skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Am I the only one who prefers to read websites in "desktop" mode?

I always feel totally alienated by the mobile page, there is information left out, annoying badly-implemented JS scrollers, etc...

The "desktop" site looks always more nice and familiar, and you can zoom and scroll around as you wish to read everything.
My impression is that Software Recommendations is mostly for end-users for stand-alone software (eg. "Password Safe app for Mac and iOS").

But what I'm really looking for is recommendations by programmers for libraries and tools to suit a particular programming task. For example, here [1] is the question that was disallowed on Stack Overflow and prompted me to look for alternative question-and-answer sites. It seems that such a question isn't really a good fit for [2]

[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23853475/is-there-a-stand...

[2] http://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/
We had a discussion a while ago here (see my comment history) where I shared my experience of schizophrenia (through a drug-induced schizoaffective disorder which I subsequently got under control.)

I haven't read the book yet (it's on my Kindle by now though) but from what I've read it's very similar to that state of mind and, if that is so, then many 'mystics' actually do stil live that way.
I don't think people are used to backwards compatibility breaks in languages.

Nor do they like it, because most if not all developers are using these languages for a practical purpose: to get things done. Having to relearn and "fix" things which otherwise wouldn't need to be has a cost, and this is on top of what they already have to do.

I personally think backwards compatibility and gradual change - evolution, not revolution - is the way to go. Outside of the software industry this is the norm; think of all the "interfaces" that we use in the physical world that have remained backwards-compatible and relatively stable over long periods of time. Software is different because it can change quickly and (by itself) easily, but just because it can doesn't mean it should, as if it is well-established, there is certainly a large number of dependencies on it too.
I used to read the FT and the Economist thoroughly, and felt I was well informed. Maybe I thought they were high-quality publications because their ideology aligned with mine.

But I matured and my blind belief in the power of free, unregulated markets was challenged by many examples of abject market failure in the real world.

I still read FT and the Economist, but with a much more jaundiced eye. Much of what they say is reflexive, ideological, based on either blind belief or self-interest.
In Safari Mobile, tapping the top of the screen brings you back to the top of the page.
One strange possibility this may imply is that some people still untouched by the modern world are really not conscious and introspective. What a weird proposition.

Also, those of us who do not share direct ancestry with modern cultures (I am a pacific islander), our cultures would possibly not have had consciousness until our contact with outsiders...for my culture, that would be around the late 1700s.

Our oral history does talk about gods, demigods and such. Looking back at most of the oral legends, they tend to be about the gods and mythical events that teach us morals. I think there was one story that might show introspection (a god child who was found in the woods and was raised by human parents) although something like true higher order thinking? I'm not sure, I'd have to think a bit.

Still, it's such an interesting idea. Perhaps that is one way to test the hypothesis, comparing notes with first contacts with indigenous, uncontacted peoples.
This Is How Little Kids React These Days When You Show Them Old Computers
His theory only makes sense if you set a very low bar on other mammalian consciousness, indeed it is an attempt to explain how we became conscious when other animals are not.

If on the other hand you think that many of the mental states he is trying to find explanations for are already extant in several other species, then the problem he is seeking to address simply doesn't exist.
In what distros is that a problem? I have Python2+3 on Debian running fine side-by-side.
I've been told the Anaconda distribution (https://store.continuum.io/cshop/anaconda/) of Python can ease some of the pain there. The fact that I have to direct you to a "store" to download it does give me pause, however, even if the distribution is actually free.
See and breathe underwater as easily as you would on land
Isn't this what virtualenvs are for?
I think the problem of Python 3 is, that it is too close to Python 2. Learning Python for the first time is really fun, compared to other languages. There is almost always a interesting technique that does exactly what you need and usually great tutorials. But switching from Python 2 to Python 3 is quite frustrating, it is just different enough that one can not rely on intuition, but it is similar enough to lure one into using intuition. With the added frustration that all the errors would just not be there in Python 2. So assuming that I will not get payed to become a Python 3 expert, I will just write Python 2 and pick up another language at some time in the future.
Well the existence of a whole group of "not even wrong" theories doesn't make any single one of them less deserving of complaint when it shows up on its own at a party like HN
Quicksort and Java 8
The author is talking about long tail libraries, not major ones. The thousands of libs on PyPi that are still on 2.x