skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would imagine peri bottles (or close enough, any kind of squeeze bottle) would do something similar in a pinch. I've only heard girlfriends with kids rave about them since it's usually only used after pregnancy, but (to be a bit TMI) pre-IUD years when I had periods, travel squeeze bottles totally saved the day for when wet wipes felt inadequate and I couldn't easily shower.
I think a large part of the problem is that it's a "tragedy of the commons" situation. We won't see a huge investment in better recycling and desalinization until it's absolutely required, which would mean that we've already destroyed some aquifers permanently, in some places causing entire aquifers to become unrecoverable [0].

No one is going to die from thirst? Maybe. But a lot of the water loss is in the food-producing middle of the country. People are already starving in the US, and increased food prices will only exacerbate the situation. [1]

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer#Subsidence (sections subsidence, saltwater intrusion, and salination)

[1] https://water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html
Isn't this what WebRTC will fix? http://www.webrtc.org/
CNNs are great, but so prone to overfitting, thankfully that last few years have been good to the deep learning community - dropout, jitter, etc. - in combating these problems. Hopefully in the next few years more books are published to help dumb-down the material since reading a lot of these papers (in terms of trying to implement/expand/critique the material - just the history alone is interesting - hopfield nets, perceptrons, hebbian learning, ... ) is still very tough as results are difficult to reproduce
What a mess. My existing CO and smoke detectors don't need a patch.

As per my comment yesterday on Nest's thermostat, this product doesn't need to exist. To have it proven as dangerous suggests that they have their priorities wrong here. I don't want poorly engineered toys keeping me safe.

As for the press statement, it's wriggling nothing more.

Their products remind me of Zorg's desk in the Fifth Element.
Really? You think there's a chance we're wrong about the pyramids and allowing racial mixing?

Clearly, we aren't. Clearly, the people who push the opposing policies are harming society. Just like with evolution, there is no debate among thinking people about this.
You seem to have rethought your position on this, your previous post defended the firing of Mozilla's CEO based on his political opinion.

I am glad that you consider that wrong and I just misread you, or you changed your opinion for the better.
What Open Source Means To Me
One could argue that the Crimea invasion, Assad's decision to use his army to carpet bomb his citizens and Gaddafi's decision to use artillery against civilian neighbourhoods was born out of "plutocratic" reasoning.

Or would you say "plutocratic" does not apply to the use military force for personal profit? Because the US certainly didn't profit from your examples, even if this doesn't prove the absence of an intention to profit.
It's in the article: http://pix-media.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/669/ScreenShot2014-02..., and yes it's way less dog-like (to me) at that size.
I think this is a good nutshell. Apparently it's not bigotry if you're hating people for not agreeing with the liberal cause du jour.

What would be an OK middle ground? Maybe this isn't a good case, because one man's "making Eich pay for his offensive beliefs" is another man's "keeping the Mozilla image palatable".
Copyleft licenses are more conductive to dual licensing because they give you no other choice if you want to sell a closed source premium version. That's the only reason. And for that to work you have to get copyright assignment.

I think your view is pretty naive. They develop the platform and own the IDE that's synonymous with it. They can keep any other compiler off the IDE if they want that, you would be competing with them at their house, which is doomed to fail.

With copyleft without assignment at least any later version would effectively remain free for all, whether Microsoft wants it or not. You don't have to believe and hope, it's just the way it is.
Come on mods. This was a perfectly reasonable discussion.

No moderator touched this post; it was flagged to death many times over by users. Please don't make false assertions about HN moderation. It riles people up for a bad reason. You can get questions answered by emailing hn@ycombinator.com.

In my view, this was not a reasonable post, it was piggy-backing on the drama of the day. That's probably why it got flagged.
No change: http://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/224wgn/eich_steps_down...

(The "mozilla" people (brson and pcwalton) are the people to listen to there.)
Was Prop 8 about the Christian definition of marriage? It wasn't, it was about the LEGAL government regulated institution of marriage. Marriages by the way pre-date Christianity.

It isn't two groups talking past each other, it is one group trying to get their religious values instituted as government regulations.

Letting a same sex couple get marriage by a judge, in a courthouse doesn't do anything to harm the internal religious definition of marriage... it is the government regulated one.

I am all for banning marriage as a government institution and only having civil unions. Hell don't even call them civil unions, call them flipflapadingdongs if you want, but as long as they are done by government they must be equal, playing name games is BS.
That's not concrete evidence, sorry. Your logic is faulty:

1) You're equating his monetary support for Prop 8 as evidence of homophobic bigotry, which by itself it is not.

It's quite obvious that Eich is deeply religious: the herd mentality in those circles is that because same-sex couples can’t produce biological children together, they shouldn't be recognized as marriages.

This is rational if you see the institution of marriage as a state-recognized union between that's only between a man and a woman, which has long social and cultural roots. The same can not be said for bans on interracial marriages which are just backed by racism, and not objective facts.

Ultimately, assuming that these are Eich's views (which is very likely,) they are ignorant because they focus too much on sex and too little on the idea of commitment and love.

What they aren't: grounds for throwing around labels like "homophobic bigot," as there are many who empathize with those who are discriminated against, abused, disowned, lynched and executed because of their expression of gender identity. They see nothing wrong with homosexuals, but rather take issue with marriage as an institution being redefined.

Haven't seen any evidence that Eich opposes civil partnerships. I want nothing to do with marriage personally and would much rather a civil partnership for my relationship, but dissolving the state-recognized institution of marriage completely is very messy.

So redefining marriage is the best choice, lest we have separate but equal legal frameworks: marriages for heterosexual couples and civil unions for homosexual couples as well as heterosexual couples who want nothing to do with marriage but want the benefits it brings.

2) You're comparing Eich to the KKK which executed thousands of people, which is a disgusting comparison but you may just be historically ignorant.

Eich was pressured to resign just because he wouldn't parrot empty words about how he's "evolved" on the issue in the court of public opinion, like President Obama has.

And we're worse off for it, because he was the most qualified to lead Mozilla.
JMockit – mocks even constructors and final or static methods
fsync has been broken since it was introduced in BSD4.x. It's never worked well, usually flushing the whole machine cache in one huge batch of i/o. I'm told current versions on Linux will restrict it to the one open file, but it's still a shotgun instead of a rifle.
Review My iOS app: VoteChat
Set up a timer and vote on what's being said. When the time is up whoever go the most votes wins.

What do you guys think ?
Unless you have evidence that merit is uncorrelated with class, your data does not support your conclusion.
Sieve of Eratosthenes, in AngularJS, with CSS3 explosions
I once suggested a HN style about box on Reddit partly to resolve problems like this.
No. It just makes it easier to build even more services that can't talk to each other. What we need are federated services, like email and XMPP.
In regards to the contamination,

I don't think that would be a real risk. Earth life has spent billions of years both adapting and adapting to the environment to make it the best growing medium and even then it exists in exclusive bands. For example, put a polar bear in the desert or a fresh water fish in salt water. It is more likely that we would have to take extreme care not to kill any lifeforms we brought back than to worry about them killing us.
hey what ever happened to these guys: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3456484

please shoot me a PM! Would love to chat!
> I can only invest during a timeframe of no more than approximately 20-30 years

What you have concluded in you comment can be summed up in one word - short-sightedness. The only way to defend that position (which, in fact, you use) is to say that most people are and historically have been short-sighted, hence it is 'natural' ergo correct. You further imply that this... process... is out of our control.

This is disingenuous, and I will tell you why. You question egalitarianism because historically societies can be seen as contrarian among themselves. But you whitewash over the fact that we ARE in fact much much better-off than most people who have ever lived. We are better off than Aristotle himself and a large part of it can be attributed to the fact that he existed. He obviously didn't foresee the future and how he is going to literally effect it, but he did contribute to it because he was egalitarian.

But you already agree that you want more Aristotles, Platos and Socrates. What is disagreeable that you want them in a short of time frame at the cost of everything else because of 'particular gamete being lucky' or some other factor you don't know. In short, you are looking for profit and explaining away the lack of moral imperatives by invoking Darwinism. But:

1. There is no immediate pressure on us to produce Aristotles et. al. because they are not going to bring immediate benefit. We CAN plan for a long term future, though, and that means we can improve our chances of survival.

2. Darwinism requires diversity. Hence it is simply better to invest in disadvantaged, if you were egalitarian.

Let us be honest - the truth is that you are coming from a position of an individual with significant wealth who is looking for next Aristotle to increase his personal wealth by taking his, and you don't really care about Aristotle or his effect on anyone else. All the arguments are simply dressings to make that short-sightedness and greed look good.
This guy uses the bidet before wiping? Whenever I'm in Japan I wipe before bidet, that way at least the initial blast of water doesn't spread too much gunk.
So you're not interested in history and thus it is OK to destroy it?

Allowing the circulation of illegally obtained cultural artifacts allows the market of grave-robbers, looters and "amateur archeologists" to prosper.

Whenever one of these assholes removes something from its place to sell it, we lose all the contextual information surrounding the piece, which is often much more valuable than the artifact itself.

Historical sites that were undisturbed for thousands of years are plundered right now in Syria, because western collectors pay handsomely to increase their stash.
I don't really understand the how and why of this, I guess. I have two "issues" with it:

1) That's a large, 8.3GB download - how are they making money if "anyone, anywhere, even if they aren't logged in" can download it? I could imagine their bandwidth bills would be big from regular users downloading the image but their bandwidth will be MASSIVE with bots/etc downloading.

2) 90 days, until June 28th

It's a VM that is hard coded to die within the next 90 days. Is the plan to then have them rebuild/re-host a new version on June 29? Then I'll download it, and use it for 90 days? What value is this for people who reach this page on June 14, for example?

This has to be MSFT licensing driven. "We don't really want to support this sort of thing but we do want people to think we do. What we'll do is release time-bombed versions and then hope folks will hate it so much that they decide to spin up an instance on Azure."

I just don't understand how this fits into Microsoft's "Let's move everyone who wants to 'test' our software to the cloud" movement that they've been on about for the past year or so (with the cancelling of Technet, etc).
The things that want sync don't usually want a promise for future time, they want positive ack the data is on the storage. So a deadline approach is pointless.

Async w/O_DIRECT is the correct approach, despite the complexity. The problem is handling table scans that exploit system buffer cache for read-ahead. The answer to that is to issue more i/os to bigger buffers, or to a set of buffers. Scatter-gather disk i/o would help with that.

It might be particularly sweet if well-behaved applications could rely on mixing O_DIRECT with bufferd i/o on the same files. That is, all writes done O_DIRECT on pages read with O_DIRECT, and reads might be done against page-cached buffered files.
And then on the 90s you had icq, aol, yahoo and another dozen instant messagers. Then Google played the bait and switch with jabber support for gtalk and came social networks and everyone having a sms phone in their pockets and all that became irrelevant...

Did we just defined the instant messager life cycle in 10yrs?
At some point, all sorts of horrible "opinions" where just that -- opinions. Society shifts and those opinions become unacceptable and revolting. The political landscape has shifted a lot in 6 years, and being against marriage equality is rapidly becoming akin to being a racist or sexist, based on broad public opinion.
This sounds very interesting. Are there any pre-built Windows binaries available for this extension?
That link does not debunk the very obvious relationship between rising costs in America and artificially depressed ones overseas (most of those points actually support said argument).

However, neither is the above argument a GOOD one. It SHOULD be damning.
I respect pg for the quality of his writing (in fact, the piece I linked is what brought me to this site many years ago, I had no idea of his background at that point).

Going to decent universities, building a successful startup company in the web space is definitively NOT a 'black swan'. It's something that many people plan, prepare and work very hard at executing for. This concept that pg won some sort of birth lottery and had his path paved with luck is preposterous based on the autobiographical story that I have read.

The whole point of Y Combinator is to remove a lot of the luck component by providing guidance that detaches the need to made lucky decisions, and gets down to being able to execute on an idea making something people want. The whole thing is as merit based as it can get.

While lots of people want to say 'but what about a poor man in Africa' as some sort of reductio ad absurdum to prove a point - realistically what we are talking about here is someone born in a western democratic liberal country and the chance at a decent education. You also don't have to be a billionaire to achieve what most people would like to achieve. Drawing out the extremes of the argument makes the discussion useless for the audience of this site.

What I take umbrage at is a lot of people say 'waah it's not fair someone got lucky' and then spending the rest of their lives in this refrain, pointing out the inequities of the world and refusing to achieve. All this tiresome '1% unfair inequitable boo hoo not fair' whining is unproductive and self indulgent.

If you want wealth or success get out and try and achieve it. The percentages of succeeding are low. The percentages of succeeding are 0 unless you try.

I have not been as successful as Paul Graham. I certainly don't cry about it and moan about some priveledge he got and I didn't, as though that gives me an excuse and a moral hammer to bludgeon people with. My starting hand wasn't as good as many, so I have to play a better game. Whether I ultimately achieve a higher success is entirely within my set of choices, and I don't blame anyone in the world for that. It's my responsibility.
The author is a friend of mine, and yes, I find the project very interesting :)
Boo hoo. If that's what it takes to perform, then it should be done. Ingres had it in the 90's. A win for OLTP, sometimes a lose for DSS queries with scans.
We need a multi step process to get out of this whole communications calamity:

0) Acknowledge there is a problem.

1) Have a client/service based on open standards and frictionless end-to-end encryption for ALL major OSes (Mobile + Desktop).

2) Get people to use it by building a lucrative business model around it (without giving up openness) and throw money into advertising.

3)-5) Repeat for Voice.

6)-8) Repeat for Video.

Right now we're still at step 0) with TextSecure being the most promising at reaching 1). Each subsequent step becomes less and less likely to succeed, so I wouldn't bet any money that we have anything like that in the future. Maybe if MS released Skype as Open Source (which doesn't seem so unlikely anymore after yesterday's news).
GTalk and xmpp? That's brittle.

Source: I've recently fired up my own xmpp server. All of my friends that are on Hangout (either because of the automated update on their mobile, or due to the aggressive 'It is so much better, really' marketing and the G+ bull, or due to new mobiles, coming with the full G+ package out of the box) won't be able to talk to me. They don't even see messages when I try to add them to my roster. Google and XMPP is dead, in my world.

Facebook? Well, I don't care what protocol they use if it doesn't allow federation. That's just another silo and XMPP is just a random implementation detail. The next version of Facebook's chat might switch to something else -> Just like Hangout did.
Disgusted with the treatment of Brendan Eich by the community. You guys bullied, slandered and libelled and individual. Your behaviour towards him is far worse than his views. As far as I'm concerned, Mozilla no longer exists. I'm not interested in anything that a organisation that supports this kind of community says or does. Fucking hypocrites, every last one of you.
It's the inevitable turn of the wheel of history. The company on top inevitably succumbs to the desire to add some tie-in here, some lock-in there, some EEE all over... Meanwhile the company with less to lose sees less risk in opening up whatever they have to get traction...the only thing that changes is the name of the companies involved, and definitely not the human nature of the people running them.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. As of right now Google is still a considerably better and more accomplished OSS citizen than Microsoft. They deserve applause and success (and have certainly gotten plenty of both!). But in another few product cycles? Who knows...
A More Detailed Tour of the Rust Compiler
Yes, fsync typically chews a boatload of CPU running down the pages in the cache to see what pages need to be written, then all the i/o path to enqueue the writes.
They "evolved" like pond scum!
It is amazing how easy it seams to collect such information with this tool
Uh, didn't Google announce a long time ago that they shut down the xmpp end points because it was only used by spammers? Yeah the internet revolted for the 2 usual minutes but then a kitten passed by...
Mozilla's Chief Felled by View on Gay Unions
"low barriers to entry" is as best as I can tell an arbitrary phrase that means whatever you want it to mean.

For example, a movie industry with the "lowest barrier to entry" would be a legal system where I can take The Hobbit from New Line Cinema, copy it, and sell it to consumers at industrial scale. As far as I can tell, not even the Pirate Party advocates for such a system.

Whenever somebody says "low barriers to entry" inevitably what they mean is "low enough that Big Bad Company is in trouble, but not zero". And while I support the sentiment, and to a significant extent, the policy, I fail to see how arbitrarily adjusting the barriers to entry to a different value because I don't like who is benefiting from it right now is anything other than picking winners and losers, which is a very un-free-market thing to do.
The raison d'etre for Apple's LLVM-based compiler was avoiding GPL3 restrictions of having to publish source code, it seems. They are frequently laggards in publishing parts of LLVM they care about and think of as competitive advantage (e.g. ARM64[1]), and they seem to not contribute much to parts of LLVM that they don't use themselves[2] (not that I find anything wrong with it, but portraying them as innate altruists is just not gonna fly.)

I would not be surprised if they get worse and worse over time in giving back to LLVM.

In short, Apple publishes free software, generally because they either (1) have to, due to GPL, or (2) feel the gain from the project is bigger than the cost of having to maintain a separate branch, so it makes perfect business sense.

(I am not criticizing that Apple has published free software and that is a good thing in general, regardless of the intent, but to say that they don't have their business interests in mind at all times and they fundamentally care about free software more than Microsoft is simply not true.)

---

[1]: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY0NzE

[2]: In our own experience developing techniques to uncover more than a hundred bugs in production GCC and LLVM (http://mehrdadafshari.com/emi/paper.pdf), we found GCC folks much more responsive to bug reports than Clang/LLVM folks, of which I draw the conclusion that the project is relatively under-resourced, at least in parts that are less relevant to Apple Darwin x86/64/arm backend.
All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again .. and again .. and again ...
Sorry to say this but it sounds like you're just trying to come up with any and all excuses to shoot down a valid idea.
> Most promising at

Never heard..
A few years ago there was a post here that told Patrick how he should run his business. That was a classless act and it made me pretty mad. At least Patrick had the good grace to first enquire if a post like this would really be welcome and he proceeded with Colin's permission (see twitter status linked elsewhere in this thread). Now I hold both Colin and Patrick in high regard, so I'll try to be as balanced as I can in my response here.

Patrick has a number of valid points but as far as I know Colin is well aware of almost every one of them. Just like other people shouldn't be telling Patrick how to run his business Patrick would do well to recognize that Colin and he have different drives and factors not easily digested into a blog post (however well intentioned) that equate to optimizing conversion or maximizing the number of dollars taken out.

None of this could not have said in an email to Colin, and as such it serves as a way for Patrick to show publicly how good he is at fixing problems that are related to marketing and conversion, it does very little for Colin other than to make it very public that he's not running his business in a way that caters to most enterprise types. And that's possibly a good thing, depending on what your assumptions are on what motivates Colin.

I'm going to send my own $0.02 on what Patrick wrote to Colin in an email rather than to post it here for all the world to see, Both Patrick and Colin are good men and I'd rather see stuff like this happen in private.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and even writing a solicited blog post is not always the best solution to the problem at hand.