skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That is the irony of progressive thinking: they are constantly torn between saying "Black people don't really do X" and "X is completely fine, people just look down on it because of racism".

In this case, X = "driving a car around in circles" or "a vibrant and expressive form of performance art", depending on what kind of progressive you are :)
You're wrong and you should look into how typeclasses, derivation, SYB, and GHC generics work.

That they aren't doing it is reason enough. Clojure and Erlang's QuickCheck libraries would derive Arbitrary if they could. :)
Incorrect, my friend! There's no server-side javascript. Turtl is a downloaded, self-contained app, and all encryption happens in that app.
Legality, terms of service for performing a web crawl
Did you know possession is nine-tenths of the law?
Still missing any of the fleet management stuff that AWS gives you. :/ No replacements for auto-scaling groups, IAM, CloudFormation.
And every modern IP stack also provides a firewall, be it iptables or whatever the Windows Firewall is. I don't think the "NAT is necessary because putting our computers on the public internet is scary" is anything close to a reason to keep the hodge podge mess we have.
In some cases that would be true. But in a number of cases I think there's a fairly particularized local bad incentive that gets mitigated at the state level via dilution (and also looks worse, if anyone has to look at it). Texas did something like this with traffic fines. Due to extensive abuse of small municipalities who were trying to extract windfall profits from the fact that they happened to be located along an interstate in Middle-of-Nowhere, West Texas, the state did the state version of "nationalizing" to the revenue from traffic tickets: changed the law so all ticket revenue gets sent to Austin. This has mostly solved the problem: these small municipalities no longer have the incentive to ticket a bunch of people.

In this case I think it's mostly due to different local vs. state incentives. At the local level, if you happen to live in a 750-person municipality along a freeway, ticketing people aggressively is popular, because it raises money for the municipality, mostly from outsiders passing through. But if Austin takes control of ticketing revenues, it gets much less popular: the average Texan does not want aggressive ticketing on the West Texas interstates.
A grade is also how they decide if you get your undergraduate degree. It would be a strange shame if that decision had nothing to do with your intelligence or competency as you imply.
I'll be watching this thread with interest myself, but one that I thoroughly enjoyed reading (and it's pretty short) is Dr. Strangelove's Game by Paul Strathern [1]. It is not particularly well known according to sites I frequent, and I think it's unfortunate.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1193827.Dr_Strangelove_s...
Unless it has a deterrence effect and makes people pay faster in the future.
> Is this another ad for big design upfront, aka waterfall?

Not at all. You won't even know what the right abstractions are upfront. If you want to express the point here in terms of coding process, it's something like "refactor your code into this". That the design emerges iteratively isn't the same thing as saying there's no design. Contrast to evolution, which is not just iterative but also has no design at all. No one gets to sit around and think, "huh, let's reorganize this". Because if they did, maybe organisms in convergent evolution would share code.

Edit, let me try that point again, because I don't think that was very clear. You may design iteratively, but you're still designing. "Oh, these things have x in common, so let me build an abstraction that captures that commonality and have them use it." But evolution can't do that. The only design tool it has is mutating existing code into additional subclasses. You have more tools than that, so as a metaphor evolution's "designs" can be described by simpler ontologies. So why limit yourself to those ontologies? You can think of evolution as having ridiculous limitations on the kind of design work it's capable of, which are independent of the fact that it's iterative.

> Strapping bird wings onto a rat often isn't going to work.

That you have to implement genuinely different things differently is true enough, but not really challenging the point that class hierarchies make encapsulation harder. Also: maybe an engineer would design a bat a bit differently inside so that it could use the avian wing tech? Just a thought.

> Why not classify all of our code at the finest grain we can?

My point there was that if you had choose one axis on which to classify parts of your code, implementation details wouldn't likely be it. That you have to choose is a consequence of the strict single-inheritance model here. Completely classifying a software abstraction is identifying the point n-dimensional space that describes it in terms of all the different ways to categorize it. A fool's errand in general, I suspect, but at any rate not possible under the class inheritance model (single or multiple).

Edits: multiple for clarity
Yes, I was being flippant. That's not constructive and I apologize. However, I think there is an interested discussion to be had about property rights, just like intellectual property rights. I'd want to know the history of property rights. How did we get here? What are our cultural goals and how to property rights help (or fail) to achieve them? What are the limits? Do we think it is a moral question? That is, is it a question of right and wrong? It might be obvious that people shouldn't be able to come and take your stuff, but what about eminant domain and criminal asset forfeiture in the US? What about corporate property rights? I'm thinking about water privatization and the popular uprising in Bolivia, for example. Or (back to intellectual property) the rights of corporations to patent otherwise protect chemicals and genes found in nature, also called piracy by some, biopiracy. Or extending copyright on things destined for the public domain (copyright extension acts).

> it's not really relevant to the parent comment ... and few think stealing music is ok either.

Maybe I misunderstood the parent comment, but wasn't the poster complaining that so many people on twitter outraged about Dropbox's behavior think privacy is acceptable?

I think a lot of people are unhappy with the current intellectual property law and they feel powerless to influence it. The kind of frustrations that produces the GPL and Creative Commons, although not all of us have the vision, leadership or influence of a Stallman or a Lessig. I suspect some current attitudes about piracy are related to those frustrations. I also think a debate about piracy -- rather than just shouting "It's wrong." -- can be very profitable. I'm reading Adrian John's history of Piracy (highly recommended). From the Introduction:

"Those who were called pirates almost never [took the charaterization at face value]: they always repudiated the label as inaccurate and unjust. The point is that when they did so, they often triggered debates that threw light on major structural issues and had major consequences as a result. We can profit by focusing on precisely these contests -- and the more prolonged, variegated, and ferocious they were, the better. They strained relations between creativity and commercial life, and at critical moments caused them to be reconstituted."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hotel chains like Hyatt, Hilton, Marriott, Ritz Carlton, etc. are franchisers. The company may own and operate a few hotels itself, but the vast majority are owned and operated by third parties. The hotel chain is essentially a booking service for others who want to rent their space.

In that respect[1] Airbnb is not very different. The bad news is, that's partly why they're facing regulatory grief. The good news is, they could easily be worth more than a Hyatt, because it's not as if Hyatt is worth X due to owning so many real estate assets (they don't).

[1]: In other respects, of course, it's very different. Airbnb doesn't franchise. The owner/operators are mostly individuals, not professional hoteliers.
Am I the only one who was totally onboard until I saw it was written in lisp? Can't trust non-pragmatic people.
Will be interesting to see if MSFT drops prices on Azure anytime soon. Given how focused Nadella seems on making Microsoft a competitor in the cloud space, standing pat would seem odd.
Because we all know that deterrence is so effective. We should put a jaywalker in the stockades in the town square every day as a warning to the other pedestrians out there.

The problem with your suggestion (deterrence to "encourage" others to pay up faster), these folks can't pay up faster. You ever been to one of these small towns? There's no money, a several hundred dollar fine is a month or more of labor for the ones that have a job. They have to forgo food, insurance, electricity, water or some other essential in order to pay off these debts. You want them to pay faster? Get rid of the fucking speed traps and corrupt officials that screw them.
The biggest problems I find with bad coffeescript that I don't generally find in bad javascript are extensive inheritance hierarchies, overbroad class design, and explicit dependencies.

Generally the same kinds of problems I find with bad ruby/java.
It allows you to query json documents in a way similar to sql. redis is key/val and sits in ram, couch requires complicated design documents to query and is better as a key/val, but I'm unfamiliar with riak.

I think trello uses mongo primarily for production. technically it's feasible but I've found it to be more trouble than it's worth to scale -- too many machines are required per shard. I'm currently looking into rethink db as a replacement now though.
Your comment misrepresents the reality for Haskell programmers.
Yeah, I grew up with something like that too. It was a huge wooden and steel fort. Mostly two, but even three "kid" stories tall. If you fell it was into hard mulch.

All manner of unstable bridges, and tunnels and swings and things. Every so often they'd bring the kids out to paint designs on the fort. My favorite were the ones kids painted in the very adult inaccessible tunnel system made out of reused palette wood. It was rare to come home from a day of playing on it without a splinter of a bruise or something.

The most awesome piece of a 4 story steel rocket ship. It was incredibly tall and once you got up in the top you could rally some friends together to coordinate shaking it and make some of the other kids cry from fear it would topple over. There was also a huge geodesic dome made out of steel piping (and a couple other various lattice like steel tube structures) that were pretty easy to climb wrong and get hurt on. A couple of the structures were maybe 10-12' tall and made of recycled telephone poles, so you leave the playground with a little tar or whatever they treat the wood with. If you climbed to the top, there was usually a comfortable platform or something to rest on.

Any day of the week in summer you could go and there would be hundreds of kids climbing and fighting and fantasizing and falling all over that structure.

Today the playground has a small slide and a small set of very safe and boring, very generic, equipment. I've driven by it quite a few times and have yet to see even a single child on it.

edit oh and I almost forgot. In one neighborhood, our playground was literally made out of molded concrete. It looked almost exactly like this set.

http://www.synthetrix.com/mpe/swisschs.jpg

And it was awesome. Since it was so durable, you didn't feel bad scratching it with rocks or throwing rocks at it. It was rough surfaced too so you didn't want to be too tough with it. And if you fell, it was right onto concrete surface. All the interesting geometries and surfaces made kicking balls, or dropping balls and frisbees and things into the concrete tubes loads of fun.
With the proliferation of Nexus tablets (or Android tablets in general) and that Play Books is stock in the OS, I feel pretty confident in it sticking around.
In China, Alibaba now lets you invest in TV and movie projects
Hey Rubygems, do not include your stuff implicitly (and don't class_eval Class)
I'd like more information before I can really make judgement about this person. What are the details of this 1997 (did I math that correctly?) car wreck? Is she at fault? Were there any settlements involved? What kind of injury does she have that keeps her from working? Can she learn to do something that doesn't affect her disability? Specifically, what injury prevents her working but allows her to drive?

Why are you trying to judge the person? This whole article is about many more people than just her, but also specifically about the problems presented by private probation companies as a whole.

What I don't understand is how, when someone makes a colossal mistake (especially one that we've all been educated about), anyone else would blame everyone but the mistaken.

Was there any statement that she should not have been fined? Was there a cry that the legal system was unjust for pulling over people driving without a license? This is a story about people being taken advantage of. I saw no claims they were entirely innocent, just that they were put into a system that exacted much more punishment that they were likely due, and most likely legally due.

For me, this whole story hinged on that one time she got caught driving without a license: there's no reason she should have been unaware of the consequences.

For you, this whole story, about multiple people, officials, and cities, including the death of some individuals while they were incarcerated for failure to pay a fine, hinges on single person's single traffic stop and whether she was aware of the consequences? Which consequences would those be, the ones where she is supposes to pay a fine, or the ones where she goes to jail because she is incapable of paying that fine and stays there for over 100 days without seeing a judge?
Sports are fun to watch, I just watched a great Elite Eight game.

The problem is that people are just committing far too much mindshare to sports these days. ESPN has three channels devoted pretty much to just talking about sports, in great detail, including gossip, drama, recaps, minutia, etc.

People, and let's be honest, mostly men, sit there consuming this stuff all day, reading about it online, talking about it with friends, watching it in the evenings, playing fantasy sports...

Past a certain point it goes beyond entertainment and into the realm of tribalism. There's just far too much emotional and mental investment into this stuff.
My understanding was that the original idea of patents was to prevent inventions being lost to mankind due to their being held secret. Patents allow inventors to have a short term monopoly in return for societies long term intellectual gain. Clearly, this is NOT occurring with today's software patents.

(1) Most s/w patents are not for 'inventions' that are non-obvious and therefore not even capable of being kept secret in the first instance, and,

(2) So many patent applications are so broad as to not actually describe a system in an implementable way. End result: we offer up monopolies, benefiting the 'inventor' but end up with no knowledge added to society. A situation that impoverishes the many to pay the few for pretty much nothing.
I fail to see the concrete examples you came up with to back your claims up. Or...were there none?
This is a solved problem; they are called Universe Types.
> the only people using mongodb in a commercial setting are those who are paying 10gen for a commercial license or those that don't know they are violating the AGPL license.

It is not clear to me exactly what the problem is from the message. Are we now discouraged to use MongoDB as a database (from startup to university), or writing MongoDB database driver based on existing MongoDB language driver such as pymongo or writing on top of MongoDB's database driver?
Not all disabled people are cripples. Just because you occasionally see someone with an obvious physical injury in a wheel chair does not mean that is representative of the vast majority of disabled who have hidden disabilities.

For example, many physical conditions vary from day to day - one day she may be well enough to drive, the next she will have to rest in bed. Then there are the millions with mental disabilities who may even function perfectly well most of the time except for the days they try to kill themselves. Sure they 'could' work, but no employer would ever take them on, so they must live on disability.
Ethnic demographics and crime rates are correlated, so it would be a mistake to dismiss concerns over crime in an area as a "race thing". People may have legitimate concerns about an area not necessarily driven by racial animus in Oakland, Baltimore, Detroit, DC, Atlanta, and etc.

Because of the correlation between crime and demographics, it might be tempting to publicly call out concerns about high crime neighborhoods as examples of racism, but I still wouldn't check your iPhone on the street at night in Oakland.
i think a lot of the reasons I've seen come down to business reasons, not technical. Someone wants an app fast, like now, and MongoDB is fast to setup and get running with.
> Python usually waits until runtime to throw exceptions, even for something obvious like a syntax error.

Just a nitpick, but that is not true. Well, not completely. Python combiles its code on runtime, and at that part SyntaxError exceptions are thrown. No need to actually reach the code, since the bytecode compiler traverses the whole module anyway.
> In C or OOP languages, you just get a player object/struct and you have to enforce this state logic manually, and you can easily write a function that puts the player in an inconsistent state (player.alive = False, but player.HP = 15).

False. In OOP you can do this using the visitor pattern. The difference is that Haskell makes this real convenient, with its algebraic types feature baked into the language, while OOP makes it very cumbersome.

> As a side note on the last point: people make the argument that this separation makes Haskell impossible to do printf debugging. Not true—the standard library provides ways of circumventing the type system specifically for this reason.

It's still far more annoying when the language is lazily evaluated and has Haskell syntax.
This is actually really interesting. Due to it's nature, using mongo as a data source can easily become something very deeply ingrained into your application.

Whereas if mysql shipped with a similar restriction, you could easily flip the connection strings and have it mostly working on postgres or something else.
American here, I've been run over by guys on skis more than once at the local sledding hill growing up. My favorite sled was literally a rolled up piece of stiff plastic...fastest thing on the hill and I routinely had other kids wanting a ride.
Google is losing over 4 billion a year to adblock
Really interesting. Complicated, but really interesting.
Not automatically via the method used here (hash blacklist)
I use elasticsearch to index my couch database and query it using the rest based json query language.

i find it helps being able to scale them out separately too.

http://daemon.co.za/2012/05/replacing-couchdb-views-with-ela...
I already know how they work. Still waiting for an explanation of what they can do that you couldn't do in Java or C# or (with some verbosity) C++.

Edit: For example, to answer this question, you could define a type and explain how Haskell lets you automatically generate arbitrary instances of that type, where Java or C#, being as limited as you claim them to be, would be incapable of doing so. Edit: Also, Clojure and Erlang are irrelevant. My comment you originally replied to said that static typing was what makes QuickCheck possible.
Rúnar Bjarnason talked about it in his presentation "FP Programming is Terrible" [0] (he makes up for that title in the end)

I asked him about it on twitter since it reminded me of thunks, he said " a trampoline executes a sequence of thunks, yeah" [1]

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzf3hTUKk8U
[1]: https://twitter.com/runarorama/status/449070763421618176
Holy US-blinkers Batman! Patents existed for hundreds of years before the US even existed. Their framing in the US constitution does not describe the reasons for the creation of patents.
Weren't there similar, though less dramatic circumstances in 1999 too though? ISTR that Alan Greenspan lowered interest rates in order to help fight the LTCM fire.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground

The alternative he presented is not to share private state between class and superclass. This really isn't a "know the right tool for the right situation" kind of thing -- it's almost never a good thing.

You could accomplish this alternative, among other ways, by:

1. Using composition and delegation.
2. Using mixins, if your language supports them.
3. Using inheritance, but depending only upon your superclass's public interface.
Intellectual property is an Americanism that metastasized. It's a global idea not because of it's own merits, but because it was propelled by American treaties and diplomacy during an era when America was dominant.

One irony in that is the fact that the Framers were skeptical of intellectual property. In fact, they didn't call it intellectual property. Even less did they call it "intellectual property rights." It was a temporarily granted monopoly. It was not considered to be a right.

How is that? All your actual rights are assumed to exist. The Bill of Rights explicitly says it isn't the List of Rights. That's because your rights predate any laws and constitutions. You simply have them, and governments are more or less just in observing that you have rights and in not trampling them.

This is key to making the US constitution future-proof. It carves out a set of legitimate powers. It doesn't enumerate your rights: to travel by car or jet-pack, or space-warp, to use unbreakable codes, to marry the person you love, etc.

Patents and copyright monopolies, on the other hand, are explicitly granted, and, unlike your rights, they expire. The congress could at a whim change patent and copyright terms to a week, a day, a nanosecond, and there would be no constitutional case against that law. Because these grants of monopoly are NOT rights.
Twitter had $422 million in revenue in the three quarter before its IPO. Splunk had $121 million in revenue the year before its IPO.

Both were running at a loss, but they did both have a considerable amount of revenue. That puts them way ahead of many of the companies from the dotcom bubble since they at least have a proven way of bringing in money, even if it isn't enough to fully cover their expenses.
I think the followup from yahoo 'might' help: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-Marc...
I obviously wasn't asking for the pedantic, condescending answer, so how is this an acceptable answer? Downvote me all you like; I was asking a legitimate question about how this fits the HN newsworthy criteria. "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics..."
I realize there'a lot of patting ourselves on the back here that we're not as backwards as some random person/place, but it's not why I came to HN.
I don't think ProjectEuler is very helpful for learning a language. The first ten problems or so might be useful to learn the basic syntax, but after that it's really just about number theory, or optimizing brute force.

If you're looking for Haskell beginner exercises, I recommend

a) implementing functions from Prelude, Data.List, Data.Tree yourself

b) doing the exercises given in RWH (even if you don't actually read the book - just do those you understand).

RWH: http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/
Yes, may be adblock. Should not it work irrespective of whether i am incognito or not? I mean if adblock is blocking it then it should block facebook icon all the time?