skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Did you read Dijkstra's article? He's making the case for 0, though he's doing it a little abstractly. Simply put, if you start numbering at 1, you are setting yourself up for more boundary problems and off-by-one errors than if you start at 0 (and by extension, inclusive lower bounds and exclusive upper bounds). That's not to say that some algorithms are not in fact easier expressed by numbering things from 1, just that they're not the majority.

Oh, and obviously 0 is even. Why? Because 0 mod 2 = 0, 0 is evenly divided by 2, and that's what "even" means. If you need more intuition, though: 1 is indisputably odd, and even and odd numbers alternate, so 0 is even. The rest is philosophy -- you can probably find definitions for "odd" and "even" where 0 is a problem. That's fine, but those don't help. Ignore them. Mathematically there's no problem whatsoever.

The trickiness only comes if you insist in thinking in terms of "the first element", rather than "element number 0". Some people use "zeroth", but this seems to invite more confusion because it induces two meanings for all the other ordinal forms -- if there's a zeroth element, does that mean the "first" element is in fact the second element? Best to avoid ordinals altogether -- you usually don't need any more than "first" and "last" anyway.
You are confusing 'rank' with 'count'.
Rental Apartments in Vancouver
EasyRent tenent services inlcude free listing services of Rental Apartments in Vancouve, house rental in vancouver and much more Search listings to find your next home.
The Top 26 Best Guerrilla Marketing Campaigns Of All Time
Takeaways from this article:

* (assumption that primary job of corporate software developer is to develop software)

* Programmers are not soldiers, so military attitudes to management don't apply

* Big Bank management of software developers is poor

* Dress code correlates with command/control type management structure, which is undesirable, so dress code is therefore an indicator of an undesirable job.

* Due to this correlation, you should never accept a job with a dress code.

I don't like these types of op-ed pieces and yet I still read them. Something's wrong with me.
I can't vote you up enough, for that first sentence.

Most likely not representative of places that require a dress code, but an anecdote nonetheless:

My first full-time job after dropping out of college - and moving 600 miles away from friends, family: pretty much every one I knew - was at a small (~100 employee) direct marketing firm building landing pages in a dingy office.

They required slacks and a tie every day except Friday - when The Powers That Be deemed it good for morale to allow us to wear a polo shirt. Everyone was required to follow the code - from the designers building ads to the salespeople cold-calling universities.

It was simple work, and I yearned to be promoted to the actual development group - they got to work in PHP and C++, while I was stuck with plain old HTML, CSS, and a smattering of JavaScript. Until I found out what kind of code was responsible for a majority of the company's revenue. One of their salespeople had apparently picked up a PHP book quite a while ago, and suggested to management that they move away from cardpacks and start generating leads online. He was crafty, and made them sign a document saying the code was owned solely by him. He wrote the software that drove the lead generation platform, and a few months later quit. They hired him back at twice the salary to come in once a week as a consultant to fix bugs.

And bugs a plenty there were. Of course, the three developers in the next pod weren't allowed to touch the Holy Grail of Lead Generation. It was owned by the contractor. There were severe, showstopping bugs cropping up nearly weekly while I was there - bugs that would cause clients to drop us. And that was once I came on board - they'd been using the same PHP file for the previous 7 years or so. And the contractor would always tell us that it was our (the designers) fault for corrupted lead data.

One of the developers in the next pod found a security hole in the server one day, and grabbed a copy of the php file. All 14,000 lines of nested if blocks that it was. Every "bug fix" was simply a switch at the bottom of the file, with one case for each of the accounts that ended up having bugs.

Every time we suggested ways of making the process of getting a campaign out the door faster and more efficient, management would tell us: "OK, if you want it done - come in on the weekend." The CTO couldn't understand what an API was.

I haven't worked at a place that required a tie for any of the employees since then. When it comes to small businesses, at least - from this experience and several of my acquaintances' - if there's a dress code, run very, very far away. It's usually an indicator that you're expected to be a cog in the machine - not a curator of the machine.

(The direct marketing firm was bought out by a competitor about three months after I left, who had even worse lead generation software. It folded six months later).
"Time is a waste of money" - Oscar Wilde
That seems counterproductive. I give my money to the bank precisely because I don't want to bother with estimating borrower credibility myself. Also, as an individual I can not hedge my risk well enough, because I don't have enough money to spread it out effectively.
Funny I call all scientists who did important work by thier first name. I don't know why I do this, but I frequently refer to Dick (feynman) or Enrico, or Bertrand. Actually, if I were to hazard a guess, I would say it is to confuse a certain type of person, namely those that have very rigid thinking (a little lateral stretch is good for you once in a while). Perhaps I should make an exception for Galilleo and start calling him Galillei. :)
Just a heads up if you decide to do this, enabling tethering like this will impact your visual voicemail functionality. I (and others) would not see visual voicemail notifications until a power cycle of the iPhone.

http://www.mydigitallife.info/2009/06/28/how-to-restore-and-...
"obviously 0 is even"

Sounds like a bit of an odd statement to me.
Er, that's all worng. The question isn't number of, but index of. The index of the first element in a collection is 0. The index of the first sheep in a flock is (conventionally) 1. The total elements up to index n (inclusive) is n+1 -- the opposite parity -- which can be initially confusing.
Toothbrush is szczoteczka, according to Google. You might break some teeth trying to pronounce it!
Weird. When celebrities slipped up and let their private cellphone numbers get released on the internet, the cellphone industry didn't suffer from a massive backlash.
I don't care if computers think in 0s and 1s or if arrays should start at 0 because it is the way computers think.

Computers were made to serve us and as such they should translate all their inner thoughts to more human consumable data.

Five is 5, not 101.

So no, numbering should start at ONE, even if most programmers have already been hardwired to start counting from zero.
This. No one lost money by depositing their money with goldman sachs (they were not a deposit accepting institution). People lost their money speculating on stock and real estate. Having their money in a slightly safer bank would not have helped.
I think this kind of projects are good reminders that modern computers have incredible amounts of processing power and storage capacity. If only all that power could be harnessed efficiently....

I also think that legacy cruft is hindering development in computers. One reason why (GNU/)Linux was able to advance so quickly was that it had much less legacy than other systems, allowing more freedom for developers to do stuff better way.
Poor communication only becomes enculturated when it has some larger economic purpose.

In the art world, it's all a game to win funding. This type of art is not aimed at the general audience, but--if you bear with what seems like weird conspiratorial mumbo jumbo--about making a certain class of elites feel and appear smarter when dealing with their peers.

The elites are the public funding boards and the private patrons. For the public funders, they need to defend their grants, so they need suitable language from the artist that makes the art seem incredibly important, intelligent, etc. so they can defend their decisions. For the private funder, it's the thrill of showing off. It's the same reason you hang beautiful pictures on your wall. Sure it's for your own pleasure, but it's also for the pleasure of seeing others appreciate your taste.

One way to accomplish both goals is to be inscrutable. That confuses and intimidates people, and can make them afraid to challenge you.

To give you another context where poor communication is used to serve an economic end, you'll find the same tactic in sales. If you ever wondered why an enterprise software company's website doesn't make any sense, it's to confuse you enough to pick up the phone and call a salesperson who can then relationship sell you.
Well sure, you probably shouldn't wear literally anything you want at work, and torn or worn-out clothes are out of bounds in any semi-formal social situation anyway. So you should at least look as though you put some thought into what you wore to work and how you present yourself. Programmers might not be special, but neither is a suit and tie. A suit is not standard attire for programmers generally, and much like it would be unreasonable to demand a plumber wear one, it is unreasonable in most cases to demand an engineer wear one. Especially so when the rationale is one of those described in the article.
Since he wants to keep accounts below the FDIC limit, there's really no incentive for him not the hit the markets aggressively, trying to make a nice interest for his customers.
While you're at it, check out http://piumarta.com/ ;)
What I really don't get is these people who seem to WANT to look like shit. We don't have a dress code here. I could easily wear jeans over half the time. But I don't and nobody else does because it looks horrible. Personally, I find being surrounded by well dressed people a substantial workplace selling point.

Do you have any idea how juvenile and tasteless you look in cheap jeans and sneakers? Do you realize how much dramatically better you look with proper shoes and well cut wool pants? To give up that advantage just indicates idiocy to me.
I just noticed that Office live features dont work on chrome...

Ironic :)
Open-source Red Hat nears complete recession rebound
Doh... and very true. Typically when I have the content 90%+ set I turn it over to my wife who does free-lance copy-editing, where this stuff gets picked up. Obviously I haven't done that yet!

The final version should be much more grammatically correct and clear. My goal today was to see what people thought about the general content.
> Did you read Dijkstra's article?

Yes, I did. Does it hurt to offer a different perspective? I feel it doesn't. Approaching a subject with an open mind or from a different angle tends to be good for discussion. Offering a contradicting opinion or observation helps everyone to understand an issue better.

> Oh, and obviously 0 is even.

I might counter this with a similar question you asked me: "did you read my post?" I didn't make a case that 0 was odd, I asked how I should look at it: as element 0, or as the first element. If you look at it as element 0, the first element of the vector is an even element. If, on the other hand, you look at it as the first element, you will think it is an odd element. This is the case I made, not that 0 is even.
I do not think dress codes are "idiotic." I understand why they exist for companies and organisations. I went to an all-boys Catholic school in Sydney, Australia, and we wore navy blazers, ties, and polished shoes. It was about respect and reputation. I get this. I see this everywhere, in every country. I'd rather see well-dressed people than see slobs. I'd rather look at beauty than ugly. I'd rather smell a pleasant scent than an unpleasant odour. Hey, that's just me.

Now, living in the inelegant U.S., I am a programmer who works in companies with no dress codes, but chooses to wear bespoke suits, sport jackets, and the occasional tie and/or hanky in the jacket's breast pocket... because I love clothing, grooming and elegant style. I have always loved these things, ever since I was a kid.

I understand that programming and dressing well is a rare combination, and I get flak for it from the men once in a while, but the women like it. Hmmm... I wonder why. ;-)
Are you sure about the DMCA exemption part? I know EFF was petitioning to make carrier unlocking exempt from DMCA. Why would they need to file for this if it was already exempt?
There are many "internet-only" bank accounts in the US that reimburse you for ATM fees. I use http://www.salemfivedirect.com/ , which reimburses up to $15 of ATM fees per month, and Etrade bank does something similar. Being free to totally ignore ATM fees is really nice, and because internet banks are competing for customers that are likely more mobile and savvy than local branch banks, odds are the customer service is better.

It is also possible to deposit checks by scanning them and uploading the check image; one of my friends does that for her personal account.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that "big, evil corporations" are a write-off, and we expect them to be evil -- while people who take BSD-licensed code and wrap it up in a "thou shalt not touch" layer of GPL should know better.
Internet Addiction Center Are You Kidding? | TechJaws: Internet Security and SEO
It's surprising isn't it? that's the same amount you'd give an early engineer. Makes it sound like advisory board positions add an equal amount of value.
But he was making the point that there are valid human reasons for zero-based indexing - e.g. keeping the lower bound within the natural numbers; having the upper bound be the number of elements in the preceding sequence, etc. The "way computers think" doesn't enter the discussion.
Flickr v. Free Speech. Where Is Their Courage?
If the charter for the "large language" was replaced with "create a Standard Library for Scheme," would it make any practical difference?

In other words, does the "large language" really require any different language features, or just the libraries that "large" Scheme implementations should implement?
I think that falls apart when you realize that, by using a license identical to the GPL but with all instances of "GPL" replaced by some other term (say, "RCL" for "really cool license"), the code distributed under each license is unusable in projects using the other license. Where's the freedom to cross-pollinate?
Not that I know of. Normal people and programmers do not count the same way.

| last |
| rank | count
------+------+-------
sheep | 2 | 2
sheep | 1 | 1
sheep | - | 0
------+------+-------
array | 1 | 2
array | 0 | 1
array | - | 0
I have no idea where you stand on the issue of which is the more "important" definition of freedom, but the way you frame the issue is pretty much spot-on (especially since it perfectly mirrors my own take on the difference, and reinforces my thoughts on what's actually "more free" in both political and software senses of the term).
How are monolithic steering committees no better than at creating technology than centralized economies at manufacturing widgets? Why do we keep paying attention to this crap?
We have this convention for the benefit of humans. Indexing starting at 0 has the convenient property that when we modulus an arbitrary number by the size of a range, the result is a valid index into that range. This comes up when implementing things that map a larger set onto a smaller set, such as buffers or hash tables.

We could still achieve the same effect if we started indexing at 1, but it would require more code, and it would be less clear.
I wish they would just firebomb the poppy fields and get it over with. What would be wrong with that? They've been saying they would for years but always decide to 'wait a little longer' and never do anything.
I often wonder if Dijkstra's arguments still hold sway, since algorithms written in modern languages differ greatly from those written when Dijkstra wrote this. Rather than writing hash functions or shortest route algorithms, a majority of my algorithms are centered around lists and or dictionary manipulations. There are still many situations where it makes more sense to start indexing at 0, but I wonder if it is still the majority of cases.
I guess GNU people are perfectly welcome to use the word "free", but they should stop acting like they're using "free" in some manner that makes the recipient of the code more "free" than less restrictive licenses.
I'm pretty sure I would have benefitted from that as a kid... It took me a long time to learn to stop talking (or monologuing) about books and computer games and start instead listening to others and talk about what they liked.
Scheme to become two languages
The very text you quoted was talking about Alice's ability to make use of Bob's "free" code. Were you not reading what you quoted?

Consider this, also, when thinking about which is "more free":

Which person's code can be used with code that is distributed under a different copyleft license?

Which looks "more free" to the person (perhaps Charlene) who wrote the code under that third license?
That's absurd. Murder? Seriously? Are you really comparing the ability to use code with fewer restrictions with "murder"?

Is "murder" the new "Nazi" or something?

edit: . . . and I'd like to see your statistical evidence for the GPL actually resulting in "more free and happy people". I think the BSD License is a great and subtle fishhook for pulling people into the world of free and open source software, whereas the GPL is a gigantic barbed hook the size of my head with blood and gore dripping off it (at least in the eyes of many businesses), so obvious in its intent and the difficulty of getting unhooked after taking a nibble that many of them may never give it a chance.

In short, I'm not convinced that the GPL helps. Maybe it results in a marginally higher rate of return among those who use the code. Maybe. Then again, maybe it also results in fewer people using the code, and maybe overall that results in a lower rate of return. 50% of 100 isn't as much as 20% of 1000, after all.
I use this approach myself to remotely modify my clojure app bytecode at runtime. So if, for instance, I need to add a new function at runtime to my personal clojure blog app, all I do is connect to my remote REPL, write the function and refresh my browser. Thats extremely powerful I'd say.

Technically what this does in the case of my blog is modify the proxied Java Servlet bytecode at runtime.
Conversation with Anselm R. Garbe of suckless.org
You know, backtype is a pretty awesome idea since conversational search is clearly valuable to brands and businesses.

I guess this jumping on the "real-time" bandwagon will get them exposure and funding but I hope they don't lose their focus on making the most kickass way to track conversation about your brand or business as a result of some fad.

They need to solve harder problems like, removing noise from the system and improving accuracy!
Well, I think that there is a very important human reason to keep sticking to 0 as the start: convention. It has always been this way. Changing it would cause a whole lot of weird bugs.

To be honest, I think one reason why this grew is probably the way C handles array indexing. a[0] = *(a + 0) and this symmetry is a nice property to have in many cases. I think I use that symmetry in my MSc project a lot more than I use vec_mule/vec_mulo.

(Yeah, I'm not of a fixed mind in this matter :-))
As I said: Half the time I agree with you, and it's pretense for the sake of pretense. The rest of the time - more often, in fact, in my age group - it's people who just know big words and use them like it's part of their vocabulary.

Hell, I'm guilty of the same thing, to a lesser degree. I speak the way I type, occasional digressions into grander vocabulary and all, and I'm frequently asked why I use such large words. Personally, I don't think words like "digression", "voluptuous" (a personal favorite), and "grandiose" are that difficult, but other people disagree, and I've been called an artsy-fart more than once.

It's the same reason you hang beautiful pictures on your wall. Sure it's for your own pleasure, but it's also for the pleasure of seeing others appreciate your taste.

I'm going to have to disagree and defend the honest artist here. As a purveyor of beautiful things myself, I can say that I don't care about other people's opinions of my taste. However, I still do seek out said beautiful things, entirely for myself. I spent this weekend buying diningware and silverware, and if I hadn't been looking for stuff I really connected with I could have left the store a hundred dollars richer. As it is, I care much more about having an emotive connection with the things I own and see and use than I do about saving money, which I know sounds like bullshit but is a philosophy I still agree with.
I don't think it's about what programmers want, it's more about programmers idealized view of the world. Programmers believe in meritocracies, and judging people based on their clothing is antithetical to a meritocracy.

Many programmers have trouble reconciling the fact that the "real world" doesn't conform to their ideals and actively try to reject it.
No no no . . . it's more like the others didn't want to be required to demand that other people bake pies for them.

"Look, when I bake a pie and give it away to other people, I just want other people to have the pie and be happy. Why the fuck do I have to promise to demand that other people bake pies for me if I use your recipe when I bake pies for them?"
Nooo! Leave my poppy seed bagels out of this
Dorthy.com: A (Semantic) Search Engine for Dreams
How can anyone think that deciding on expressions of computation should be done by committee? Imagine mathematicians were to get together to agree on standardized terminology for papers - what a waste of time it would be!
I don't think you read the article so I'll help you out. Here is how to fix the visual voicemail issue, right in the last paragraph:

"Worth noting is that some users have experienced trouble with their visual voicemail following this procedure. If you do have trouble accessing that feature, simply navigate to Settings → General → Network → Cellular Data Network and within the Visual Voicemail section add “acds.voicemail” into the APN field. Once that is done, you will be able to once again use your visual voicemail."
His head is in the clouds. Although, the idea of starting a bank in the middle of a downturn is not bad. People are saving more money than usual right now (cheap capital), and many businesses are desperate for loans. The trick is to weed out the failing businesses, and loan to the ones strong enough to last the downturn. As always, easier said than done...

If anyone out there is looking for a "nice" bank, you're much better off with a credit union. Credit Unions are by definition customer focused.
Thanks weird=potential!
No, not YC. This issue isn't that important. If investors don't like the way we spent their money, that matters. Confusion on a blog doesn't matter.