You don't say "fuck you" to a source.
Schizophrenia – How it Feels
There is no .m .h .c .cpp involved. In hypothetical new language we cast off all baggage and stop thinking in archaic C and "C with a twist" terms.
> We don't want Garbage Collection to the contrary we want reference counting. Reference counting is the best compromise between handling memory manually and using GC ala Java. I would argue that the mental strain for the programmer is equal for reference counting(at least with ARC) to that of GC. However Reference Counting is extremely lightweight.

I used to think that, until I started to spend more time on modern GC platforms like Java and .NET. It's impressive how performant a good generational garbage collector can be. For many business applications (i.e., not the kinds of workloads you'll see being simulated by popular benchmarks) a good generational GC can even improve performance thanks to improved locality of reference. I think a lot of us don't fully appreciate the cost of a cache miss.

Speaking of, I'm not sure a lot of us fully appreciate the cost of synchronization, either. It's one big reason why I'm not convinced that reference counting is particularly well-suited to concurrent programming, since it turns a really commonplace operation (retaining a reference to an object) into a synchronization point in the program. There's a non-trivial cost associated with that. You could avoid repeatedly stalling the CPU by being very careful about not sharing objects among threads, but I don't think most developers can reasonably be expected to make a habit of that in practice.
Just FYI: sending their hosting provider a note (other than a takedown / copyright violation notice) won't do much to prevent you from receiving a notice. You might want to put your hosting provider on notice that your content has been misappropriated, and to disregard DMCA notices from anyone claiming the reverse.
It Is Time For Basic Income
So sexism is bad then. I guarantee you this is not something "you can't say", or goes against today's moral fashion.