skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>The problem with JavaScript is not that it is a dynamically typed prototype based object-oriented language without classes. That is actually JavaScript’s strength. The problem is that it is a poorly designed language, filled with many hidden land mines awaiting the unsuspecting developer

When I see a phrase like this, I wonder whether the author have every worked in a project with at least 100KLOC.
Note that you can call PyFrame_FastToLocals if you want to access all locals. This will selectively disable fast locals on a frame.
CLOJURESCRIPT IS THE ANSWER! no question about it
I agree. As a runner, I tend to see that phrase as a bit trite also, but for different reasons. If we're comparing life to running, life usually seems more like HIIT... periods of running around at full sprint with periods of recovery - jogging and walking - laced in between. Of course the occasional period of puking / hanging over the fence on the side of the track because you're just plain exhausted.

But all-in-all it's making you stronger and more capable of handling the next interval (season of life).
Porsche (pour-sha damn it!) executives were pretty smart back in 2008, but I guess VW owns them now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/business/worldbusiness/31n...
Over at his blog, the ever-interesting, never-boring Derek Sivers has compared transitioning between careers with Tarzan, swinging between vines. I wanted to put that under a bit of pressure.

Derek says rather than quitting one career abruptly and moving onto the next, there should be an overlap period. In his own words:

Remember how Tarzan swings through the jungle? He doesn't let go of the previous vine until the next vine is supporting his weight.

Of course, that is great advice. But, at the same time, I worry the Tarzan image might be might be too limiting; I worry the picture it paints of people's working lives might be too simplistic.

In the new online economy, the very concept of the traditional 'career' is possibly dead.

In the 1950s, people used to make the vast majority, if not all, of their annual income from a single job. Just like Tarzan in the animation, you would only ever hold onto one vine at any one time. Moments when you holding onto two were exceptions to the norm, exceptions just like when you were transitioning between careers.

Is this still true today?

Not obviously. These days people are much happier (and able) to juggle different sources of incomes, to wear different hats at different times. Or, put in terms of the Tarzan analogy, people are much happier (and able) to hold onto multiple vines &mdash; many, many, many more than two &mdash; at any one time.

At one point you might be programming, writing and consulting; at another you might just be writing and consulting; at another you might be running a coffee delivery business, consulting for an e-reading start-up while making a few quid from blogging.

The Tarzan analogy is limiting because it encourages you to think of careers as those things that you have one of, or, at a stretch, two.

When it comes to careers, a better analogy might be a garden, or, even better, a window box.

Sources of income are like plants in this window box. At different times, some plants are smaller, some are bigger; some are growing, some are whithering; some flourish in this weather, and others flourish in that.

But, how can we make sense of career transitions in this new language?

Using this image, transitioning careers is like planting a new seed, alongside all the other plants you have growing, watering that one carefully &mdash; but not ignoring the others, maintaining a window box of flourishing flowers that will help you navigate changes in externalities like shifts in the economy and disruptive new technologies.

With this new image we can see another important lesson: You must adjust your skills and expertises to the changing, shifting economy; just like you should put different plants in your window box at different times of the year and in different climates and weathers.
Proposed crowdfunding rules need to be thoroughly reworked
This might be a better one, from the US Constitution:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by
securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8
Microsoft releases source code for MS-DOS and Word
You might like to check out NYU Incubators @ 137 Varick Street, DUMBO, and Urban Futures Lab at 15 Metrotech in BK. Independent accelerators and support systems attached inside, university support, NYC govt and private company backing.
People send email to those they think have been incorrectly banned.

Thus the importance of correct email addresses in the user's profile.
And even scientists can really only be be deeply familiar with the experimental basis for a few narrow fields of study. For all the rest, they too have to take it on faith.
I prefer this definition to others involving the size of memories, or number of computers, because it underscores the data rate instead of just its' (instantaneous) volume.
Patents won't help the engineer anyway, patents are made to protect the venture capitalist who invests the significant amount of money required to file the patent. That's the difference between the "inventor" and the "owner" as in patent law.
I appreciate the value of civil discussion, but five minutes into scanning this piece I am unable to determine if there is any value. If someone has put the time into it, can you provide a useful summary? Or at least what does the multicolor plot represent?
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided trademark filed
The way I understand this, he did not lose access to the file, he just was not able to share it with someone else. Synchronisation within the account should not count as sharing, so I guess what happens is just when a new share link is being created, Dropbox is checking the checksum against a list of blocked ones and prevents you from sharing it. Which, tbh., is fair enough.
A career does not have to happen at a single job. A career can span many companies.

A career is a path. If you go from Programmer to Farmer, you have switched paths. If you go from Programmer I to Programmer II to Programmer Manager, you are still on the same path. Heck, if you move to Software Patent Lawyer next, that could be part of the same career track- it's all connected.
Does it have a good interop? Does it require a big change in mindset? These are my questions. (Real questions, I've never used Clojure apart from some basic tutorials)
There are still two sides in programming, it seems. And interestingly enough it's not necessarily static vs. dynamic or procedural vs functional.

One the one hand you have pragmatic, loosey goosey languages like perl, javascript, ruby, even scala and C#. An important defining characteristic being perl's maxim "there's more than one way to do it".

On the other hand you have what I'd call the "bondage and discipline" languages like python and java. The defining characteristic being "there should only ever be one right way to do a thing".

In my experience people coming from the 2nd world have a harder time living in the 1st than vice versa.
A Golden Proof
Often, the problem can be summed up as "Canada is below zero for months at a time."
It's just as true in other languages. More often than not, programmers thinking about code reuse attempt to solve it via inheritance, which is almost always the wrong answer. With some persistence, you can end up with a nice four or five level deep inheritance tree with 10 methods randomly overriden at various levels in the tree. Good luck figuring out how the damn thing actually works if you didn't write it.
Does San Francisco have a particularly large amount of "war on drugs" related gang violence? It's still 8x the homicide rate of London. And whether it's caused by the war on drugs or not, the fact remains police still have to deal with it.
Am I the only one astounded that we're still having this conversation? The fact that it's still around shows me it has indeed been "the answer" for some. The fact that it hasn't become ubiquitous is plenty of proof that it also is not a one size fit all solution, as if any solution is.
Modern browsers are hiding the url, and title more and more.
Yes, Dropbox is working pre-emptively on their own initiative here.

The message is quite cleverly constructed, as it doesn't actually say that there is a DMCA takedown request against the file (because there isn't). It just says that there has been a takedown request sometime, possibly(probably) against some other file/url.
Lately I've been finding that if I perform specific tasks in a focused manner I can be highly productive for the best part of eight hours (say 7.5+ out of 8). By this I mean that if I need to code, I code. If I need to think before I implement something, I set my chair to the laziest position I can (away from screen/keyboard) and I zone out and think. If I need to discuss with another team member, I do this. The key, at least for me, and at least in the past couple of months, is to never try to focus on multiple things at once.

Two other factors that I can't discount with certainty: I've been reasonably enjoying my work lately, but this isn't particularly unusual (I do feel that there's probably some feedback effect from my increased effectiveness). And I don't have many distractions, maybe 4-5 per day. More might wreck my effectiveness.
There is still not "answer", and the world is not gonna end tomorrow, in the future maybe will be one but until that day comes i will stick with whatever i find appealing to me at present. For now is CS.
I do have some frustrations with CoffeeScript as outlined here - I find the unless keyword infuriating because it forces me to read backwards:

a = 123 unless b == 2

"OK, so a is set to 123. Oh, unless b is 2. That's annoying"

That said, my answer is to just not use the unless keyword. If you don't like CoffeeScript classes, you don't have to use them. IMO you could write CoffeeScript using only the kind of functionality availabie in vanilla JS and it would still be a preferable experience.
I don't understand your first and third lines. You seem to imply that there are no other possible CEO candidates for Mozilla with an engineering (or in Eich's case, computer science) background. Is that the case? I've followed very little of the discussion.

FWIW, the newest CEO of Microsoft also has a MS in CS (replacing a CEO with a bachelor degree in math and economics). How do you think that increased engineering background at Microsoft will change the industry?

Engineers head other organizations, including Ginni Rometty of IBM (with a bachelor in CS and EE, and first job as a systems engineer) and Pat Gelsinger of VMware (MS in EE, and contributor to six patents). Aren't these "real engineers in powerful positions in the industry", like what you want? How does it make a difference?

(Also, Tim Cook of Apple has a bachelor in industrial engineering, and Jim Whitehurst of Red Hat has a bachelor in CS and economics. How much of an engineer does one need to be before you would call them an "engineer"?)

I don't see how "enormous admiration and due respect" for someone's inventive ability is correlated with that person's ability to be a CEO. I have enormous admiration and respect for Steve Wozniak, but I don't want him as CEO of pretty much any company.

Seriously, I get your underlying point, and you can avoid my Socratic questions here. My underlying point is that comes across like saying "Eich is an engineer, we need an engineer as Mozilla CEO, so hold your nose and go for an engineer rather than open up the possibility that a non-engineer might come in instead."

For that logic to work, you need to establish that a technical CEO is better than a non-technical one, and that no other competent engineering person is available. But then why not just make that argument directly?
- small projects should also lead to small dependency graphs, so I don't really get why it's bad there.

- I'm just not a big fan of automating the configuration of a build system - you build/put yet another machine around a machine. As long as it works - ok, but as soon as you run into unexpected behavior it will become a huge time sink to debug. When you update the Makefile contents manually you take ownership over everything and you get a deeper understanding on how everything works together, right down to the command parameters sent to compiler and linker. If you don't want to do that I'd suggest switching to something like cmake - if it has to 'magic', at least have the behavior specified in a coherent manner.
"is there something small and replicable that a piece of software could help you do right away?"

Fact checking is a huge problem. I'm not sure if call it a hair-on-fire problem. But it's certainly pissed me off on any number of occasions. Typically, what happens is that I'll write a story mildly critical of BigCo. The PR department at BigCo will catch wind of it, then email me and my editor with as many small "corrections" as they can muster, in an attempt to take down the piece.

When I say corrections, I don't mean broad facts. I mean infinitesimally perceptible technicalities. For instance, I might report someone's title as the "VP of Strategy," because that's what's listed on this company's website and on the person's LinkedIn page. But the company's PR group will come at me, screaming bloody murder, because the guy's title is actually "VP of Strategic Initiatives." They'll do this because they're unhappy with the broader criticism I'm leveling against their business -- so they want to pick away at as many nits as possible. It's a guerilla harassment tactic.

Now, you might well ask: aren't I just being sloppy? How hard can it be to fact check everything? The answer is: it's damned near impossible to catch everything. Some of this information is conflicting across multiple sources. Some of it's out of date or inaccurate. And some of it's not even publicly available, and you wouldn't know you're slightly off until someone corrects you. (Case in point: the "Strategic Initiative" example, a nonsensically titled internal promotion that was never made public.) Add to this the immense pressure of weekly deadlines, and factor in how much time I need to spend ideating, researching, writing, and editing in the first place, and you see how little time I have to get every last thing 100% accurate. I'd love to be 100% accurate 100% of the time, but given my constraints, that's rarely feasible. It's like asking an engineer to write flawless, bug-free code at a hackathon.

I'd love a piece of software I could run my stories through, which would analyze my piece against a public data set (Google, for instance) to check for factual accuracy in all these little places. Or at least a piece of software that would throw up red flags on unverified statements, for which multiple, conflicting data exists on the web. Sort of like the little, red underlines on automatic spell check.

Perhaps that's not a big enough use case or TAM. But broaden it out. I'd love a better way to compile Google research about any given query. This is why I'm rooting for the stuff Wolfram is working on, though I'd love a more modifiable and specialized front end for professional users.
They probably take things safe as a matter of policy. Imagine that the bystander was actually a murderer who got interrupted. If they let him hang around and he managed to finish the job there would be lawsuits to kingdom come and the cops would be vilified. There is just no way to tell in a situation under pressure, so the prudent thing is to do the safe thing and remove the unknowns.
Kimberly Bryant – Inspiring the tech leaders of the future with Black Girls Code
Thank you for saying this. I don't think the author necessarily meant harm, but by constantly questioning and trying to take control of the situation ("Is that protocol", rolling over after being placed on his stomache, etc.) he was digging himself deeper and deeper in a hole.

It is also hard to take the article at face value. Literally every other sentence screams of hyperbole. Basically, he got arrested and had to spend the night in jail. He makes it sounds like he was locked in Guantanamo Bay. He didn't get sent to a "safety cell" (what he refers to as isolation) until he (by his own account) threw a temper tantrum demanding to see a doctor.

When Deputy Terry walked away muttering, “I have had enough of you,” I banged on the door repeatedly and screamed, “I want to see a doctor. I WANT TO SEE A DOCTOR.”

I don't even understand what the original accident really was. It looks like the girl fell off her bike and hit her foot on the ground. Was it really necessary to call 911 for this? I apologize if it was more serious then it appeared, but from the photo it does not look that bad.
There is some bad advice at the end of this: recommending Lyft as an alternative to calling 911.

First of all, Lyft doesn't exist in most places; not everybody lives in San Francisco.

Second, moving people who have had an accident without proper medical knowledge and procedures and equipment can often make their condition worse. The author does say there are exceptions to his "don't call 911" rule, but he says "they are fewer than you think". Is he claiming that this particular situation was, or wasn't, one of the exceptions? If it was, then how does this situation support the rule? If it wasn't, he's taking on a lot more responsibility; sure, maybe calling Lyft "worked fine" for him when he broke his elbow, but was that because he showed good judgment or because he got lucky? Would it have "worked fine" for the people who got hurt in this scenario?
Last time I checked, which was a year ago, there's a federal $7500 tax credit and a California $2500 tax credit for electric cars. I don't know if these still exist or if they will when Tesla's new car is available. But if they still exist, it would have a significant impact on sales.
Project Feedback
Hello guys,

I recently build a WebRTC video social network for my final university project.

I have a short usability survey with a few tasks and would be very grateful if a few people could fill it out to help me write my final thesis.

Check it out below, you never know you might think the project is cool!

http://goo.gl/g2jIvf

Thank you,

Jamie
Also the OP mentioned something about not being told his Miranda rights -- keep in mind the police only have to tell you your rights if you're being interrogated.

If they're trying to haul your friend off for something, the best thing you can do is say nothing about it, sadly. Otherwise you'll be brought in for obstruction of justice which will likely be deemed a misdemeanor (as opposed to an infraction, which is sorta bad news for you).
Re: copying from FT, if you're using Firefox you can set dom.event.clipboardevents.enabled to false to get around that. Will probably break copying in some web apps.
tl;dr: Superclasses make your code brittle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragile_base_class

How many people still try to fit their software design into the class hierarchy model? I've been on the composition-not-inheritance side for so long I can't do "traditional OO" justice, but I'd love to hear the counter-arguments in case I'm wrong.
The article suggests that people (who?) believed AWS was a low-margin business. Why would anyone think that? (And who?)
Nice article, always wanted to know the details of SSL
> The declaration of what food is occurs in the middle of the line and doesn’t even look like a variable declaration.

And that's what makes the whole line unreadable. And 'unless' would make it even less readable.

I can understand why people insist on discussing such personal, subjective matters as "readability" or "expressiveness" - I like that too. What I don't get is why do they confuse their impressions with facts and why do they try to generalise based on them. Is it that hard to admit that what's readable to you may be completely unintelligible to someone else?

Comparison of programming languages, outside of some really technical metrics, will always be subjective and preference-based. Discussing metrics as vague as "readability" without even agreeing on what it means is absolutely pointless. Yet so many man-hours go into debates and blog posts, sometimes even books, which cover such issues. It's stupid, straw-man discussion every single time it appears.

I really wish people would stop writing lengthy posts with a sole purpose of informing the world about their preferences. It's not that I'm against people having preferences, I'd just like them stated as preferences, not facts, and preferably only when they are not repeated a millionth time this month.

Edit: also, this: http://joelgrus.com/2013/12/24/why-programming-language-x-is...
It's end-to-end, but you need a way to validate that you're talking to the peer that you think that you are - there's no certificate authority verifying client certs (in the normal case, I haven't explored traditional client-side certs for webrtc).
Tweet map
I was a named party in Sony vs. Bleem!, LLC. I don't support people that sue me or my friends.
Is there a detailed google vs amazon cloud offerings/feature comparison ?
They found that surface analysis indicates that google ads are not a good investment. But when they looked into what the users from google ads did after the initial page view, they actually signed up at a higher rate and thus the ads were worth the cost.
Abolish Intellectual Property. Period.

IP's time (if there ever was one) is over. There is no benefit for real inventors and artists anymore, merely for mega corporations to use the levers of government to maximize their profits at the expense of humanity and freedom. Nothing "intellectual" should be property.

I'm not against corporations or even mega corporations. I think they'd do better for themselves (and their users, more importantly) if they didn't waste years and $billions battling each other and bullying startups and individuals over IP. Instead, they should just focus of making better things.

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. - Thomas Jefferson
RDF is unpopular because it is generally misunderstood. This problem arises (primarily) from how RDF has been presented to the market in general.

To understand RDF you have first understand what Data actually is, once you cross that hurdle two things will become obvious:

1. RDF is extremely useful in regards to all issues relating to Data

2. RDF has been poorly promoted.

Links:

[1] http://slidesha.re/1epEyZ1 -- Understanding Data

[2] http://bit.ly/1fluti1 -- What is RDF, Really?

[3] http://bit.ly/1cqm7Hs -- RDF Relation (RDF should really stand for: Relations Description Framework) .