skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
May I ask what acceleration means? I always thought it's another word for money and some pro tips.

I, would be happy, if I could join an experienced and older team and start working on an interesting problem. Doing my M.Sc. in CompSci in Germany atm. and none of my friends has any entrepreneurial ambitions or skills, which is depressing and sad. All of them just want a job in the industry. Not really expecting payment.
pg is a single person. Dramas can be made about one person.
In the beginning. Then it's gone and I have a black head in my browser. A shadow.

JavaScript allowed. Firefox 29 Beta. Mac OS X 10.9.

I guess it's a Chrome only demo again. :-(
In the case of McLaren, I guess having no difficulty selling 375 P1s at a sale price of ~$1.6 million each probably helps a bit :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_P1

Interesting that all of the latest hypercars (P1, 918 and LaFerrari) are all hybrids.
CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute
Competition (£10k to 1st person run Quake3 on RPi and new open source drivers)
Well, I think the crux of my criticism is that I'm not sure there actually is a real professional market for e-ink devices.
I am bit concerned that the standard committee is going to make the language worse while trying to fix it.

AFAIK the goal is write what you mean and not "fake stuffs because the language lacks structure".

Dont want to use any ES6 new syntax, dont use it. And yes , the committee SHOULD meet developpers demands as much as possible. Javascript has no clear paradigm,everything should be on the table.
John Carmack: Linux is not the right platform for video games (2013)
So, let me pick everything negative that can be said about a working environment, put it in a post and then come up with a term for it. How about... survival mode! Great, post finished.
With some things/people/cultures, it's not enough to say "carefully evaluate your use case and then make a decision based on the pro-con balance" -- even though that's frequently the place you want people to arrive at -- because practice is so far out of balance.

In the main it seems that classical OOP with problem domains modelled in inheritance heirarchies is what's been taught as the standard to aspire to for the last two decades. The fragile base class problem and other criticisms aren't unknown, of course, but awareness doesn't seem to have dispersed as widely as the practice of lots of subclassing, which is usually introduced as an essential OOP component in the first few lessons.

It might be too much to say "don't use inheritance, ever." But it might not be too much to paraphrase Knuth about optimization and give people two rules regarding it: (1) don't use it (2) (for experts only) don't use it yet.
I was surprised not to see anything about the importance of breaks. I find I get more done in a day when I take a 10-20 minute break about every 90 minutes than if I try and "power through" it. In a 9-hour day with a 1-hour lunch, that means I'm taking 2 or 3 of these breaks (meaning my total time-at-desk working might be only 7 hours), but I'm feeling better and still getting good work done at the end of the day.

I also turn off as many notifications as I can get away with. Email? Check it 2 or 3 times a day. Phone? I turn the volume off or way down unless I'm expecting an important call/text.

I'm looking for a work environment right now that will let me maintain my 8 hour burn and not brand me as a slacker.
>I ... couldn’t figure out how to write the CoffeeScript for the JavaScript I wanted.
How do you get people to join you then?
What you need ask is, what good is the "boost" money, if there won't be 10-20 million in sales (or even more)?

by taking money on what-so-ever terms or SUPPOSE you magically find a lot of it somewhere, you are only fixing the supply side of things, not the demand.

If the demand is there, as you supposedly make it out to be, why can't in this day and time, you reach customers more rapidly then you are right now? (and is there a genuine short-cut? at all??) This is the question you should be asking yourself.

so in short, how can money help fix that?

In my opinion you are facing a few natural doubts, but the main problem is that there are two closely knit issues, instead of one. You have to treat the questions: WHAT MONEY? & HOW SPEND IT? separately.

Sorry, I know your question "seems" more about factual parts, but I believe that, from the way you put it, you have some intellectual parts as well that need to be sorted out.
Okay, having read the article, I think it goes too far.

Inheritance hierarchies have their issues, and raganwald touches on them, but there's a strawman argument here.

(Incidentally, raganwald, I've noticed this about all your OO articles. You seem to have a bias against class-based design. It's causing your essays to be less brilliant than they could be.)

Fundamentally, you can think of inheritance as a special case of composition. It's composition combined with automatic delegation.

In other words, if you have A with method foo() and B with method bar(), "A extends B" is equivalent [1] to "A encapsulates an instance of B and exposes 'function bar() { return this._b.bar(); }'."

This is very useful when you want polymorphism. Writing those delegators is a pain in the butt.

More importantly, it tells us how to use inheritance safely. Only use inheritance when 1) you want to automatically expose all superclass methods, and 2) don't access superclass variables.

Now, JavaScript does have the specific problem that you can accidentally overwrite your superclass's variables, and that's worth talking about. But I think that saying "inheritance is bad" goes too far. The article would be stronger if talked about when inheritance is genuinely useful, the problems it causes, and how to avoid them.

Edit: In particular, I want to see more about polymorphism. Polymorphism is OOP's secret superpower. Edit 2: I'm not saying polymorphism requires inheritance.

[1] Not quite equivalent.
>>First, 2048 should never have been MIT licensed. If Cirulli didn’t feel he had the ethical standing to make money off of it, I don’t understand why he felt he had the ethical standing to tell others they could.

>What now? If I release something under MIT (or even GPL to some extent), I'm waiving the right to tell other people how to behave with whatever I released.

Cirulli didn't feel comfortable enough selling the game itself because someone else had spent years coming up with the basic design. I couldn't clone tetris in 1989 and sell it under an MIT license without drawing potential lawsuits, even though no code was shared.
> American cities are the most dangerous in the developed world, by a large margin.

Um, can you give a source on that? I rather doubt it's true, but probably depends on what you mean by "most dangerous". (And also perhaps "developed").

Here's an article titled "Violent crime worse in Britain than in US": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-...

Or here's PolitiFact:

> For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

> For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

[Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/... ]
Checkout Startup Weekend NEXT http://www.swnext.co/

Unsure of if you are looking for a peer group to help you through the highs and lows or a PR plan (accelerator graduates rarely have a huge splash, it is all about habits formed and community support).
> That is just asking for trouble.

It's also perfectly legal and doesn't deserve the treatment he received.
Why not focus on his general point: that CoffeeScript does not fix the problems of JavaScript because it introduces other problems?

I think the point is that CoffeeScript does fix some problems of JS, but introduces complications of its own. It's worth it for some, but not others.
Anybody have an original source for "prefer composition over inheritance"? I've heard it for years, but never with an attribution.

FWIW, I noticed that in my old C++ book (Stroustrup '91) there's some really bogus inheritance examples - window -> window_w_banner -> window_w_menu -> window_w_banner_and_menu etc etc etc.
The combined efficiency of an electric motor + fossil fuel power plant is still much greater than in a conventional internal combustion engine and therefore the environmental impact from the car is much reduced regardless of the fuel source.

A secondary factor - driving a car like a Tesla communicates an image of environmental responsibility. Even if the government and energy companies aren't supporting renewable fuels, you are. When there is a wind turbine on every corner, and a solar panel on every roof, you will be ready with your Tesla. You're a good citizen, and a forward-thinker...
This stupid site can't even show plain text without JavaScript.
Polymorphism can be acheived without using inheritance.

See Clojure's Protocols or Haskell's type classes for examples of this.
The substance of the article is spot on, but I have to take issue with the terminology it uses. The problem he's talking about isn't classes, it's inheritance.

This is an important distinction. Javascript doesn't have classes, but it does have inheritance. The problems raganwald points out with the Account example come not from the organization of the code into pseudo-classes, but from the fact that it uses Javascript's inheritance mechanism.

It would be perfectly possible to write a version of the example that exhibited the "fragile prototype problem," and conversely, one can easily write a version in Smalltalk that uses composition instead of inheritance and thus has no fragile base classes.
[edited because apparently I can't read; kenjackson did mention interfaces]

I think it's still a bad idea - as you note, isa is available without necessarily having inheritance; we know inheritance is dangerous, so why include that?

In languages like C++, C# and Java, it has long been expert advice to avoid inheritance where possible, and use interfaces. But the language and language culture is leading everyone astray. Defining interfaces is usually harder or stranger-looking, and is taught as an adjunct to inheritance.

Other languages get this more right. Haskell has what it calls typeclasses, but they are more similar to interfaces in the aforementioned languages.

We seem to be making exactly the same mistake in the ECMAScript standard, except it's even worse; you can't define an interface even if you wanted to.
I've used coffeescript extensively for years, and I have never had that be an issue. Not sure if it's because I rarely write a file longer than ~200 lines, or I'm careful about variable names and global scope.

More generally I've found that coffeescript mixes much better with a functional style than with an imperitive one.
I honestly don't understand why legislators are allowed to name their bills instead of giving them just a serial number. Every time a controversial bill has a name, it almost invariably contains within it goals which are diametrically opposed to the title it is given.

"End Bulk Collection Act"
"Patriot Act"
etc.

The moment a bill gets a name like that, you can be sure that people are not voting on it based on its content, but on its title. It's like a tl;dr, but false.
Like with airliners and nuclear reactors, there is no room for mistakes because you get no second chances.
Qualcomm's ASPLOS 14 keynote slides
Delegation can have a performance cost that inheritance doesn't have however, at least, depending on the compiler. Go's current compiler seems engineered for correctness, not performance, at least last time I checked, the JVM was beating it on several benchmarks.
the biggest players right now are

TypeScript
CoffeeScript
Dart
ClojureScript

you got 3 out of the 4 so far
I'm not sure it is a losing game. It depends on the goals the government wishes to achieve.

Certainly this filtering has made access more difficult for segments of the population, it has sent a message that the government is willing to employ outright censorship. If I worked at a newspaper or ran a social network inside Turkish boarders I would be very worried.

Governments use censorship because they believe it will allow them to achieve their goals, often they are right. Consider: "If Erdogan's party manages to sustain its early lead as the ballot count continues, it would suggest such troubles have been largely shrugged off by many of Turkey's over 50 million eligible voters." http://news.yahoo.com/turkeys-embattled-pm-faces-key-test-lo...
Facebook tracks everything about you. They track what you like. They track what you don't like. They track what you click. They track what you don't click. They track what you erase in private messages, which means they're monitoring your private messages.

And now we've given facebook new sensors to track. Facebook would love to get the data on peoples head movements. They'll be able to track to the millisecond how much time you spend looking at an in-game ad. They'll be able to track your overall attention span. And those are the least egregious violations of your privacy you can expect from the company; If the company, that looks way too deep into your life already, begins putting something like Facebook Home on your head, I'd say that qualifies as uncanny-valley-scale creepy.
Quick and Dirty Review: Nokia Lumia Icon
Can playgrounds be too safe?
I agree with you! I think you can always find a study supporting one side or the other.

In this case, the author explains that the rationale is that telling your plans satisfies your self identity enough. I think the degree of "enough" is likely what's driven by personality differences (which are in turn driven by socio- cultural- etc.)

For me, I know that when I tell people stuff (and this also depends on what the "stuff" is, telling people I'm going to eat Chipotle doesn't mean I'll do it) I become very motivated to do it to avoid "losing face."
Scale that down, and you have 2/3 liter of water, 1/3 liter of chlorine, and one person peeing to get the same deadly concentration.

I can't base it on any even remotely scientific argument, but to me, something seems wrong with that conclusion; it just seems weird that it would be that easy to get a poisonous concentration. I guess it is that the deadly concentration is of the gas in air, across multiple inhalations. If so, one needs much more of the gas.

But as I said I simply don't know. Can anybody else?
That sums up my sentiments exactly.

But just to add, I've already owned a VR headset 20 years ago. Ok the screens were 320x240 but the resolution wasn't the downside, it was the neckache from wearing the damn things.

I've also got some NVidia 3d shutter glasses. You can play any OpenGL or DirectX game with them. They are great fun and really enhance a game. I've already played Everquest in 3D. (Although Dungeon Keeper 2 is my favourite, you can go into first person mode as a fly was wander round your dungeon - I've spent hours doing that).

3D porn is great also, I can recommend that.

I've not tried an Oculus but it looks like a neckache device to me.
The Daily Mail is not a good source for, well anything.

Already you can see that adding up those categories doesn't make sense as some will overlap (in particular violence and the other two).
Orleans Actors Analysis (Microsoft's actor implementation)
The ES6 changes are a mixed bag. We get some nice syntax improvements and an overly complex module system. I'm mostly positive on the new class syntax as it does simplify OO code. However as the author points out it is still the same JavaScript "imitation" objects. I agree with you that it could actually make it more tempting to build complex and fragile object heirarchies.
Amazon sends out invites for April 2nd event
We are very good rationalizing fail, so I think this "incentive" is not enough. Actually, now you have to explain yourself for a bunch of people.
To clarify, what concerns me is that by adding syntax that is similar to Java, developers coming from other languages (namely Java), won't take the time to understand the differences between the two languages and continue to write applications as they would in Java.

Everyone has their biases, and my bias would be to embrace the dynamic and functional aspects of the languages that separate it from Java, rather than creating new syntax that pastes over the fact that the language is fundamentally different.
Finnish Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen Uses Windows 7
Does it matter whether a PM uses W7 or an ordinary person?
Antoine Leblond Leaving Microsoft
To be clear, I was only commenting on the neurodiversity thing in reply to the parent, not advocating for it. We agree that it is relevant for only a small percentile of ASD individuals.

And on second thought, it may make sense from a public health perspective to abandon labels for subtypes, unless the experts think the subtypes have different causes. But AFAIK the causes of ASD are unknown.
Long distance utility transmission losses are around 6% according to Wikipedia. I don't know what losses there are in recharging the batteries, but it's surely not 100% efficient. I also don't know how that compares to costs (pipelines, trucking etc.) used to distribute petroleum fuels.

Modern internal combustion engines with mandated emission controls are really very clean. Very likely cleaner than coal plant smokestack exhaust.
At least internal to companies, setting a plan and launch date and announcing it, is often the way to put pressure on completion. Not having any firm commitment that other people will hold you to, is often a recipe for endless bikeshedding and creeping featuritis.

Left to their own devices, many people will often try to boil oceans.
This is a series of articles, and is not yet complete. It starts from a high level description of the organization of the project, and is going into more detail as it goes, but it is not yet complete; notice that at the end of the third article there is a "Next: To be published: Git internal algorithms (Tree and Diffcore API)". I presume there will be more after that, though the author doesn't provide an overview of what he expects the full series to consist of.

Also, I don't believe this is intended to be a review looking at coding practices that may cause problems, but rather a review in the sense of a description of a real-world codebase that describes how it works. Think of it in the sense of a review of the literature, a summary of what a body of work is about, not in the sense of a code review that is looking for potential problems that may need to be fixed.

As far as the issues you bring up go, Git is pretty thoroughly cross-platform if you assume a reasonable Unixy/POSIXy platform; while it can be made to work on Windows, it's a bit more cumbersome there; you need to use something that provides at least somewhat of a Unix like environment on Windows, such as MSYS or Cygwin.

As far as resource management and so on go, one of the big problems with the Git code base is that it's designed pretty heavily around a one-shot command model, rather than something which is amenable to being used as a library or in a long-running process. This is reason why the libgit2 project exists, to provide an implementation of Git that can be used as a library and integrated into other applications. Even Linus himself, who wrote the initial Git implementation, uses libgit2 when he wants something that can be used as a library[1].

[1]: https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/X2XVf9Q7MfV
I'm not convinced.

WebRTC is supported by huge corporations with massive resources. If they had decided to use IPv6 instead of SDP for addressing, I can't imagine there would be any difficulty in user adoption, and they could only improve service adoption.
Google requires Android phone manufacturers to show Android logo on bootscreens
> 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.

> [Quotation]

This sounds like a noble rallying cry but is ultimately misguided. How does this system reconcile with the incentive structures inherent in pharmaceutical research and drug design?
Stopped reading when the cops told him to go home and he just kept talking and not obeying their order. Just another hipster who wants attention.
What would "defining an interface" even mean in a non-type checked language? I'd say: ECMAScript already has better interface support than Java has because it supports implicit interfaces. In Java two classes can only be interface-compatible if they have a shared dependency/are at least indirectly coupled. In a language with duck typing and without static typing interfaces are present implicitly.
I persist in thinking that the problem is not with the subject matter test. A computer program is obviously a machine, just as the Federal Circuit and lots of other people intuitively assume.

The problem is with the obviousness bar, which is far, far, far too low. I haven't studied the Alice patent, but let's take what the NYT says about it here:

The issue in this case, Alice Corporation Pty. v. CLS Bank International, is whether using a computer to implement a well-established economic concept can be patented. [...] Alice Corporation obtained four American patents that cover a method of settling trades between investors in currency and other financial markets. The approach depends on a neutral middleman to make sure traders complete the transactions they have agreed to. [...] Alice Corporation has argued that its patents cover a specific computer-enabled system and method, not the fundamental idea of using intermediaries in financial settlements. But CLS Bank, which first sued Alice in an attempt to have its patents invalidated, says that Alice’s system does not add anything meaningful to a basic idea.

The NYT Editorial Board is using this argument to urge the Supreme Court to rule that this patent's subject matter is inappropriate. But I think this can just as easily, if not more easily, be read as an argument that the invention in question is obvious. Taking some process that was previously done by hand and computerizing it, or some part of it, is, in this day and age, a paradigmatic example of something obvious.

Again: I haven't studied the actual patent. I just think it's unfortunate that everyone is talking about this as a subject matter problem, when we have a screaming obviousness problem that the Federal Circuit is right at the center of.

I want the Supreme Court to tell the Federal Circuit that mere novelty does not entail nonobviousness. In such a highly generative field as software, which has an uncountable number of applications, simply coming up with another one contributes little or nothing to the state of the art. If someone else who encountered the same requirements could implement a system to satisfy them just as easily before reading a putative patent as after reading it, there was no intellectual contribution and the patent should not be valid. This was clearly the intent behind the patent system at its inception. It should be restored.
Not sure, but according to a more recent article, it'll be about 2017, not 2015: http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/14/autos/musk-tesla-cheaper/