skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I do not understand why you are arguing about this.

There are two scenarios: in one you want to prevent a file from being read multiple times because it wastes resources (and in some sad cases, might cause issues with redefinition). In this case, you use the include guards and the compiler can do a trick to optimize out unneeded scanning.

You have this other hypothetical scenario in which you purposefully want a file to be read multiple times, with a different outcome (this kind of trickery isn't usually possible at all in other languages with module system so it is funny to argue about C being broken). Now I don't think this is a common scenario or even a good one to be in, but it is possible. The solution is simple: don't try to prevent the file from being read multiple times. Why would you try to prevent it, if it is meant to be read multiple times?

You are arguing that a door is broken because you cannot walk in through it if you close the door. Don't close the door if you want to walk in...
Helping impoverished mothers in India through crowd funding and micro-finance.
This is a ridiculously hostile response.
For the purpose of this discussion there are two types of noise in electronics: shot noise and thermal noise.

Shot noise is discrete noise that happens when single electrons are emitted and adsorbed. Shot noise is quantum noise and can't be reduced by cooling and don't vary with frequency.

Thermal noise is noise that depends on the temperature of the circuit. Temperature increases the energy of material and this energy allows electrons to bounce around more creating noise.

For the purpose of QRNG, you don't have to separate shot noise from thermal noise if you know the shot noise to thermal noise ratio. We are not interested of knowing actual bits generated by shot noise. We just want to collect enough random bits so that we can guarantee that there is enough quantum randomness to make the quality equal to just quantum bits. For example, if the ratio is 1/100, we collect more than 100 bits and mix them together to get one bit of quantum randomness. Shot noise is amplified and has easily detectable effects in in p-n junctions (diodes, photodectectors).
> The folks that use this for blocks of multi-line text are very defensive about the practice.

odd, because we have triple-quotes for that, don't we?
Nice list of books they have in their library: http://www.lysator.liu.se/lib/boklista.txt
In my experience, if I've eliminated every other possibility, it's worth actually reading the assembly generated by the compiler. Most compilers are pretty good, but they do contain bugs, and if I completely rule out the possibility that the compiler is generating bad code, I can waste days searching for the problem. Some examples:

1. When compiling certain highly-optimized routines in Quake II, Microsoft Visual C++ generated tail calls that popped the current stack frame before recursing, even though a pointer to a stack variable had already escaped into a global variable. Now, I'm sure there's some technical reason why a C compiler is allowed to generate garbage code here (there usually is—Google "nasal demons"), but it's still easier to debug if you assume the compiler is untrustworthy.

2. The Rubinius FFI had problems passing doubles to external functions: https://github.com/rubinius/rubinius/commit/1122c1c26b81c969...

3. I've broken quite a few in-house and experimental compilers. My favorite error message came from a Lisp compiler: "Lost value of variable 't' in anonymous lambda in anonymous lambda in top-level form."

Now, this sort of thing is rare. If you're using a mature production compiler in CS class, you can assume with near-100% certainty that any problems are your fault. But if you're maintaining a 250K-line program, you upgrade your compiler, and you see some mysterious new backtraces showing up in the crash reporter, then it's entirely possible your compiler is buggy.

As a handy rule of thumb, if you've been staring at a function in a debugger for more than an hour, and you know it's correct, and something weird is still happening, it's time to choose "Show Assembly" and see what's actually going on. It may still be your fault, but it's time to stop trusting the abstractions provided by the compiler and debug your real program—the one the computer actually runs.
Or similar: Piet Gifs: every n instructions the program changes but the IP remains. This feature shall be called polymorphism.
This may not be the best place to fanboy, but I wanted to say how much I REALLY appreciate your guy's model. It's been a total breath of fresh air in an environment that supports the absolutely worst trends in perverse incentives for free to play games; so just, thank you to you and all of your team.

(on top of that, it's a damn solid game too.)
> Just spare a thought for those of us that choose not to use Microsoft Word, and respect our right not to do so.

The price you pay for inconveniencing me into sending you a document type which might alarm or confuse a non-technical person or necessitate additional software being installed is that when I send you a .doc file you have to email me back to specifically ask that I send it in a non-.doc format. I won't judge you, but you're asking people to optimise a standard behaviour (assumption that Word is ubiquitous) for a marginal gain (catering to the tiny fraction of nerds who get so agitated by this assumption that they lecture people on the internet).
> Look at this with your grandmothers eyes:

Just a quick call-out for casual sexism and ageism: you can say "the average person" without implying that women and old people can't use technology properly.
Zookal Delivers Book Using Drones [video]
It's taking a symptom and turning to it as a goal.

Not everything that makes you taller is healthy. Eating a lot of poultry that had been stuffed in growth hormones has been proven to increase growth. We can theoretically push growth at all means, doing things that we know are unhealthy. There's no proof that a diet that will make you the tallest will necessarily be the healthiest for you.

Talking about "stature potential" is a bit misleading too. It implies that the more height you manage to get, the better. There's absolutely no scientific evidence to this. It's true that malnourishment will impede your growth, but that's just an extreme case.

Seems like current Japan - for instance - is very healthy, has the longest life expectancy, but they are on the short side compared to Europe or North America.

I'm much taller than average and I'm quite sure that this isn't an advantage at all, except for specific tasks or sports. A lot more often it's a problem and I don't feel one bit superior to shorter people. There's a lot of bias towards "taller is better" regardless of any other consideration. It stops just short of eugenics to achieve taller people.
Is the moon only 60 pixels?
Glad to see the N9 do one more good deed during the rough path it has been on. Simply love how open that phone and OS is. Yeah, they could have tested this on any phone probably, but I still felt a little tingling inside when I saw it mentioned :)
I have heard through coworker word of mouth, through discussions with lenovo engineers, that the touchpad changes have not been positively received even by the internal engineers. Pretty much everyone I've talked to (including my unfortunate fiancee who had the misfortune of buying one of these) thinks that touchpad is the worst thing since various laptop producers started going towards chicklets. I really wonder how these companies push forward despite (from my point of view) SIGNIFICANT customer pushback. Am I really stuck this far in an engineering bubble, or are things really so disconnected?
We did release the game ourselves and generated good revenue and retention. I'm certainly not complaining about our current level of success.

The (non-asian) publishers still come out of the woodwork to offer you these kinds of garbage deals. We just don't take them. The fact that we were already successful is why these leeches turn up in the first place.

These "publishers" are essentially glorified and very expensive user referral programs.
Tea really is the perfect counterexample, isn't it? If you try to serve me water for tea at a "safe" 160F, I'm never going to buy tea from you again.
Don't ever use Digital Ocean as your production System.
Receive email from Digital Ocean
------------------------------------

We've had to unfortunately reboot your Droplet xxxdb due to an issue on the underlying physical node where the Droplet runs.

We are investigating the health of the physical node to determine whether this was a single incident or systemic.

If you have any questions related to this issue, please send us a ticket. https://cloud.digitalocean.com/support

Happy coding,
DigitalOcean
-----------------------------------

What I no so happy about this..

a. Didn't give me advance notice, so that I can prepare cutover from other droplets.

b. Although they claim they have rebooted my droplet, they didn't check if the droplet booted correctly, in fact, this particular instance been down for more then 3 hours.

c. Worst, somehow during reboot the droplet to new HW, the system revert the droplet to original kernel, resulted a lot of underlying services not working... I have to spend another 2-3 hours to setup new droplet again.

d. After I complains this to their support people, and explain this is totally not acceptable, as the whole server been setup for a very important client of me, and for unplanned downtime, we have to pay huge fine. Their Director then credit me USD20. Discounting the fact I have to pay the fine, additional time to setup the droplet..

------------

I ask around my friend who use Digital Ocean before, all have bad experience using DO, some droplet will reboot to READ only, some of droplet is lost forever..

Conclusion, use DO for your development/testing server...Never Never use it for your production server, at least not yet.
I'm not a fan of dynamic typing, nor am I a compiler expert, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong for (at least) JS engines, which are JIT-compiled down to static machine code and which use automatic type deduction. Only when types on existing variables change all the time it would be a performance problem. If JS code is 10x slower then it's native equivalent it's probably because some slow-path is hit (too many objects created and destroyed, burdening the garbage collector, or too "dynamic code" which causes many recompiles at runtime, or code not to be compiled at all but running through the interpreter..).
Doesn't that work need to be funded somehow?
Absolutely. I utilised John Regehr's work on this on my previous job - uncovered a bunch of bugs ranging from compiler crashes to inconsistent output between optimisation levels, and other compiler switches. I wish I got the chance to do more with it, and provide him with detailed feedback he requested on the nature of the bugs but I never did :(
When I saw the the headline that's what I thought the article was about: "Oh joy, someone has found a way to use hadoop to better inform job seekers."
7 Simple Photography Hacks That You Should Know
Outstanding! Not only are the slightly mysterious authors of this project
not inventing their own crypto, they rely on djb's[0] much acclaimed
NaCL/TweetNaCl. The codebase is accordingly small:

$ wc -l source/*/*c | tail -n1
11308 total
$ wc -l source/crypto/*c | tail -n1
1293 total

The first line suggests a measure of total code ballast, whereas the
second incantation might hint at the amount of core crypto code. The latter
might be a good starting point for any auditing endeavours.

Incidentally, I am impressed by the spirit of organisation that the source
tree permeates. Both crypto/ and tinyssh/ source trees sport corresponding
-test directories and a debian/ tree has already been added.

Initially, I felt irritation by the consistent lack of documentation (no
README, no AUTHORS, almost no comments, it seems). Browsing the source,
however, I grow convinced that this from a conviction that out-dated or
redundant documentation is the greater evil.

[0] Daniel J Bernstein - author of qmail, daemontools and long-time promoter
of full disclosure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein
Sorry buddy, you're vastly outnumbered and your expectations are unrealistic.
I had no idea it was mothers day, thanks for reminding me. Haven't called my mom in 4 months, but will give here a call today.
For reading only - PDF and nothing else.

For when I need to be able to edit the document - .doc please.
This is not the Monkey Island you're looking for...
Evolv data undermines certain truisms, among them the idea of the serial job-hopper. "The number of jobs you have previously had," Simkoff says, "and even whether you're employed or not at the time of application, has zero statistical correlation with how successful you will be or how long you will stay."

The job-hopper stigma isn't about imputed low skill or merit. It's about social status. The person who is presently unemployed has (temporarily) low social status. The person with 5 jobs in 6 years, it is perceived, failed to achieve high social status at any of them.

The problem with humans is that most don't make decisions based on value-add potential, but on social status. They see Harvard on a resume and want to hire that person, to be socially "closer" to Harvard. It's not about whether Harvard graduates are better hires or not; that question is irrelevant.

Job-hopping might seem like it could be a high-status behavior, in that the best people get bored quickly and always have other opportunities, so they don't put up with abuse. After all, the serially fired job hoppers are maybe 1/10 of that set. It's not so, because the people who make hiring and promotion decisions are in corporate in-crowds, and part of being an in-crowd is the necessary assumption that everyone wants to be in an in-crowd. The job hopper may be individually excellent, and it may be that he'd be a 5+ year employee if given high-quality work and colleagues, but all his paper says is that he never stayed long enough to join a corporate in-crowd, and that even if he was invited into one, he made the "wrong" decision to leave it.
It can also be dangerous. Take (for instance) a header file that relies on a specific integer size. Using this scheme one could include a different/wrong typedef and get yourself into trouble.
This is so true. The C++ stdlib has a few nice things (esp in C++11), but the most important part - the container classes - mostly suck (IMHO).
I've found through my time at University that the standard document format for anything that doesn't require the recipient to edit/add to the document is pdf. Most word processors will now export to it, and readers are pretty prevalent to.

Is this truly different in business?
I live with my mom, ok? It's a very efficient arrangement. Beep boop.
Why iOS notifications are ruining my marriage (and UX solutions)
That page is a bit out of date. We do have a marketing guy as of fairly recently.

The day to day business stuff is handled by our Managing Director (listed as Lead Designer on that page).
I was referring to the PIC-specific 0x0(%rip) construct as well as the relocation. Sorry if that was unclear.
This happens in AWS too. In the cloud you have to assume nodes will go down and not have it be a disaster if one fails.
The Sixteen Personality Types
How utterly ridiculous. Please stop posting your own shitty, over-entitled rants. That you clearly think that you are still "1337" by being so dissmissive of a commonly used tool is arrogant and ridiculous. Also, your list of installed apps is missing TextEdit, which reads doc and docx files perfectly well. Unless of course you remove all of the other apps that come with OS X and literally only use those you list, which would be absurd.
Yes, I did see that post. The multiple statements per line thing is really fishy for a security critical piece of infrastructure.
Thanks! Jim Gettys is such a nice sweet guy, who's done much great work on so many things (did you know he was the editor of the HTTP/1.1 specification?), I sure didn't want him to think I had an axe to grind with him about X-Windows [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gettys

Here's some of his sagely advice, which I'll quote from his wikipedia page: "He has pointed out a common fallacy among programmers today: that storing computed values in memory is preferable to recomputing those values later. This, he claims, is often false on current hardware, given fast CPUs and the long time it takes to recover from a potential cache miss."

But it's a totally different story about that flaming political loony who desecrated the Jargon file, misrepresented hacker culture (and himself as a hacker), flat out lied about not misrepresenting anyone, and always used to sign himself off as "the mad mastermind of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Netnews" but never delivered on any of the hype he promised. But at least he was honest about being "mad": he still says and stands by things like "In the U.S., blacks are 12% of the population but commit 50% of violent crimes; can anyone honestly think this is unconnected to the fact that they average 15 points of IQ lower than the general population?"

I would love to see a retrospective discussion of the people who blew up that whale!

[1] Yes, I still call it X-Windows in the hopes of annoying X fanatics.
You have trouble with memory on any project that goes on more than 6 no.
What would your response be to a child who said something similar when you drew a cube?

It does take practise to be able to visualise 4d objects, and I agree that 2d projection example isn't helpful. I find it interesting to think of the 3d -> 2d problem that some people have, and extend it to 4d.
I'm not in complete understanding of what differentiates a true random number from a non-true one in this instance.

I fully understand why algorithmic pseudo-random numbers can be said to be not 'true' random numbers -- if you know the algorithm that produces the numbers, and you know enough of the numbers output by any particular 'round' of random-number-generation production, you can in principle figure out how the algorithm was seeded -- or narrow it down to a few possible seeds -- and predict with greater accuracy its future outputs. (I'd like to know if I've got that wrong).

But in this case, that doesn't seem to be a concern. What could make someone think it's an 'un-true' RNG? What, to such a person, would a 'true' RNG look like? Is thermal noise an 'un-true' RNG? Why?
I notice that this post has bold-faced section headings, opens with an italicized pair of sentences, has a bulleted list, and quotes that are indicated with a gray vertical bar. The best part is the section title "Plain text should be plain" which is bolded.

The author must think they are a pretty good designer to not use plain text (their conclusion, not mine).
Nice Job, Facebook. Now Here's What Needs to Change
Yesterday (and the previous day) I spent my time travelling 13,000km to surprise my mum. It's not Mother's Day here, but who needs an excuse?
The Mother’s Day Industrial Complex [video]
I did get the same message yesterday, but I'm in a little different situation.

Pingdom shows about 36 minutes of downtime, but when DO fixed the issue my sites started to work again. I guess that's acceptable for the $5/month I'm paying and if I need HA I could remove the SPOF.

One thing that do bothers me however is the fact that there are no comment on the status page on the issue witch makes me wonder how often these types of incidents happens.
Good luck explaining this to the common man:

You: "Visit my website, it's fashion.boutique"

Guy: "dot com?"

You: "No, dot boutique"

Guy: "huh?"
Also, there is a very good, popular movie by BBC Four 'Dangerous Knowledge' [0].

"Beneath the surface of the world, are the rules of science. But beneath them, there is a far deeper set of rules – a matrix of pure mathematics which explains the nature of the rules of science and how it is way we can understand them in the first place. In this one-off documentary, David Malone looks at four brilliant mathematicians – Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing – whose genius has profoundly affected us, but which tragically drove them insane and eventually led to them all committing suicide.
The film begins with Georg Cantor, the great mathematician whose work proved to be the foundation for much of the 20th-century mathematics. He believed he was God’s messenger and was eventually driven insane trying to prove his theories of infinity."

[0] http://watchdocumentary.org/watch/dangerous-knowledge-video_...
Mother's day or not, those who can make that call, should. My mother passed away one week ago. I really, really wish I could call her today.
That's fine, but it presupposes that one actually likes ones Mother (or even "Parents").
Why it pays to be a jerk (2011)
Sorry for all you must be going through. Hang in there.
Better Software via Quality Control: a one-person company perspective
Called Mum.

Asked her about her holiday. Asked her how she was. Talked about family drama [they love that shit].

I told her about my last meeting with a key gatekeeper for our tech start-up [CTO in one of the top 200 companies in Australia]. She told me how her new friend, Susan, is a computer "wiz" that helped her reset her router last week, and that I should present my idea to Susan for feedback. Note: Susan is a customer support officer my mother was connected to when she called the Netgear customer support hotline last week.

We confirmed I would pick her up from the airport on Tuesday. Said our farewells, and hung-up the phone.

That wasn't so hard at all.
I approve!

Five Mother's Days ago, I paid for beverage of their choosing to all local bar patrons who phoned or even just sent SMS to their respective mothers that night.

Horrible conversion rate! <20%. People are just silly sometimes.
Google as a whole : I don't know. But I suppose Google Search can be rendered useless when when an NLP engineer creates a website generator whose content is indistinguishable from human-generated content, i.e., when the Turning test is passed as far as static website content is concerned.

What will happen at that point is that a million SEO idiots will create a trillion spammy websites and blogs that the Google Search engine, or rather the Page Rank algorithm, cannot handle. Every Google search returns 90% junk, interspersed with a few genuine search results. The Internet will becomes a Graffiti filled ghetto, impossible to auto-index and we will be forced to go back to the early Yahoo Directory days : manually created categories of real sites. Ironically, the otherwise-useless people who live off being online personas, aka famous bloggers, will have a centre-stage role to play in this new era : their web sites are the ones which are eminently trustable. They wll be the new institutions of online reputation, having been there from since the dawn of the century!

By that point, it is possible that gmail, et al will have lost their relevance, too, (WhatsMail?), and suddenly, Google does not have a single attractive eyeball outlet.
> The judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, for a total of $640,000. McDonalds appealed and later settled out of court for an undisclosed amount believed to be between $400,000 and $600,000.

Why would she settle for the SAME amount?! Makes no sense.