skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
New app helps non-verbal autistic kids to communicate with their family
I'm sorry, maybe I was unclear. I'm talking about peer-reviewed work (which the NIPCC stuff is not) that is being trumpeted by people who are, like, not being funded by a libertarian think tank. I mean, NIPCC is bankrolled by the Heartland Institute (a Cato-alike wishcasting group) and two advocacy groups that won't reveal their funding, one of which was headed by Fred Singer (who to this day is trying desperately to make people think that the University of East Anglia emails are actually a thing).

I wanted to give you a chance to show me something I hadn't seen before, on the off chance that maybe somebody, somewhere, was actually doing intellectually defensible work that wasn't being publicized...and you bilged it by bringing up the same utterly discredited junk that's in the denialist toolbox. I mean, you do realize why it's named the NIPCC, right? It's named that to confuse people with the IPCC, an actual scientific organization that does not lead off their papers with statements about how politically independent they are.

The mindset that compels one to the false equivalency you are choosing to employ between a policy group's own paid-for studies and the peer review process of, like, actual science is exactly why I use the term "denialist".

(For folks interested in a pretty good rundown of exactly why I and folks who pay attention to this may react in this manner towards the NIPCC, I recommend this as a great summary: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-inst... )
"It" here being the fully polymorphic version. Rereading, it does seem misleading (or at best ambiguous) so I've expanded the pronoun.
As I discussed in another comment, we could get rid of GPUs too, but first you have to find a suitable algorithm that works well on CPUs but not GPUs or any conceivable ASIC. That may or may not exist.
Patching a TV's buggy UDID in linux
You're describing a fairly narrow subset of subclassing; notably one that is (as you point out) almost equivalent to composition. I think you're right: this is not a bad thing. However, how useful is it really? The kind of API's I find myself wanting to pass-through are generally small and abstract (and where they're not, I really wish they were).

Languages that make this special form of encapsulation easy suffer for it indirectly (I'm thinking esp. of java/C# here). Auto-passthrough allows huge API's that would otherwise be unwieldy. Unfortunately, inheritance isn't enough, and when that happens, the poorly designed api's with huge surface areas encourage really bad hacks. All in all I'm not convinced that api pass-through is really a net win for a language. There are alternatives too, such as mix-ins or extension methods, that would allow you to manually pass through only the smallest truly necessary core, and just re-mixin the extras.

But this is all about the best-case for inheritance. Inheritance in common usage also contains two other less ideal aspects, however: semi-private methods, and virtual methods (method overriding). I'm skeptical either has value. Overriding almost necessarily means tight coupling - you need to understand at some level how the internal state of the superclass works to replace calls (even those that the superclass itself makes!) to methods of the superclass. Protected methods suffer from a similar problem - what kind of api is public enough to allow access by a subclass but not public enough to allow access by a wrapper? Of course, using protected methods makes the previously described problem of discouraging bad design even worse; it makes it even harder to write a wrapper, necessitating inheritance even when that's perhaps not exactly what you want.

Finally, if all you want is polymorphism, you just need interfaces, not implementation inheritance.

I think you're right in pointing out that the OP's post doesn't do OOP's subtlies justice, but beyond interface inheritance, I don't think I care much for other aspects of inheritance.
Most US States and Canadian Provinces have Self-employment programs (SEPs) that provide 8-12 weeks of extensive training using their framework followed by 6-12 months of one-on-one mentoring and guidance. They also hold networking events for you to network with past and present members of the program. These programs are primarily funded and supported by state and federal small business initiatives.

I went through a similar SEP program in Toronto. I am again considering similar program in WA state for my bootstrapped business. From my experience, these programs are better once you have already started your business and have gone past initial excitement and need some external insights and influence to develop business further.

Some of these resources may help you identify appropriate programs and mentoring: Small Business Administration http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/starting-ma..., SCORE http://www.score.org, Small Business Development Center http://www.wsbdc.org (if you are WA state, I am sure other states have similar program).

There are a few VC type funds who invest in businesses with potential for steady cash flow and not looking for moonshot. These funds typically expect regular distributions/dividend/return of principal from your business. I believe a few years ago, Andy Sack in Seattle was raising a similar fund. I am sure there may be some in your geographical area.

If your business is an established segment, you may be able to find someone who already started another business in same/similar segment who may be interested in mentoring and guiding you. Typically, these people tend to be older age, founders themselves, started from nothing and now want to help someone else do the same. Clicking with them and chemistry is much more important here. I have a friend who started an industrial equipment company who was taken under wing by a guy who was already very successful in industrial equipment space with his own group of companies. My friend took his company to $70 million in revenue with guidance from the guy.
Any either-or discussion is doomed to fail.
Saying that BigData is the end of theory is clearly nonsense.

BigData vs. Theory, Java vs. C++, Capitalism vs. Socialism, Industry vs. Nature, Good vs. Bad, etc.

BigData allows to store a lot of data and provides a means run some computation on that data. Not more, and not less.
You're conflating law and morality. To resurface Godwin again, if a soldier was fired for executing a jew you were trying to save by implementing a secret policy of breaking the law to save them, would that be immoral?
FPGA's rule themselves out. You can use them for prototyping your ASIC, but FPGA's are extremely costly per silicon area, and generally less power efficient than anything else.

Oh, and nobody is using triangles because hashing lends itself so well to Proof-of-Work. The "work" must be difficult to perform, but very easy to verify. Like a zip file that takes 20 minutes to compress, but only 5 seconds to unzip. To verify a triangle you would have to re-render it.
Just to note: Pyringe is not an official google project (we tend to also include googler hobby projects in the org). It's an intern's project that he wanted to open source.

So it's not "Google's Pyringe".
What prevents scams on kickstarter?
Finding a home for your docker container
Here are the American colleges–and majors–with the highest ROI
I don't know about 1Password, but IIRC the iCloud keychain is laughable security, with easily brute forceable pin-based security that can be performed at Apple HQ without your knowledge.
Either outcome could happen. The devs can stick with the old fork, they can move to the new one. To my knowledge there's no reason 2 litecoin networks can't exist at the same time, aside from being inconvenient & confusing.
On Coffeescript, Dart, Typescript and JavaScript
There are plenty of valid fair use reasons for me to share copyrighted material.

Example, my wife and I are physically separated (let's say she is in Europe for a week) and she wants a copy of "Frozen" that I just ripped from the DVD I own. (It's a long plane ride home.)

Making a copy is fair use, and putting a copy on her computer is not illegal.

Dropbox is treading a fine line. If they fuck with my files, I will drop them fast.
Agreed. I was responding more to the assertion that CoffeeScript doesn't have a problem with variable scoping rules.

It does and the consequences are scary.
Gosh, you make it sound exactly like Google....
Aside:

Your invocation of Effective Java made me look for Effective Javascript, and it does exist. Amazon users give it five stars: http://www.amazon.com/Effective-JavaScript-Specific-Software...

Can anyone comment on how well this books fulfills the expectations implicit in a book calling itself "Effective X?" Or just how effective the book is with respect to accepted javascript practice?
I've seen this in my own behaviour, so it rings true despite the popularity of the opposite approach.

Perhaps this explains some of the startup wannabe-isms. The most successful startup founders I've worked with didn't have time to blog, tweet, etc. They didn't derive much comfort from being Founders. They were just trying to fight the next fire to keep things going.
Different fields are affected by patents differently. If I had to choose the current system and no patents, I'd choose no patents, but I see how there is space for other things.

In Software, patents are silly because everything is derivative, and it's very difficult to separate the obvious from the non-obvious. It's not as if most patents are coming from many years of research: Enough eyeballs often would have arrived at the same conclusion.

We'd also still build software without patents: It's just too useful not to keep working at it. Copyrights are more than enough.

So now let's look at a very controversial one where patents make all the difference: Soybean seeds. If I spend 15 years developing a seed that yields better, copyright will not help me. But the minute I sell a seed, you can make as many copies of it as you want. You don't even have to buy the first seed from me, since the seeds themselves are what the farmer sells. Therefore, investing in seed quality becomes something that is extremely hard to do in a for-profit organization, because you have to recoup your entire investment in the first year, as in the second one, anyone that has a field can be your competitor. Patents in the field are also rarely dependent on each other: Different genes can be stacked on a plant, but unless you developed the entire suite of them all at once, it's not as if it's likely someone is going to find a little refinement that they'd love to sell, but depends on a different party's patent to also be on the plant.

So in that field, no IP protection completely changes the game. Investment in soybean seed research becomes a purely government task, as it's impossible to get any ROI out of it.

Now, one can still be against life sciences patents, but it's easy to see how removal of said patents would lower the effort spent on research, while on software, if anything, it'd make it go up, as we'd stop being afraid of doing something that we find obvious, and that someone else found patentable.

So on each field, patents have different dynamics, and should be evaluated independently. I don't think you'll find many pro-software patent people that aren't just pro-patenting everything. And those really don't make any sense.
I haven't really explored this area of Haskell, but I think there are certain cases where this is possible. For example, I think there might be a way to have a list of tuples of `forall a. [(a -> b, a)]`, where a's type can vary, but applying the first element of the tuple to the second will always produce a `b`. I'm not sure if this is actually the case but it seems (theoretically) possible, and certainly would be convenient. More experienced Haskellers feel free to chime in...
Sorry I drowned in buzzwords there. What did they actually do for our cash and why didn't they do it the first time?
People would still be free to use and purchase based on the generic chemical name.

Furthermore, I would consider tradesecrets a form of IP so, if we are considering a scenario in which IP were abolished, tradesecrets would be abolished too in the sense that they would be afforded no legal protections. True, a formula or process could still be kept secret, but without protection for that secrecy it seems unlikely that real innovations would remain secret for long and market competition would increase as a result.
> This is very useful when you want polymorphism.
> Writing those delegators is a pain in the butt.

What's a scenario where you'd be exposing a large number of delegators? Reading this made me think - maybe your class hierarchy needs to be abstracted more deliberately into structs-with-interfaces vs domain logic classes. (It's more likely I just haven't thought about the kinds of problems you are thinking of.)
Some of the CC's try totally new ideas. For example, litecoin uses scrypt instead of bitcoin's sha. Another coin uses Proof of Stake instead of Proof of Work. These aren't simple bug fixes, these are fundamental differences of philosophy on how the network should work. Hence the forks.

But, yes, there are some "me too" CC's.
An interesting, to me, capacity of Lisp is to be represented uniformly - so called homoiconicity. For example, having a Lisp program, you can relatively easily add - statically - a debug statement after each statement, and then use that resulting program instead. That would be harder to do in Haskell - because the Haskell syntax is much richer.

Another doubt to "eating all languages lunches" comes from having multiple different paradigms in programming languages. I can imagine Haskell eating, say, Prolog's lunch - for example, Norvig has shown how Prolog could be implemented as embedded in Lisp. But I suspect it's going to be harder to repeat in Haskell the strong points of Forth (stack computations), Tcl (strings as universal media?) or J (composability of primitives), even though some approximations could be made.

It's fishy idea to search for a singular "perfect" language - unless that's something like English, with all its imperfections built-in.
One of the main reasons is that the team is over committed. An important move is to draw a line in the sand. After that line, you will reestimate your current work to include learning and quality built in (lots of slack time). Until that line, figure out what you CAN finish, and only commit to that. Yes, this involves having a sincere talk with your peers and leaders, something we are usually shying away from doing, but is an important part of making everyone see the same reality that you see. It's not easy. It just works.

I write more about these at 5whys.com
Saskatchewan just started allowing something like this to exist. No one has taken advantage of it (from what I have heard). I am thinking of looking more into it:

http://www.fcaa.gov.sk.ca/SKEC
Understood. I'd argue that the need for additional classifications is fairly evident just from the comments in this thread. Saying someone has 'autism' doesn't tell you much in terms of what level of care they may need - those who fall into the neurodiverse crowd may require no care and perhaps minimal supports, while some require lifelong care.

The burden on families and society is quite different for these groups, and further classifications are necessary. There are also several related health patterns (digestive, allergy, etc.) with many who are usually more severely impacted which will likely lead to more research on causes. Some advocate for an additional medical diagnosis instead of just referring to the neurological. Down the road there could be a separate diagnosis for those.
haskell evangelism? I mean I like haskell, but this theory or prophecy is based on no facts.
Point #1 is actually kind of exciting to me.
Snarky or not, you're right. This is a perfect instance of how some in the HN community can act like spoiled brats.

"Wow, this is so useless, it doesn't comply to my standards! Go away Norvig, you uninteresting roach!"

I hope you have a lot to show for, adwhit. Maybe you'll bring humanity a step closer to enlightenment by writing another flappy bird clone or something.
Right. I edited my comment to clarify. What I am saying is that the narrow "abolish software patents" should not be applied without thinking about all other fields where the same course of action would be helpful. You cannot just make Pluto not a planet without defining what's the new criteria that separates a planet from a non-planet that is better than saying anything named "Pluto" is not a planet, unless there is a specific justifiable reason that isolates just software and nothing else. (Obviously, not understanding beyond software is not an answer.)
Twenty year San Francisco resident here. $110,000/year is decent pay, but its not enough to afford to pay a mortgage for a small home in the city. It's a good idea to have your first responders living in the city they serve, you know, in case of an emergency (i.e. earthquake).

I'm glad to hear they pay well, and if that's the base pay, hopefully the more senior officers make enough that they can buy a middle class home and settle down in the city they serve.

Also, good pay = less corruption. SF is the only place I've lived where I trusted the cops.
Well, you don't store them on the same device :)
I used to find these types of articles useful. But now I see them more as dogma. Great engineers don't struggle with things like JavaScript inheritance because they understand best practices and trade offs. So in general, I find it more useful to read about best practices and trade offs than "xyz considered harmful" articles that don't present viable alternatives to xyz.

That said whenever I see something on raganwald.com I'll still read it :)
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

From my personal experience having dealt with trolls on other popular forums and implementing shadow bans myself previously my experience runs counter to your beliefs.

You don't have to catch every troll with shadow bans. You make the experience for the new ones unenjoyable by removing their feedback and they are more likely to move on before they become committed enough to start cycling accounts.

If someone is determined to troll a community than no form of protection other than brute force moderation will work but compared to the number of trolls out there the number that rise to that level of abuse are very small.
I think a generation had stuck because that suits enough people's ideas of what's acceptable while hitting some sort of median in product development and investment returns. Not all inventions even show an immediate profit.

It seems to me that you want it to be less for your convenience, and no other factor.
I think your audience matters as well. Personally, I've noticed if I'm at a party with people I don't know too well (and for some reason discussing personal goals), that interaction has little bearing on my motivation. But, if I'm discussing my goals with people I admire, I am more motivated to complete them in order to maintain my reputation.
Or, if the buy-in is significant, Litecoin goes the way of the DoDo and Litecoin X11 replaces it under the Litecoin moniker.
John Carmack used to put in marathon sessions coding asm for DOOM... As with many other successful people, sometimes the work just flows and you forget about things such as time.

Could it be that those failing are failing because their ideas are just not as great as they had imagined?
"What's more, if he did hold onto the old vine, and missed the new vine, he's going to swing backward, helplessly out of control and unable to either proceed or retreat."

Still way better than if he let go of the old vine and missed the new one, although http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/501600/Tarzan-s-New-York-... shows that is survivable.
Silicon Valley notebook: Spotting the next big app
I think this column stops short of offering any real insight into its primary source, an article about a school's "rule-less" playground: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/21/when-one-new-zealand...

The original article is fascinating. This commentary doesn't contribute much, unfortunately.
I totally disagree regarding 'function'. Good javascript tends to be more functional than imperative. That means using 'function' a lot. Most functional languages use either fun, fn, or lambda, all relatively short words for this because it's used ALL THE TIME.

Shortening it to two chars made sense IMHO. The long form of the word function directly impacts code quality and readability.
Virtually none in this case, though letting the processes page run on my system eats up 2% of the CPU (a long, updating list), versus 0% on everything else. Uses Flask.

Do these things have a harder time pulling such figures off of VPSs?
A scam where you don't get one product you ordered is a different order of magnitude than one where you lose a long-term stake in a company.

(For Kickstarter, it's the same thing that prevents scams over any online exchange really - nothing except you might go after someone for fraud).
I say abolish both. But it's easier to argue specifically against software patents, because even people who are generally fans of intellectual property protection can be shown how ludicrous software patents are.
I live in Texas and pay a half-cent premium to get 100% wind-power at around 9.6c per kWh to charge my Nissan Leaf.

Since I use a 7kw charger at home almost exclusively then actually running the car (not including it's production) is actually extremely "green".

The owner friendly side of the deal is that I never visit gas stations, never change oil or other fluids, don't have to do anything much to it outside of tire rotation. Maintenance is both very cheap and very convenient (since there isn't much of it).
Patents were not there to protect investment. That is a post-hoc reason.
The original justification was to encourage inventors to share their ideas instead of hiding them.
This was at a time when reverse engineering something was a to harder, so it actually made sense.
Threes creators express puzzlement, sadness over 2048 and rampant cloning
In that specific case, a contract could easily protect the inventor.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you really shouldn't comment without reading the article. Both comments you made here aren't really relevant mainly because you could only read the headline.
If there is a different way of implementing it than described in the patent, did the patent owner really invent the other method?
I too have put in marathon coding sessions ... some of my best work has been done in such circumstances ... but try as I might, I just cannot turn "flow-state" on like a tap. Indeed, the more I try to push myself at work, the harder and harder it seems to be to get into flow-state. I wish I had a systematic way of encouraging that particular state of consciousness.
That is definitely one cause, absolutely. However, one cannot ignore the impact that working to the point of developing physiological issues is not good for business. It is definitely another contributing factor.
FarmLogs is hiring Clojure, Python, JavaScript, and Android devs
thought so, too.
Your logic and reasoning seems to be all correct except for one thing... "Better languages" don't necessary succeed. I mean, just look at PHP and Javascript... Would you say that they were doomed to succeed because of their language features? There's more to "language success" than the technical characteristics of the language.
New Zealand school tossed its playground rules
Ωmega Users' Guide