skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Wild: When I moved last year I made .. well not a lot but a fair bit hauling my own junk to the scrap yard.

When it was time to scrap the computer equipment I would have profited from that, too, if not for the CRTs. Those I would have been better off throwing them into the landfill.
That big-endian bug is a perfect example of OCD in coding.

"I can't ever reach that code path so I'll remove it".

I have caught myself doing this in some cases. I once removed a test to see if the CSPRNG was actually working because the test coverage showed that I could never reach that code-path. I then realised that this needed to be there, because otherwise, if the CSPRNG ever stopped working, the code wouldn't know about it, and (maybe) start using streams of zeroes as it's entropy.

Sometimes you need to remember that hardware can fail, or be compromised, even though in most cases it will just cause the program to crash.
What agenda? Google sucks, NDAs suck, etc?
They did, but only for a while, until it became too inconvenient for their company goals.
Buy cheap, buy twice!
You mean competitive sports cycling. Everyday commute or leisure cycling is awesome in Germany. (Well, I often get aggressively almost run over by ruthless sports cyclists who treat every way as their highspeed training center every now and then...)
I've experienced plenty of similar bugs that don't manifest when running under a debugger while working on modern ARM systems (not that any of it is necessarily specific to ARM, it's just what I work on).

Usually it's one of the following causes:

The boring one which should show up as a warning in the compiler: use of code with undefined behavior, which could be something as simple as an uninitialized variable or in manually written assembly use of an instruction in a context in which it has undefined behavior.

Bugs caused by poor understanding of the memory model: ARM has a weakly ordered memory model, which allows for various hardware optimisations, but the (systems) programmer has to understand it. The basic idea is that memory accesses could be observed in different order in different coherent cores, so synchronisation points require carefully placed barriers.

Bugs caused by not accounting for the modified Harvard architecture: the data and instruction caches aren't coherent. If you do JIT you'll notice odd behavior soon enough when some executable code is overwritten, but if it's just one time dynamic code generation, there's a fair chance most of the time there won't be any stale data in the instruction cache. Until there is, you get odd erros and if you inspect the code in the debugger it will look just fine, since it's fetched through the data cache.

DMA bugs: if the DMA peripheral isn't connected through a cache coherent bus, it can be quite tricky to ensure you won't accidentally transfer stale data.

Finally, something that's not so much influenced by using a debugger, it's just that the debugger is completely useless: silicon bugs. Just a few weeks ago, I found a bug in a MCU which causes it to send multiple copies of an SPI transfer for certain ratios between the peripheral's clock and the core's clock. It was relatively easy to find since SPI is an external bus which I could probe with a scope, but if a similar issuue would happen on chip, it would be a lot more tricky.
Does osx not use Openssh Package? On Fedora here so had always wondered why all these setup guides included this step.. the osx thing might explain it.
What about the fact that they colluded with Apple and other companies to keep their engineer salaries as low as possible?
Well, there are still brands that are long-lasting, but also pricey. I bought a Miele washing machine for $1100 in 2006 and fully expect it to last 20 years. This brand has a reputation for lasting.
My dishwasher died a couple of months ago, and it was hundreds cheaper to replace it than fix it.
Re: the mixer that cost "a month's wages"...

We bought a new washer/dryer 2 years ago. Already needed service in the first year, and the washer is rusting already, and it's out of warranty. These weren't the cheapest, but not most expensive - around $800/each, IIRC. There were some cheaper, and many far more expensive (some $1200-$1500 for each unit).

The problem with "well, these are using lesser quality parts" argument is... I seem to have no choice. AND I'm skeptical that the $1800 washer is actually going to last any more than the $800 washer, given the track records.

When the identifiers are SQ-WSHR-2700 ($800) and SQ-WSHR-2720 ($1800), both built in the same manufacturing facility, and the sales blurbs just show one has 3 extra cycles and an "eco-cycle"... what incentive do I have to trust that one is actually going to last 15 years while one will only last 3?
I've bought a slightly cheaper Miele washing machine recently. It's great and uses a lot less energy compared to my old one.
As others said, there's an environmental cost to building "garbage" that breaks down early, and then we need new ones to replace them.
> That makes no sense. Much of the time, the reward is directly related to the core project.

That is the decision of the project creators. They don't have to offer the product as a reward. They could offer stickers/tshirts/whatever.

Kickstarter is not a store. Its the creators who are choosing to treat it like one, and they should be wholly responsible for their decision to do so.
> Don't think that the fact of recruiter getting in touch mean anything -- they are playing their own numbers game.

Exactly. In some conversations I've had with fellow dev's they seem to equate a message from a recruiter with a job offer. I never understood this. Sure, I get messages from recruiters on LinkedIn but it's prob. the same generic letter blasted to hundreds or even thousands of candidates. The quality of your online profiles (SEO?) as a programmer is directly related to the volume of messages you get from recruiters.
It's not just about whether appliances need to be fixed, it's also about whether they are serviceable at all. Due to miniaturization and perhaps planned obsolescence, increasingly appliances cannot be fixed at all.
"No, economists have been arguing and studying for over 200 years, probably more. Simply saying they've been "studying it" for 200 years doesn't make your view or your choice of economists correct."

Well, I'd agree with you if there didn't seem to be a consensus. I'm not talking about choosing specific Economists, I'm talking about a general consensus among all economists. There are things that all mainstream economists agree on, at least from my reading on the subject (very limited, unfortunately, which is why I ask for clarification or sources).

As for your logical fallacies list, I can't say I agree. I doubt you'd be saying I'm making any of those fallacies if I said that the mainstream scientific consensus is that gravity exists, or that f=ma. Trying to understand the consensus of the experts in the subject, and starting from the assumption that at least there's a good chance they're correct, is a pretty reasonable and effective worldview.
I don't think Haskellers bash OO that much. They bash some of the trappings of it. GoF is usually a typesafe library in Haskell because it has better abstraction capabilities. Functions form better fundamental units than objects do (but are a form of "object" themselves). Composition is better than inheritance. Classes are not generally so useful.

Really, I think Haskell has a super great object system. It's just (a) not the central conceit and (b) so naturally embedded in the language that you can program for a long time without even noticing it's there.

Codata typically indicates you're looking at an object. In Haskell, due to it being non-terminating as a language, codata and data are unified so most "objects" look identical to their non-object form. You can also notice them by definitions based on eliminators. Automata are a good example

newtype Auto f i o = Auto { run :: i -> f (Auto f i o, o) }

You can also look for objects as ADTs. When you do this you can get a natural embedding of a prototype-based language. (http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/jeremy.gibbons/publications/adt.pdf)

data ADT f = forall st
. ADT { unfold :: st -> f st
, state :: st
}

Here, the internal state type `st` is closed over as an existential value—when you create a new ADT you can pick what st is but the type system then ensures that nobody ever can access that type again. Instead, you have to use the `unfold` elimination form which projects the state into a "class" `f` (represented as a Functor, but that's immaterial) which defines a signature of methods over the abstract state. Auto, from before, is definable this way.

data AutoClass st o =
AutoClass { next :: st
, out :: o
}

type Auto = ADT AutoClass

Subtyping occurs naturally with quantified types like the existentially-typed `st` variable or the universally quantified types you see all the time in type signatures. It's a more natural form of subtyping since it's all defined by increasing typeclass bounds. Something like

{C} : set of constraints Ci : constraint
------------------------------------------------------
forall a . {C} a => a :> forall a . ({C} a, Ci a) => a

This guarantees that these these two types are good "subtypes on eliminators" which satisfies the Liskov Substitution Principle if not some of the more strict definitions of subtype "niceness".

Double/Multiple dispatch is trivially handled in Haskell since polymorphism is solved by an entire Prolog embedded in the type system.

The thing is that Haskell also has initial data, things like finite lists are better thought of as a big tree of constructors

1:(2:(3:(4:(5:[]))))

and then pattern matched upon (defining catamorphisms)

sum :: [Int] -> Int
sum (a:bs) = a + sum bs
sum [] = 0

and this pattern is perhaps a little bit emphasized in mainstream Haskell because it sides on the "functional" side of the expression problem. It doesn't mean, though, that Haskell doesn't like the "object oriented" side, but instead that Haskell favors both.
For electronics, some states now require a fee at the time of purchase, to be put into a fund and used for future recycling, so the cost of responsible disposal is built into the original price: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Waste_Recycling_Fee

Its motivation was a different problem, recycling rates: most people balk at paying a fee at the time of disposal to recycle something. If recycling costs money (as it generally does for electronic waste, which doesn't recover enough valuable metals to pay for the process), then people just dump things in the trash instead, even if that's illegal. Collecting the cost of recycling up front, and then making it free to recycle at the point of disposal, greatly increases how willing people are to put their electronic waste into the right bin.

As far as I know that's so far mostly for computers, not appliances, and only in some jurisdictions. How effective it is also depends on how strong the other laws around recycling are: if "recycling" ends up consisting of just shipping the waste to China to be processed in a questionable manner, the up-front price might not be fully pricing in the environmental damage. Overall I think it's a good model, though, to combine responsible-disposal requirements with up-front collection of the funds to do the disposal.
Can you show me how can I rent that data?
That misconception is covered in the article:

> She points out that consumer law does not underwrite six years of use, as is commonly believed.

It's two years. In some countries, e.g. Germany, after six months the burden of proof is on the consumer that the product had already been faulty when receiving it (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/consumer_topics/buying_goo...).
> "view which is often held by those who are very intelligent yet lack the actual study of AI"

Well there is Stuart Russel [1], who seems to share [2] Hawking's view.

[1] He's a CS professor and famous for the book, Russell and Norvig: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-hawking/artificial-int...
Blame yourself? No, I'll blame the people who have more than 1/360,000,000th of a unit of political power in the country, i.e. the actual rich people and politicians who actually do these things that we hate. I will take 1/360,000,000th of the share of the blame, and nothing more.
Except this article did not talk about planned obsolescence. Just about the race to the bottom. I find that quite unsettling, since we have so much evidence that obsolescence is really actually planned by many big industries out for big buck$. (One of the more documented examples is the light bulb industry, which was fined for this.)

So, when they go talking about ongoing obsolescence, I expect at least a little bit of speculation as to whether this particular one is planned or not. Instead, we merely get some more consumer shaming.
Just because it's easy doesn't mean it's OK to ignore due process. The NSA records lots of things on a daily basis but that doesn't mean it's all valid in a court of law.

I think if a person made a complaint to law enforcement, they could get a waiver - or maybe even a court order - to record a specific person for a specific time for a specific reason. Maybe that should be easier, but I don't think the process should be any less regulated.
They need to add one of these:

http://www.geocities.ws/disseminator1/under_construction_gif...
Hoe gezond is Krill olie? | Leef Nu Gezonder
A command-line power tool for Twitter
"Free markets are bad in adjusting for environment costs"

The concept of "environment" is completely in-congruent with the free market. Because, if indeed you had a "Free market", you'd have to concede that everything is on the market. That includes public property, which is practically never for sale and are mostly hoarded by the state without any chance of private ownership/transfer. That's called a monopoly. Individuals/entities have an incentive to abuse un-ownable(public) property, rather than to develop/protect it like they do for private-property.

So, perhaps you should change your comment to "Regulated markets in the presence of a monopoly state are bad in adjusting for environment costs."

But if we indeed had a free-market, I'd concede that there are a few examples where the market would be slow to "adjust its costs". Prime examples would be air and ocean pollution because they're currently technologically unfeasible to own/delineate.
It's impossible to know how long they will last but you can make some sort of guess - my repair guy said don't buy Indersit, they all pack up in no time and suggested Electrolux which I went for - fingers crossed.

We could do with some better info on average life - someone like Appliances Direct who cart away a lot of broken machines could benefit the world by publishing how old different models were when they croaked.
You shouldn't buy a more expensive model, you should buy a better brand, e.g., a German brand like Miele.
One of the principles of journalistic integrity is that coverage should be free of "editorialization" or injecting your own opinions as the writer into the narrative of the story (thus maintaining objectivity).

One example: "it's believed that the losses number in the billions", you should say instead, "it is uncertain what squares operating metrics are currently, or have been in the past."

Only report what you know to be facts, the rest, "conjecture", have someone more qualified than you make those conjectures. Maybe interview someone who works at square who is familiar with these things? Then, slightly, you as the writer will have distanced your own feelings about the subject by relying on someone else, who is hopefully in a better position to answer these questions.
Do not let them repair your phone out of sight though. They'll fix your problem but a new one will pop up next week because they've swapped some of the parts that weren't broken.

It was also still cheaper for us to get a new washer machine than have the old (landlord's even!) fixed. At least we don't have to worry about a dryer :)
As far as I know Dennett denies the existence of qualia which is something I can not understand however hard I try. I agree that in terms of intellectual capabilities the human brain is not magic. But consciousness kind of is.
Does anyone else not 'get' tablets?
My parents (coming up to pension age) asked me to recommend a tablet. I talked them through the options (Apple vs. Google) and took them to the store to try out the iPad Air.

I own both MacBook and Lenovo laptops for work and personal use (programming) and have never owned a tablet. I have never owned a tablet and still do not see a genuine use for them when my laptops can do the same thing but better and the cost of ownership is not negligible, especially because it is a recurring cost and additional costs (iCloud, apps) are likely. For those reasons I have a hard time recommending tablets to anyone I know.

This is perhaps a bit of a strange question to ask on HN but does anyone else not 'get' them or am I just getting old? :)
The whole "back then, stuff lasted forever" thing always seemed very susceptible to survivorship bias to me: you get the impression that stuff lasted forever because the old things that are still in use today must have lasted to still be in use while all the things that broke are not taken into consideration because they have long been thrown out.
How can you possibly believe that? The NSA will just go to the private company and subpeona all the data that it's illegal for them to collect. They can and have done this. Citizens need protection from private corporations just as much as they need protection from the government because there is no meaningful distinction anymore.
I'm by no means a fanboy. From what I understand the salary thing wasn't exactly a conspiracy, but it was an extremely poor policy. I don't think anybody has much to complain about in terms of the benefits package from google, though.

In terms of "big companies", their sins are relatively innocuous, and if I wanted to work in big tech they'd be #1 on my list given the technology & resources that they make available. I'd certainly never work for Apple, Facebook, Oracle or Microsoft. I'd need a lot of convincing to work for Amazon.
> Those do indeed matter. As Louis CK artfully explains, as a white male, you can't even hurt my feelings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY

Consider Louis' example (paraphrasing): "'cracker' [...] bringing me back to owning land and people".

If we're to discuss this as something that might be offensive rather than just a joke (which we obviously are at this point), this could easily offend someone. Is it inoffensive to refer to people as slave owners, really? Or to refer to white people as guilty of that kind of thing by association (assuming that they're ancestors owned slaves; but it still isn't okay to project these "sins of the father")?
It's not just statistical bias. We know things today are made from cheaper materials(plastics instead metal in washing machine) for example, and it makes sense they'll be less reliable.
I think it's naive to be that proud. Sure Google isn't the best company in the world as far as its policies about costumer data and privacy but if OP's mother or friends are really concerned about their privacy they can opt out and use another equivalent service to Google Search, Gmail, etc. But then again most mainstream services if not all have their own dark policies, don't they?
Sample size is a little anemic on this one
It works pretty smooth on my Firefox
Bill Gates on track to own no Microsoft stock in four years
update says that they were similar not identical. willing to be corrected though.
I red some blogs but not yet the books. I will do.
I understand and I agree I should interact with users/business to see If my idea can solve their problem but my concern is I don't have yet the product to show it to them. I wanted to get some feedbacks from experiences that someone got.
I thanks for the link. I will try to follow it.
Hitachi Group Codes of Conduct
"At this point many extreme climate change activists want to send the world back to the 1700's level of technology"

Really, who? I can't see the people in the 18th century using PV (or much electricity at all for that matter).

I think the real problem is that people somehow believe "the economy" is more important than the environment. Destroying "the economy" would have little to no effect at all on about two thirds of the world's population.

Fixing (and preserving) the environment will have an enormous benefit to the entire world population, with the exception of the very small number of people who currently profit from treating the environment as an infinite resource, or a static back-drop to our own civilization.
With regard to swimming, there are huge differences between ethnic groups in the US: about 70 percent of African-American children, 60 percent of Latino children and 40 percent of white children are non-swimmers. [1] [2]

A few years ago, my wife worked on an ethnographic research project about the lack of swimming skills in the African-American population. One thing that was striking was the difference with other multi-cultural countries --e.g. the UK and South Africa-- where there are no such differences in the acquisition of swimming skills between ethnic groups. In the UK, learning to swim is part of the national curriculum, unlike the US [edit: I don't mean this to be an exclusive explanation].

On a personal note, the notion that so many US children don't know how to swim is horrifying. I consider it a basic life skill, as important as knowing how to cross a road. My daughter learnt to swim before she learnt to ride a bike.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11172054

[2] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/swimming-and-the-fe...
I believe you are misinformed. Google wipes your slate clean, and you can try again in 6-12 months.
Yeah, companies have been burned in the past for relying on too few suppliers of disks. For example, Amstrad.
Agreed. It's also a very easy/handy line of thinking that sadly a lot of people are prone to:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Good_old_days
Sure, there is a cost. Which is offset by recycling.

If we all switched, tomorrow, to using long-lived appliances and goods, we'd pay higher costs for _new_ manufactured goods because their a whole lot of their inputs comes from recycled material.

Example: a metal foundry in my home town makes a whole lot of man-hole covers (and like goods). They exclusively use recycled metal. The car that I scrapped last week could be part of a manhole cover next month!
My grandmother's Maytag washing machine from the mid-1950s was still working up until about 5 years ago. It suddenly stopped working and all it needed was a new belt. However, this was in a house that we were selling and had no need to keep a machine long-term.

We sold the washing machine and dryer to a film studio/prop company for enough money to buy more than a dozen washing machines.
Ah, I misread your response since the parent comment seemed to be in reference specifically to the article.
This is what it sounds like when you put tree rings on a record player
I won't work for google, apple, or microsoft due to the illegal no-poaching agreements they made. I don't want to work for amazon because they are retail - engineering is overhead to be trimmed.

Through some weird twist of fate I find myself actually admiring Facebook, not the site, but the company.
After Technology Destroys Capitalism