skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Processing power usually is not the issue.

What we don't work well with are browsers that either don't support the HTML5 APIs we rely on (CSS 3D matrices, perspective, backface visibility, preserve-3d, etc) or have very buggy implementations of those APIs. Old versions of the Android browser for example don't work for this reason.

If those browser APIs we need are present and they are properly implemented, then Famo.us generally runs comparably/competitively to native apps on the same device.

However, at the end of the day, we're skating to where the puck is going. Low-end devices from 1-2 years ago don't worry us too much because devices often get replaced with contracts and recent announcements show that feature phones are all soon going to be decent smartphones. The days of dumb phones are numbered. That's the world we're preparing for.

If I was founding a startup today, I'd be looking at the myriad greenfield opportunities out there that are only doable with apps that can be perform comparably to native and be launched by a link. The category of ephemeral apps in particular will take off in the next year or so.
The real question to answer is, does his idea suck? I think a good way to answer this question in general is to ask him for specific examples of how he envisions users using his product and why. I.e. who the user specifically is and what he/she is thinking before and after adopting the product.

The great thing about this question is that it's solely a test of the idea. If his idea (whatever iteration it's in) is any good, some number of people will want it. It's a theoretical exercise that excludes the later question of whether he will execute well.
Homebrew for OpenBSD written in KornShell
Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs in amounts for personal use. 10 years later drug abuse has gone down, not up. [1]

I think the natural path for anything that is suppressed is to increase after the suppression is lifted, and then slowly decline. I wouldn't be surprised if drug legalization would increase drug use right at the beginning, but it certainly didn't have such a long term effect in Portugal -- quite the opposite.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-af...
'Ambivalence' can be used in a strategic context (ie, similar to 'strategic ambiguity'--in relation thought/intent). Whereas other notions of "muddled" are pertain to more passive states (apathy, confusion).
This is the most useless advice I have ever read.

1) Other people can tell you are having social anxiety.

Oh, ya, that makes me a whole lot less nervous.

2) Stop having anxiety. By thinking really hard about it or something.
>In a related study of approximately 350 heterosexual individuals, we collected these same measures in networks of opposite-sex friends, acquaintances and partners. Among these well-acquainted individuals, consensus on measures of mate value was nearly zero. These are the people who know what authors you like, what you wore for Halloween six years ago and what obscure movie you will quote the next time you all get together. But they cannot agree on your mate value. Over the years, it has evaporated before their eyes.

I'm curious if this is the cause of the so-called "friend zone". A guy and a girl meet and become friends. After getting to know each other, the guy still thinks the girl has mate value, whereas the girl doesn't think the guy has mate value.
lol oh no!
Yeah try it! It works wonders :)
Just a small suggestion - Change your favicon. You are using default favicon that comes with express.
Foundation for a C++ Programming Environment (Lucid, 1990)
I guess the opposite applies as well. Hating what you used to love :) at least for me this is very common.
I remember during my first year at college looking through a friend's high school yearbook remarking on some of the girls I thought were cute but he didn't. He made comments that didn't have to do with their physical appearance - like "she was mean" or "she was rude". When he looked through my yearbook the same thing happened, we just switched sides. I thought it was interesting how knowing the person actually changed the assessment of how physically attractive someone was. Not overwhelmingly so but definitely enough to notice.
Yes, there is the notion of what CAP requires, but we cannot cling to the strict definitions of these papers. They must be translated in to lay persons terms. If you don't, how else can you communicate with your stakeholders? How can you communicate with your users?

Personally I refuse the notion that this is out of scope of our jobs. Think of the ability and power of a so-called 'renaissance person' - can do anything.

> The definition of consistency and availability doesn't allow you to "fail over". Completely ignoring availability, there are two cases of failover: one where the system still appears to be consistent (using one of the strong consistency models described here), and one where the system becomes eventually consistent. The various proofs (such as Gilbert and Lynch's CAP proof) imply that you can't "fail over" and keep consistency in the case where some nodes are uncontactable. The definition of "some nodes" depends on the exact proof, but there is no way to fail over into a minority partition and keep consistency. It's not possible.

Minority partition - maybe you could restate this paragraph in terms of discoveries such as paxos? Does paxos not allow progress and data retrieval during some failure scenarios? Yes, realistically once enough nodes are lost, things grind to a halt. But this is how dynamo works as well. Once the # of nodes available declines below the R or W factor, the algorithm stops making progress.
Pretty much because you need to claim that in order to murder a suspect with impunity.
I freelanced in the Bay Area for ~1.5 years, mostly Rails/Backbone. I wasn't good because I was never more than a coder-for-hire -- but the pay was still more than enough.

(1) Yes, companies in SF/Berkeley are looking for freelance JavaScript/iOS developers. Especially if you've worked with Backbone/Angular/Ember/Node/whatever popular framework used today. You'll never have to take on Wordpress type jobs if you don't want to.

(2) My personal experience is companies prefer full-time contracts over part-time contracts. They want 40 hours/week freelancers but if they can't find them, will settle for whatever you can provide.

(3) If you can't tap into your own network to find these contracts, subcontract through a recruiter or agency. Being able to work on-site is a HUGE bonus, you'll get a contract in no time (although they'll take a cut of your pay)
Grails adoption share has been falling rapidly lately. It rose on Rails's coattails and it's falling that way too. Other architectures are taking over: vert.x, node.js, Play!

Standalone groovy scripting isn't used as much nowadays either. I suspect Oracle's going to push Nashorn Javascript it shipped with Java 8 for your JVM scripting needs.

Groovy has been getting lots of new users because of Gradle's increasing popularity, though your typical build file is 20 to 100 lines long. Gradle still ships with Groovy 1.8 anyway so you haven't missed out not keeping up!
I don't get or know any of the keywords expressed in this advice. A bunch a words with no meaning given the context.
This is the kind of stuff Ragel would be a good fit for.
Would be really fun to watch this go in a crowded area where there are other voices :)
If you're going to be pedantic, at least be overly so:

Assuming each of his figures is accurate to within half a percent: We need at least 67 people to be able to round to 1%, but we can't quite get 80% out of 67 or 68 people (we end up rounding to 79% or 81%.) It turns out 69 people is adequate -- 1/69 rounds to 1%, 55/69 rounds to 80%, and the remaining 13/69 also rounds to 19%.
There are patents and bullshit patents.
If the Janitor taught himself to code over a period of years as you did he could be working the same job you do.

Guilt for making decisions that other people did not and maybe a bit of luck is not rational.

Tomorrow that janitor might buy a lottery ticket, and win, should he feel guilty that you did not get yourself to the 7-11 and buy the ticket? - I think not.
Very good post! Well all of Aphyr's "Call Me Maybe" series is great.

A lot of modern systems are distributed and quite often it seems they are designed and built without much thought given to these kind of issues. In the "Call Me Maybe" series for example he shows how a lot of popular NoSQL, webscale etc etc. databases really fall on their face when network partitions hit.

And there clearly is enough literature written on this but it is scholarly articles or research papers, that don't get necessarily get read by architects of most distributed system. (Heck I imagine, a lot of distributed systems are created so in a ad-hock way. Something like, "Hey Jim we need to have a hot spare fail-over machine in the US-EAST zone". ... and now they have a distributed system).

Also I am not sure how much this is taught in schools. When I was in school distributed systems mean, MPI, mesh topologies and so on. HPC type things. Nobody said absolutely anything about network partitions.

Speaking of network partitions. The question I have, can one make the chance of partitions happening low enough to be discounted? Or does it not even make sense to talk about that? For example, imagine the classic scenario of a single data center. Switches do fail sometimes. What if there is a redundant network, running on a separate physical interface (say eth1 not the default eth0). Now partitions can be detected and simultaneous failure of 2 networks switches now has to be happen. This is not even a hypothetical scenario. There is a Japanese NoSQL out there that nobody has probably heard of -- Hibari. It features such a "partition detector" application.

http://hibari.github.io/hibari-doc/hibari-sysadmin-guide.en....

And the code:

https://github.com/hibari/partition-detector

I saw that a while back and now I remembered about. So is that a practical solution or there are fundamental theoretical issues with this approach?
Love this perspective.
> One recent study of a representative sample of adolescents found that only 6 percent reported that they and their partners formed a romantic relationship soon after meeting.

> It seems most likely that it is the consensually desirable people who pull off the rare feat of quickly leveraging an initial positive impression into romance, while a vast majority of us get to know our romantic partners slowly, gradually, over time.

I think anyone can learn how to do this.
Knowing that "90% of everything is crap" actually makes me more charitable towards new experiences, because I realize first impressions aren't necessarily representative. So I enjoy fewer things, but the things I do enjoy are much more diverse.
The title is nonsense. But I think there is some truth in this advice. I feel a lot more secure when I am happy and relaxed. On the otherside I feel very insecure around others when I am stressed out. I learned that I can actvely influence the way I feel and it is something I can get better in. So I want to add the advice: Learn what makes you happy and relaxed. Also learn what makes you feel bad and stressed out.
I always hated the term "friend zone" because I think it's really as simple as you have just described. One person likes the other and the feeling isn't reciprocated. It's unrequited love. The friendship part makes things more painful and complicated but I don't think it has any bearing on why the person isn't attracted to the other.
Why do you hate it now?
Or people who have seen family or friends suffer in ways that are easily attributed to heavy drug use and would genuinely like to reduce the occurrence of that. And to fight what they see as a force that damages the social fabric.

The point here isn't to argue whether drugs have this affect, or are a symptom rather than a cause, or to argue if the War On Drugs has much success in fighting it.

The point is that this genuinely is the motivation for a lot of people supporting it. Even if you believe they're wrong to do so, you'd be wrong to say that's not why they do.
I'd say "it is kind of high schoolish" to change the phrasing of my statement by adding the "Oh ya" and "so haha" making the statement sound silly by word choice, and not actually countering the argument whatsoever.

As a fact, those drugs are used by doctors commonly. And the idea of a drug being considered a "hard drug" is entirely based in opinion and semantics. So your outrage is entirely your opinion, which you have every right in the world to, but it does not make me wrong; it means we view something differently.

If you don't think opioid painkillers should be considered hard drugs, nothing I say can change that, so here is a challenge to you. Get a prescription for oxycontin. Take it everyday for two months then stop. Come back 2 days later and tell me if you still feel that way.
Does Akka cluster do load balancing between nodes yet?
> Why does a web developer making to-do apps lead a better a life than someone researching cancer cures?

At the most basic level, because the web developer actually produces things. The person who develops anything that could be described as a "cancer cure" if you squinted at it the right way would lead a much more comfortable life. If you pay people based on what they promise to do, you'll quickly discover that promising to do something is easy.

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2003-10-05/
If investors want a cut from these people being hired, they should make that part of the terms of the investments.

For example, "we get X% of the company for $Y, and if the founders get hired, Z% of their compensation for N years."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_India#Caste_...
On the partition side of things... not really. Usually you end up with coordinated failures of various types.

For example, lets say you run redundant networks. Are the physical paths diverse? What happens if someone trips on BOTH network cables? What happens if the redundant network is on the SAME switch hardware? What happens if yes you use two network switches, but they are hooked up to the same UPS? Or both UPSs are on the same circuit breaker?

The classic reference on this is from google: http://www.catonmat.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/that...

There are a number of theoretical issues with these approaches, starting with the FLP result.

Also realistically, eventually all practical solutions fail, often due to user error.
>>All you need is for others to have the patience to get to know you, and a more level playing field should follow.

And a different career than engineering, so you can find more time and possibility of meeting possible mates at work.
1) Don't tell him it sucks, convince him it sucks.

2) Let him go ahead and try it. He'll learn more from trying and failing than anything. He'll also come up with several new startup ideas in the process of working on his first one.
Yes. I am very simply saying that if certain vices (not sure how I even feel about employing that word, actually) were made legal, then by definition many of us would cease being criminals. Sure. It's pretty simple. Seems almost stupidly simple. But I argue that the actual situation we face really is just this simple. These should never have been illegal.

The analysis is being performed in my state right now. Re: legal pot. And the results, although only about 5 months' worth, are overwhelmingly clear: legalizing has zero negative consequences, while also having huge benefits; the benefits being both financial and of course, the big win is for the people, who are no longer being oppressed by counter-productive, society-damaging law.

What if it's not as complicated as we've been led to believe, in other words? Could that be? Could it actually be as simple as legalization? I argue yes, it is.
Feedly on ios displays the linked page in black-on-almost-black for some reason.
Wow! I had no idea that 2 ambiguously-phrased suggestions would completely stop the biological processes causing my overactive amygdala!

This is it everyone, the field of therapy is dead. Let's destroy all the benzodiazepines prescribed for anxiety, and simply give out a piece of paper with this article on it to everyone who ever seeks help for panic attacks!
The link that you posted is an excellent comparison BUT no evidence that "$30" is the right price point for a good charger. The iPhone charger has poor rating on current sag. The ipad charger has poor rating on voltage sag.
NSA and GCHQ can view Tor browser usage according to Microsoft
A nice little machine inside my TV, totally wasted by Sony.
Sorry but hardware, compilation, linking, and algorithms are anything but boring. Even as a beginner I was very intrigued by all of them, even if I did not understand them as well.
And the trick is called "lowering standards". While attractive people surely have everything easier, I suspect the difference the study found is due to men seeking different things from "short" and long relationships.
I would argue that tools solve specific category's of problems well. Photoshop allows non programmers to do all sorts of wonderful things, perhaps not send the first panda to the moon but hey you can fake it reasonably well.

The core issue is programming does not really focus on any one problem which is why there are no great general solutions. People forget that just because you call something a database does not mean SQL and noSQL solve interchangeable problems there just local maxima. For all lisps power and simplicity people don't actually use it to write a lot of embodied code.

PS: It might be helpful to consider to note in general case compression does not actually work. But, 7zip exists because we don't live in a generic world we live in this one. So, don't hand people a steam shovel and ask them to bake you a cake.
Hrm. I would guess that effect tends to result from people associating generally with other folks in the same social tier. Like, to side step wealth entirely, let's say you're someone who values physical fitness. You will generally hang out with other folks who value physical fitness. When asked to rate the people around you of the gender you're attracted to, you'll reply by finding the differentiating features, and going from there. But, since you've self-selected your social circle, they'll all tend to have values that you find important. (The undergraduate studies the author speaks of are limiting for the same reason.) So when you've selected people in whom you are relatively more interested, you'll magnify the importance of the unique things about them that you like, but those unique things aren't exactly what made the two of you compatible in the first place.

Put another way, I'd be surprised if this finding still held true if you took a a random hundred people from the general populace and put them in a dome. I predict you'd see "mate value" very clearly delineated in the pairings up that resulted.

I'm not arguing that uniqueness isn't a factor. Maybe I am just nitpicking here -- it's unclear whether the author intended to convey that uniqueness was one factor among many, or an overriding factor. If the former, then my posts here have probably not been useful, but if the latter, I doubt it.
Metta-meditation (similar to what is described by OP) is starting to be researched by the west (as well as general mindfulness and meditation without religious undertones) and is showing some promising signs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett%C4%81#.22Compassion_medita...

Will this solve everyone's problems? Absolutely not. But, don't immediately discredit a technique due to a knee-jerk reaction, look into it and form your opinion after researching it, not before.
Pointing out that what are usually stigmatized as 'hard drugs' are used in medical situations is meaningful, because it puts into question the categorization of a substance as 'hard' versus 'soft' drugs, which is reasonable.

Your characterization of all 'hard drugs' as 'chemically addictive drugs that are more dangerous than things like marijuana' also is at odds with the governmental classification system and the public debate: many people would put things like LSD (no known LD-50 in humans and in no way chemically addictive) in the realm of 'hard drugs', and nobody talks of tobacco as a hard drug (despite it being one of the most addictive drugs available, with a lot of dangers to one's health; certainly 'more dangerous than marijuana' and 'chemically addictive' by every study/classification I've seen), or alcohol as a hard drug (again, chemically addictive and quite bad for your body). People would probably also not classify Adderall (amphetamine salts) as a 'hard drug', despite it having similar effects as meth (methamphetamine salts) and similar symptoms for overdose, addiction, and withdrawal. (I don't know amounts or the like, so I'm not going to claim adderall is 'the same as meth', or 'as safe as meth', but it is in many ways a similar substance. As a side note, the way you take in a drug has a large effect on its half life, and to my understanding, therefore its addictiveness; if I remember the drugs class I sat in on in college, drugs with short half lives tend to be much more addictive than drugs with long half lives. Your classification system becomes even weaker if my memory is correct, as the uptake + half life of /the same or almost the same drug/ will differ depending on if you're snorting it, injecting it, smoking it, etc. When, then, is a drug 'hard' or 'soft'? What sort of addictiveness do you use if you can snort or orally take a drug?)

Classification systems like 'hard' and 'soft' for drugs are not rationally constructed, they exist because of public debate and because of what is and isn't legal. I don't think anyone could argue with your assertion that there are many drugs that are chemically addictive and more dangerous than marijuana: every study I've seen basically puts marijuana as 'not chemically addictive' and 'less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco', for instance. But the "hard drug"/"soft drug" classification is in many ways a red herring and socially constructed, it isn't really based on scientific facts.

(As a side note, alcohol withdrawal is one of the /most dangerous/ drug withdrawals to go through. It can /kill/ you, unlike the withdrawal from many 'hard drugs'.)
Nice quote; here's my attempt to put it in a less of a "hazy 19th century philosophy" kind of way: "The more constraints one imposes, the narrower the decision tree and smaller the design space, a focus which enables quick enumeration detailed search of such design space... making it therein less costly to obtain good results instead of aimless exploration of a space of "infinite" possibilities"
Exactly. I think the "friend zone" concept reflects the cultural idea that a person (mostly woman) can be persuaded to fall in love with someone if that someone just tries hard enough. It kind of reflect the idea of women as passive objects that have to be "conquered" or "persuaded" by feats of courage, strength, show of wealth or humor.

So now it is the fault of the pursuer for not working hard enough or "screwing up" an initial encounter protocol and being pushed into the "friend zone". Which is like a terribly deep gravity well that the will require a tremendous amount of energy to get out of.
I'm not sure how this is helpful. I've known I'm personally more attracted to personality than looks. That's not the problem.

The problem is it's hard (at least for me) to get the opportunity to be around members of the opposite sex long enough for them to see my "uniqueness"

Personal examples. My last job of 5 years had 100 people on my floor only 2 of which were women. My friends are generally all geeks who have no women friends to include in our activities.

I'm not whining. Only pointing out that telling me it's okay because my uniqueness will win over my consensus desirability is not helpful because no one gets the chance to learn my uniqueness