skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The simple answer to your question is that you(the researcher or dogfooder) are not your users.

I'd say most people overestimate how much their own personal experiences generalize (to a meaningful n) or overestimate their ability to empathize with users. Even user researchers.
Correct, e.g., NY <-> BOS. Amtrak also owns the tunnels under the east river that LIRR trains go through. Any problems there and the MTA likes to blame (sometimes rightfully so) Amtrak.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=resources/traffic&...
Hey Bike Messengers: It's Kzomo-palooza again
Do you get to use Java 8 in production?

Edit: To clarify I mean if you had a Java X app deployed how hard is it to upgrade to Java 8? One thing I like, maybe naively, about Go is static binaries.
The Eye in The Sky: Can I fly? Can I film?
With the popularity of quadcopters and drones on the increase, it pays to be aware of what the rules are for flying such aircraft. In the UK, one of the most monitored societies around, mounting a camera is a game changer when it comes to aviation regulations.
I never stated whether I believe in a creator being or not, nor will I since it is not relevant to this conversation. The belief that a creator is orchestrating things is what's known in science as a theory. The point I was making is that neither theory is mutually exclusive. It does not follow that if one is true, then the other is not.

Also, if you are indeed scientifically minded then you must be open minded to all theories that explain the state of things unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. It is not enough to say that there isn't sufficient evidence. Remember, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. To rule out a theory that could explain our observations without evidence is not scientifically minded at all.

To have a productive conversation, if you believe that the two theories are mutually exclusive then please explain what about one of them being true, means the other cannot be. If you don't believe they are mutually exclusive then my original point stands that the statement by 'spiritplumber' is a non sequitur.
- David Heinmeier Hansson talks about the "secret" to making money online https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CDXJ6bMkMY
Never doubt the American Public's capacity for believing in anything that comes directly out of their paycheck.

(But, yes -- it's a remarkably difficult sell, as we've seen.)
http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html

http://clang-omp.github.io/#status
"Award Winner: 2010 Boston Society of Architects Unbuilt Architecture"
Politicians just by supporting current drug regulations are responsible for "millions of deaths"? Do you have evidence to back up that extraordinary claim?

AFTER EDIT: I note a downvote for disagreement. So I will ask the obvious follow-up question. With what part of the two questions I originally posted do you disagree, and what facts and reasoning should I consider to change my opinion?
You are confusing efficiency with distribution. It's clear that new firms are more efficient, but the median prosperity (your word) is also related to the way income is distributed. If a technical advancement increases efficiency by 5% but drastically changes distribution so that owners make 10x more than they use to, the average person loses.

Traditionally such advances could not stand for very long because competition would creep up and eat away at the innovators' margins, redistributing the gains to the wider public via lower prices. In the walled garden of highly monopolistic internet businesses powered by strong network effects, they seem to stand.

The line about startup employees does not even make sense, the individual contributors used by the likes of AirBnB are not employed in any traditional sense, nor are they entrepreneurs. The folks in Silicon Valley are doing great but the effects of what they are led to create has society-wide implications that you don't seem to grasp.
It's not only me, just about everyone. and there is no resolution.
Can you expound on the kind of infrastructure you have in mind? In my experience it's enough to have some tests and a documented way to run them.

(Poorly written tests, though, is another story. Having to spend an hour figuring that out in order to write a new case isn't fun.)
Looking at their docs it seems like it's just IMDB-style metadata for a single publisher.
Is that year of training worth anything once you walk out the door ?
Maybe not silent, but definitely muted. It's a soft "H" and probably borrows its pronunciation from Spanish.
You have an incredibly idealistic view of newspapers. I don't think they've ever lived up to those principles, especially not now.
Thing is, software doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Perhaps it's worth considering that maybe the reason that checklists aren't the norm in the FOSS "meritocracy" is that they hinder progress, for a certain value of progress. Maybe there was a stealth project that could have been OpenSSL, developed with scrict adherance to checklists, but OpenSSL won because it didn't have that burden? I suspect this applies more broadly to startups, too.

Maybe checklists are a silent killer in the natural selection of the software ecosystem, and that's why so much of our software is tripping over peacock feathers?

Just a thought.
To summarize your comment:

* attacks are hard to predict

* law enforcement is interested in attacking

* being hosted on a single server is just one way to make something attackable

* the proposal needs more work

* whether this actually works is an open question

* the real question is whether law enforcement will be able to attack

In a nutshell, this is circular logic that ends where it begins, and makes no journeys elsewhere. It makes no technical criticism of DarkMarket, references no historical or similar examples, and offers no extra information from other sources (such as the source code).

So, I down-voted, and wonder why all the up-votes.
DUH. I can't believe this happened. Thanks for letting me know =/
Sure, I'm not saying the proposed automated test is bad. I think it might be sensible to add it. As I said, I'm 100% for automated tests (I should be, as the co-founder of a startup specializing in test automation tools). But ascribing magical capabilities to catch all future bugs to automated tests / "check lists" is IMHO detrimental to the cause because it leads to too high expectations.
Listen, you can choose one of two options: a 'free' one you pay through your taxes or a private one you fund mostly on your dime. That said government doesn't prevent these things from happening. If you hate waiting and love to be pampered go for this option.

As for the longer wait times, sure, that happens. In fact it's supposed to happen, since MORE people can afford it (there is some abuse but I'd say it's minor).

If the price of waiting in line was $1000000 there would be no waiting in line, so I don't see much to your point. Low prices = more demand.
Wikipedia has a functional/practical value, anything that lowers that value is bad.

Anything that can increase that value/not decrese it while making the site look better is good.
I'm not going to resubmit this, but for future archaeologists the real URL is http://brewhouse.io/blog/2014/04/24/this-week-in-rails-the-b...
SomaFM: "We need to raise $410 by the end of the day."
As Knuth's article points out, TeX had a bug, which has been fixed, and the fix could cause a .tex file from 1996 to give different output after the fix.
We just don't want to forget that exceptions and termination are effects, and that Haskell isn't perfectly pure...

a,b::Integer
a = div 1 0
b = sum [1..]
Yeah, well, knowing the Go philosophy, it makes sense not to have the compiler solve ambiguities like that, especially since a function can have its own methods.
You raise a really good point. Any design has costs: resource costs, labor costs, technology costs. Like most redesigns, this one focuses on the visuals without any consideration of costs. For volunteer-based organization like Wikipedia, costs are particularly important. Granted, cost estimation is a notoriously difficult problem, but it at least needs to be considered.
A Guide to the World of Wes Anderson
Posted a note about the human aspect of uptime recently:

http://zvzzt.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/a-note-on-uptime
This isn't real, these have not been built.
The Book of Sands
legendary
> She had a good lucking, smart and extremely rich boyfriend but still she decided to deceive and ruin him emotionally by practicing prostitution all this time

That's just stupid. Why would anyone "decide to be a prostitute" if they're well off? It's not like taking up the piano or something.
There’s scant evidence that healthy foods prevent cancer or fatty foods cause it
> The Haskell library I'm working on will, if nothing else, mean that there's a reference for how the JSON is structured.

Well, some projects document systems in MS WORD, you are using Haskell for documenting JSON structures. That's a step up.
Lyft also has credit card info for each user and the transaction is typically cash-less. The kinds of people that would rob a taxi driver probably aren't going to have a smart phone and a credit card and are probably doing it to score cash to buy drugs or some similarly short term reward. In the case where they got their hands on a phone by stealing it it seems unlikely that they wouldn't just pawn the phone for cash vs concocting some elaborate scheme to hail a lyft and rob it's driver only to find out that since lyft is cash-less there isn't much worth stealing that they couldn't have gotten by mugging some random passerby on the street.
> This can be automated! This could be mandated as a procedure to be gone through before the code is released. And doing this would prevent this kind of bug from ever happening again.

I might be missing something, but this sounds to me very much like a usual test case. :) Having one in a suite of system or acceptance tests would indeed prevent further occurrences of the bug.
Terms and Conditions as a service.

Most websites have some kind of "terms and conditions". They all seem to manually implement the whole process of:

- coming up with proper T&C

- display them to the user

- ask the user to agree to them

- notify the user that T&C changed

- etc.

For the user, the experience is just plain bad. I can't recall two T&C agreement process that were identical. Sometimes I have to check a box, sometimes I have to press a button. Sometimes I have to scroll to the bottom to be able to click "I agree". And when I do, I don't even get a copy or receipt of what I agreed to.

Call me stupid, but I usually never read T&Cs. As far as I know, my soul could now belong to a lot of companies. I don't think I'm a unique case.

What if websites could delegate the T&C agreement process to a third-party service that does just that. This service could help small businesses create their own T&Cs from templates, standardize the agreement process, let users have access to a list of everything they agreed to, and even let people (or lawyers) review T&Cs to make it easier for others to know what they're getting into. If a company wants to change their T&C, the service will notify users of these changes, and let them react accordingly.

This service could also be extended to more than just website T&Cs, and became a central hub for all your contracts and agreements, from your bank, phone company, rent, job, contract, etc. One place where you can see everything you legally agreed to in your life.
As usual, that depends. Java performs better on function calls (because of the JVM's inlining JIT) and garbage collection. But because fibers are not native to the JVM, they do incur some overhead. If the fibers perform no work, then you're essentially just measuring the overhead, and Go would perform better. The more work is done, the more the advantage goes to Java.

With regards to IO, fiber-blocking IO currently uses the JVM's asynchronous NIO (which uses epoll/kqueue) under the covers, unchanged. But Java's async NIO is intended to be thread-safe, so there is lots of unnecessary synchronization going on there. The result is about 7% slower than Go. Again, the more computation work you do, the more the performance swings in favor of Java. We can do much better with IO by plugging our own NIO provider (Java's dynamic linking everywhere is awesome), but because the performance is really good as it is, it's not a top priority for us at the moment.

EDIT: the reason I would use Java over Go for all the "serious stuff" isn't primarily performance, though. It's the incredible monitoring and profiling capabilities, hot code swapping and other stuff that's possible with full dynamic linking.
The whole redesign seems to deeply misunderstand how Wikipedia is put together and how it is used. I don't love the current design but, like Craigslist, it better suits the asset. Many think Wikipedia, Craigslist, et al, are successful despite the "lousy" design. I would say "because".
>> education
> uncommon, but then again, it's not like you find these
> things everyday.

What does that mean? What about education? Do you think education was uncommon for for the average person in the 19th century? Or do you think education was uncommon for for the average person in the 19th century with access to and ability to make notes in the margin of a book from 1504?
My definition of sharing does not involve any exchange of money.
Will the next "TeX tuneup" be in HTML rather than PDF? One can only hope.
The name could also be used against them by Feds wanting to shut it down by charging the devs with conspiracy to traffic or launder. Imagine if Bitcoin was called NarcoCoin and Gavin was openly giving interviews he develops it to facilitate trafficking and thwart law enforcement. They also might run into problems elsewhere, like Thailand or Singapore which require less burden of proof to send people away for conspiracy if this network has vendors listed there. These guys can't travel anywhere if this is released with their names on it.
ZTE Open is not bad with newer versions. 1.0 is certainly rough, but it gets better with each new release.
Running https://panic.com/statusboard/ and showing emails and Google Analytics data. Instant, always on, very convenient.
I have two. One was getting WCF to talk to a SOAP web service implemented in Java that required the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 Password Digest, which is not provided in Windows Communication Foundation. It was for an integration with a third party, and I was blind to their end. There were lots of quirks to get around, but in the end it worked.

The second was a weird one. A customer had a web application that was showing odd intermittent failures, but only on HTTP POST. The system was an extranet application so I could speak in detail to the users having these problems. It appeared that only certain offices were having the problem, but not all users. I had to prove that it wasn't a problem in the application. I had to prove it wasn't something in IIS. I had to prove it wasn't something specific to a client. It turned out to be a misconfigured load balancer, where the MTU size was incorrectly set. The HTTP POST errors only was the clue. Nearly all browsers send HTTP POSTs in two packets or more, even if they fit in one. GETs always go in one. When the penny dropped after weeks of pain it was extremely satisfying to see the problem solved.
> Except that lots of errors are already known, and get repeated anyhow. Saying that we can't guard against unforeseen errors is not quite the point.

I'm with you. It's just that the article IMHO makes automated tests seem like a cure for every bug (future or present) in the world.

I also agree that it makes sense to try and avoid known errors. And that automated tests are often a great tool for achieving this.
Is this a satire? I mean this seems like a satire of the fact that the unfortunate framing of functional programming in terms of "purity" and "impurity" clouds a very abstract question with the intense instinctive reactions we have to questions of personal hygiene. Notwithstanding the fact that a programming language is "impure", you cannot catch anything from it. It cannot defile, pollute, or contaminate you. Nor is there any power that will reward you in this world or the next for your supererogatory devotion to "purity" in programming.
Appealing to tradition doesn't really help to solve any problems we might face in the future - just because things work "now" doesn't mean they're great. Still, the examples you gave are kind of biased because you're only considering a specific kind of walled gardened sofware, which does one job, but has limited extensibility for further development (although this is intentional for most games).

It should be understood when Erik says "does not work", he is not saying these languages are useless or have no practical use today - he is suggesting that they are incapable of solving the problems of tomorrow. When looking for solutions to the problems we're facing now or in future, it's useful to have a look at how we actually build software - what are the "units" which make up the bulk of our software, and how do we combine them. Let's have a look through the decades and reason a little about what these units were.

1940s: Instructions
1950s: Subroutines
1960s: Procedures/Structured programming
1970s: Interfaces over data
1980s: Objects
1990s: Libraries
2010s: Services
future: ???

Obviously these are only approximations, but they give a fair idea of our industry's development. For example objects were in use before the 80s, but they were popularized by C++. None of these were new in their day, but they became the primary units of software which we use in our programs - because it's simply too much effort for anyone to write them all from scratch - we are all using other people's software in our own.

Each stage in this development is an attempt to simplify the previous one, by encapsulating, or hiding the implementation detail, and presenting a simplified interface for another programmer to consume. Part of the idea is that you shouldn't need to know the how the encapsulated system is implemented, you only need to consume it in the ways specified.

So while people are writing are building all this software on top of services now using Go/Scala/Clojure and whatnot - what languages are people going to be using a decade or two from now to combine these into bigger programs?

The suggestion of purely functional programming is one that removes the need to know how the program or service you consume deals with state, because effects are made explicit. The idea of purely functional programming as the solution to multicore/concurrency is a just a consequence of having explicit knowledge of state, because we need it to reason about race conditions.

We don't really know what the future will be like, but I imagine it will be one where programs are written to be entirely independent of the hardware in which they run - as they will be intended to run in clouds with heterogeneous architectures - other software will be making those decisions for us, but it can only make them if it can reason about their state. Which suggests we either need to make it explicit, or vastly improve our theorem provers to figure it out for us.
Flying to Mars in three days
You need to take a lesson from Ghandi and adjust accordingly:

In my opinion: most people incorrectly read an axiomatic nature to the "non-violence" (revolutionary) approach of Ghandi. Ghandi was not a pacifist in the lay sense. He was a pacifist in the terms of Vedic consciousness and was a daily student of Bhagavad Gita;

And that would prompt the question of why did he opt for non-violence as the 'correct' approach;

And per my analysis, he did so because he recognized that the British Empire motivated its political balast -- from aristocracy down to plebe; whatever held it together -- by the declared shared justification that "we are civilizing the world.";

And Ghandi basically put all of his forces towards attacking that notion;

And by demonstrating (beyond argument) to balast of the British Empire that Ghandi and the Indian Nationalists were in fact more civilized than the Empire, he basically demoralized the affective corps of that Empire. That is why he won.

In the current situation, the fraction of 1% that truly wield global power in our world view us nearly in sub-human terms. And the corporate mirror to the world -- under their control -- pretty much paints their opinion of "us".

To take your example, the motivation for the policy decisions that are accepted by the current regime's 'political balast' -- these are the bright young things furnished by the scientific, academic, cultural, and economic mills -- is their (pretty accurate) assessment that without the police force, without the governing order, the un-washed brethren would eat them up like so much cake. So here, the internalized justification is that "at least this violence is policy driven and under control".

If the layer under the elite balast -- that's the middle class -- demonstrates that they are thoughtful & capable of self determination and self ordering, then this order of things will collapse, just like the British Empire.

So, it is entirely appropriate to remember that "a people get the government that they deserve".
Sounds like an R* tree or some variant of that?
It's fine to want to earn more money as long as you don't do this by taking away other people's freedoms. No one has the right to use force on others for their own ends. No one has the right to take away other people's right to contract in order to maintain an above-market price. So for example: the minimum wage takes away the rights of employers and would-be employees to contract at low wages in order to allow some workers to charge above-market wages. Taxi medallions take away the rights of passengers and drivers to contract for cheap fares in order to allow taxi companies to charge above-market fares. Not only are such laws economically wasteful, but they are immoral in the same sense that slavery is immoral: they take away one's freedom to contract.
I think the summary is: It's premature to call this 'a Silk Road the FBI Can Never Seize' until it has withstood a few years of determined attacks.

If you look at a lot of the best practices documentation for Tor it makes everything sound like a huge hassle [1] so I can believe making a system secure against the concerted efforts of law enforcement is complicated.

[1] http://lifehacker.com/how-can-i-stay-anonymous-with-tor-1498...
I agree. Part of the reason Clojure sees production use and Haskell does not leave its academic closet very often is that the former makes interaction with the non-functional parts of a system painless.
Caught on video hitting someone 117 times[1].

This apologetic idea that when men are accused of violence or sexism the “innocent until proven guilty” roll out rubbish is part of the problem.

“Guilty until proven innocent” in light of documented video evidence, has an implicit assumption that the other, here a woman, is lying.

Junk ideology. Junk ethics.

There is rampant discrimination, violence, and bias toward the “other” in the culture. Given the patriarchy of technology with its absolutely warped gender statistics, we could do less with peddling the status quo, doubly so when it concerns a sociopathic violent act.

[1]http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5201334
I tend to use checklists for everything. It saves a lot of thinking. I would recommend Zim or other personal wiki.
see the "copyright infringement" section near the bottom of http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/abcde.html
Well, you may ignore the science, but you can't ignore effects it predicts.
As an employer, high on my list would be appropriateness and this fails miserably.