skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> t.co -> j.mp -> pocket.co -> getpocket.com -> bit.ly -> $PROPER_URL

Wow, so many different people tracking a single link.

These are super annoying once they changed to storing the actual URL on the server. The old "redirect?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.example.com" style could be re-written on the client to remove the click-tracking, but by storing it on the server, you have to be tracked to get the URL. These seriously need to go away - that's way too many tracking databases just waiting to get a subpoena or "national security letter".

--

side note: The only time I ever used a url shortener was for a meme that unfortunately never went anywhere:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/feckless-imbroglio

edit: typo
And what about something in between? Big cargo drones acting as "mother ships" to deliver the goods to the general area, and smaller drones to make the final step of the delivery right to your door...
That's not an inherent property of WYSIWIG. You could equally say that "The problem with building code is that it is hard to automate (and is not composable)", which is true of most programming languages, but then there are IDEs that largely automate tedious programming tasks and there are languages designed for meta-programming; what is lacking is good support from dedicated tools, and a design for automation.

I have some ideas of my own on such system could be built, but fortunately many other independent initiatives have emerged lately in that direction (mainly thanks to the ideas by Bret Victor, and all the recent advances in the intersection between Reactive Programming and user interfaces).
Doing a WYSIWYG tool which doesn't get in the way of advanced users is extremely hard. Look at 3D content creation tools like Maya, this has been built from the ground up to be programmable and extensible over nearly 20 years, while still being an intuitve "WYSIWYG" tool. Someone completely new to 3D modelling and animation would still be completely lost, but that's not the target audience (that's where I lost the author, does he want to empower 'noobs' by giving them the illusion that they can accomplish great things without learning, or does he really care about productivity for power users). In my experience, good tools can have complex (UI) interfaces as long as the interface is discoverable, and they should be automatabable/customizable through programming interfaces. I see myself drifting back to the command line in the recent years, just because many things don't require the overhead of an UI.
> I realize this is the typical mathematician argument.

Interestingly, a mathematician's argument on this exact method was actually given in 1977, in "An Asymptotic Equivalence of Choice of Model by Cross-Validation and Akaike's Criterion". [1]

What Stone showed was that (modulo technicalities) performing this procedure - leave one out cross validation, the procedure you claim "cannot work correctly" - was asymptotically equivalent to minimising the AIC [2] of the model. So we have an asymptotic guarantee (for whatever that's worth) on the behaviour of this procedure.

[1]: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2984877

[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaike_information_criterion
writing scripts that control programs (such as SSH, emacs, nano, etc) that expect a keyboard and TTY to be controlling them?
As several person mentioned already, wheels (http://wheel.readthedocs.org/en/latest/) make deploying much easier (and faster), not needing to get anything from pypi.
Have you ever been to an open bar event? So much faster - it's the payment that slows a regular bar down.
Very cool project. It would be even cooler if you could actually send your hand-crafted packets to a modifiable host/IP once you're done. To test if the user actually succeeded in creating a valid packet.
>A clear text output box would be fine

Or allow user to toggle between them.
rumours on twitter of large-scale DDOS attack on namecheap and 300 other websites
There's no reason why designers and ''layouters'' couldn't use WYSIWYG tools nor should be forced to use plain text in order to design the visuals of the site. Your argument is against letting end-users control the whole process, but it's not an argument against WYSIWYG per se.
> Programmers are proud of their ability to create textual source code that is processed to create programs or output.

I fundamentally disagree with this. You're acting like programmers/hackers do things in a textual way just to justify their existence.

Those GUI tools you posit exist—my Dad (who is technical but not a programmer by trade) used FileMaker to develop a little app for his church sometime in the early '90s and still to this day uses it. Does it matter that he didn't write any code? No. He produced a useful app and it's that end result that matters.

The problem is not that those tools don't exist, and it's not that "real" programmers look down on them just because they aren't textual. The problem is that those kind of tools are just fine, as long as you don't do anything complicated. Once you stray a little off the path of their standard use case then they crumble into a pile of leaky abstractions.

When you're dealing with textual programming languages it's generally much easier to stray from the beaten path since they are usually much less constrained. If you're writing a web app in Ruby, or Node, or Java, or whatever, you can do anything. It's more flexible, but at the cost of being more complicated. And the more complicated things get, the harder they are to shoehorn into a gui.

I'd love to see a gui programming language that was as open ended, as easy/quick to edit, and as easy to visualize as textual code in a text editor is, but they don't exist. And I fear they never will.
Switching between WYSIWYG applications is confusing and it would be if I was switching between multiple text editors as well. It would be a nightmare if I had to use Vim to code, Emacs for my calendar and Sublime for markdown.

I don't have to though, as I can do pretty much everything I want from a single text editor. Yes, there are different 'modes' to master, but most of the underlying commands are shared between modes so the learning curve is shallower.
I think it's recommended for distros to modify the shebang to /usr/bin/env python3 for script that are supposed to run under python 3, although this does pose a problem for scripts that want to run under both without modification. If the distro ships with python3 and most of the system scripts run under python3 I'd say its the default.Ubuntu for one is planning on not shipping a python2 or /usr/bin/python binary by default(although it will still be in repos) eventually.
The magic of gulpfiles: Part I
Like many build files, it's a work in progress and I'm always up to improvements. The only thing that you won't see in this config file is something related with tests. We will implement the test tasks as soon as we choose a test suite for the extension.
Ten years ago I worked for a web dev company that embraced rich text editor widgets for user supplied content. It was great. We charged them an arm and a leg for the ability to edit their content, then we charged them more to fix it when they broke it or couldn't do what they wanted, which was always.

Subsequently, when I'm doing websites for myself or for people who I like, I don't use rich text editor widgets.

It's possible I'm stuck in the past, but it's not an ideological issue.
Plus it was instamined: 43% of all the coins issued so far were mined in the first 24hrs.
Block #4242 [1] is about 24hrs after Block #1 [2], outstanding 1,864,104; the latest block right now is #75345, outstanding 4,330,405.

1864104/4330405 = .430468744

[1] http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/block.dws?4242.htm

[2] http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/block.dws?1.htm

[3] http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/block.dws?75345
Another alternative, which doesn't need media queries, svg: http://jsfiddle.net/pJt4N/1/

SVG for the arrow:

<svg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' viewbox='0 0 10 10' width='10' height='10'><path d='M0.5,10L5,1,9.5,10' fill='#999'></svg>

As a data-URI:

data:image/svg+xml;utf8,%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D'http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg'%20viewbox%3D'0%200%2010%2010'%20width%3D'10'%20height%3D'10'%3E%3Cpath%20d%3D'M0.5%2C10L5%2C1%2C9.5%2C10'%20fill%3D'%23999'%2F%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E
Nitra, JetBrains’ research project for language tooling, goes open-source
The Surprising Ways Cell Phones Are Used in India
Yeah, the place I work for these days ships to certain countries with plastic pallets because of the risk presented by insects.
Why couldn't a machine shake with ice, and even squeeze certain fruits (e.g. oranges, lemons and such)? It certainly seems easier than many existing processes in factory lines.
Nope no metrics, I doubt very much they exist. But if I can pile on a second personal observation, a significant proportion of people programming python aren't python programmers. They'er engineers, artists, scientists, analysts and statisticians whom are using python to do their job. So even if you somehow did manage to survey a statistically significant number of python programmers, you'd still be missing a large swath of the python community.

As to the application, it was a largely in house tool for an engineering and company I used to work for.
I think they would probably test it on smaller mammals first, e.g. rats, and practice until the success rate is 90%+, then move on to bigger animals, and so on, and when they perfect the technique, try it on humans. I don't think I'll support it, but I think that would be more easily acceptable if it can be shown the mortality rate can be kept low.
It's not as much arbitrary choice as inertia. When the first computer development tools were built the idea to use plain text made sense, and we've been stuck with that decision for more than 50 years. Now our computers are powerful enough so that this technical limitation can be overcome, but the cultural thing and lack of adequate tools are holding the change back.

The book ''The Humane Interface'' described a system that could use WYSIWYG in an environment that allowed general computation, and that book has greatly influenced all modern interaction design, but we're not still there because of all the legacy practices that are still important to the industry.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humane_Interface
You haven't addressed the main flaw of WYSIWYG HTML editing which is that what you see is not what I get. There are so many things that can change what I see. Which is kind of the point of HTML - you don't know what browser I use, or OS, or screen size, or if I even have a screen.

I accept your point that WYSIWYG could be powerful for website creation, but web-searching for the <meta name="generator" content="$FOO"> for the various WYSIWYG tools doesn't return good examples.
A single poorly implemented tool doesn't invalidate a whole style of interaction :-)
Mysterious disease rides on the winds across the Pacific Ocean
Not a direct alternative, but "Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing" by Manning and Schuetze is of significantly higher quality, and explains many of the concepts you will need for information retrieval.

Also, "Speech and Language Processing" by Jurafsky and Martin is an excellent book.
I wholeheartedly agree it is more an ecosystem issue, but like I said I have no issue with the concept of WYSIWIG itself, just that as of today, they are lacking some characteristics for being efficient. And it is true that the lack of innovation in that area might be a result of habits or culture.
Please could you put a linebreak in that very long string, or put four spaces in front of it?

Thank you!
HTML doesn't define behavior either, but it can be combined with tools that do (scripting languages), in the same way that WYSIWYG tools can. That's not a valid argument to prefer textual over visual representation.
How does that relate to ES6 generators?
Uber set up a decoy office to keep drivers away from its shiny new HQ
I was diagnosed with crohn's disease in 2008. Thankfully mine is under control with 2.5mg naltrexone every second night - I have mildy active disease now but am asymptomatic and have no ulceration visible on a 'scope. Before I started LDN, I'd have happily done this, and my symptoms were pretty mild compared to many.
Everything that can be done to make this easier, safer and a more wildly offered option should be done ASAP.
It is not fear, when I design for me I don't do a WYSIWYG unless it has some benefit or trade off for me. Now that benefit can be monetary i.e. I get paid to do WYSIWYG. I'm a selfish git I know... but that is the way it is. I'm not afraid of it, I'm just being me.
Once Again, i know this is not related to tech, but u gota c this guy
I notice your response was in the form of a few paragraphs of text, rather than a photo or diagram. Most conversation are "text-based". Our human brains have hardware acceleration for text processing and we're quite good at it. Since programming environments exist to make the best impedance match between programmer and machine, they use text. Language uses incredible composability to encode great complexity.

Flowcharts are one implementation of what you propose. Or LabView: http://www.ni.com/cms/images/devzone/pub/nrjsxmfm91216399872...
I think you will be pleasantly surprised in the next ten years or so. The seeds for such programming languages have been everywhere in the last couple of years or so, if you know where to look.
Intl is rather excellent, and if you do want to use it there's an nice shim for it here: https://github.com/andyearnshaw/Intl.js

I've been using this with great results so far. It works well with a loader (e.g. yepnope) as Chrome and Firefox support it natively, as does IE11.
The problem is that, in practice, there is no way to guarantee that you have actually eliminated every possibility. There are ways to constrain the answer within physics, but that doesn't always mean you have an explanation. Besides, within the scientific method (at least in my field of physics) emphasis is placed more on the predictions the answer can make, rather than the simple explanations. Simply eliminating other answers might give you an explanation for a singular case, but it fails to give you the predictive power we demand from all theories.
Thank you for mentioning this, I'll correct the article accordingly.

[edit]
Fixed
Here is the way I look at it.

If one is capable of holding the entire conceptual abstract ephemera relating to the concrete problem you are solving, then WYSIWYG is mentally jarring as it often takes away from proper semantic representations of concepts. Indeed very often WYSIWYG attempts to hide semantic meaning from users in an attempt to make it seem easier. Of course for the simpler case this is true. But for complex cases where structure and uniformity and restructuring are important use cases then WYSIWYG is destructive compared with a much simpler markup.

I'd also argue with little evidence that there is something mentally jarring for the competent about self expression when having to await moving your arm to do something with a mouse in the midst of the flow of editing.
Stop Thinking of That White Bear – Actively Suppressing Negative Thoughts
To all those commenting as though this will be happening next year or next month, the realistic view is that until we have the technology to restore function in a quadriplegic we will not be performing head transplants anytime soon.

A project outline is just a project outline- only a step up from a napkin doodle.
I have actually sat down with friends of mine over a dozen scotches and made 'project outlines' that involve wiring up circulatory systems to a redundant twin, or a immuno-naive xenograft (read: pig). Came up with some hilarious medical chat regarding the procedure. Whilst it's all well and good to talk about the surgical procedures that would be required and the drugs and machines you could use during different parts of a procedure there's a long way from chat to implementation. Not to say that some human centipede stuff isn't possible given the right twisted individual and correct resources and time
What do you think about the http/0.2 proposal? http://http02.cat-v.org/

Of course we don't live in Plan-9's 9P world, and I don't think we will ever live in that world, but if you think about it, it makes a lot more sense. In every aspect. 9P could make lots of troubled / tied (think XML standard such as WebDAV) / historical standards (FTP, NFS) obsolete. It is sane, simple, fast and secure because it is just a stream of bytes, displayed as a filesystem. There is no need for tons of librarycode. And http/0.2 could be backwards compatible. With http/0.2 you could also have session id. Besides that, with mounting httpfs there is no absolute need for a browser. You could use the standard commandline tools, altough the browser is gonna be used in almost any case.

All I wanna say is that I agree with your ideas. HTTP/2 is probably gonna have a long breath, so thinking it over, and start from scratch would be a good idea IMO. With 9P it could be a real dealmaker.
Not necessarily. pip cannot resolve all dependencies. For example, if a package specifies both numpy and pandas as a requirement, installation will fail. This is because pandas in turn requires numpy, and pip does not resolve the dependencies in a single step, you need to install numpy first and then go on with pandas.
I strongly disagree. The author is ignorant of the issue, but instead of realizing what he does not know about, he creates an entire narrative with the elements he has.

The problem about web interfaces is not programmers, it is that: You have absolutely NO CONTROL on the ending display.

That's it. You have not control on aspect ratio, on resolution, on how fast the computer is and even in the link velocity.

So if you are a designer and something WYSIWYG works so well in your retina display screen and fiber optic Internet connection does not mean that works out there on a myriad of different user choices.

WSYIWYG is a terrible solution when you have different alternatives. E.g If you have 6 displays aspect ratios(4/3 16/9 the new surface pro 3/2 and the portrait version of those), 4 main resolutions, 3 main Internet velocities, and 4 computer power(based on how old the computer is), you have:
6x4x3x4 = 288 possibilities.

Now, have fun testing at least 288 different versions of everything you do (there are other possibilities like people with disabilities that in some jobs like gobertment work you have to do), while the Unix Hackers, and children eaters Gatekeepers just do it once.

I for one want to improve the system, but text(code) is one of the best solutions we have so far. The reason there is no something better is because people are able to spend a significant amount of time ranting about others instead of doing something about it(and facing lots of problems that ranting does not have like the possibility of failure as we underestimated those while on our arm chair).
African Whisky
Learn Ionic
Have you seen this? Babolat racket has the sensors built in: http://en.babolatplay.com/features. Tennis players might prefer this to wearing a bracelet on their playing arm.
"It's what they've always done: support other platforms right up until they hold a sizeable market share; then monopolise that technology on their own platform."

I'm curious: what are these "other platforms" that Microsoft have briefly supported?
> Not that I can blame the OP, who is likely not a SF startup with millions in funding.

Funding: $27.50M

http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/kik-interactive
And this is where it gets dicey.

These experiments are necessary in order to further our understanding of biology we cannot just rule them out as cruel since if we don't do them someone else will.

In China they use political prisoners as involuntary organ donors for gods sake. Hell you can get donor organs within weeks in China while it takes months or even years in other countries just to give you an idea.

So the question is would you rather have countries with less regard for human or animal lives do the experiments and reap its benefits while you stick your head in the sand or would you do the experiments yourself while attempting to treat the creatures in the most humane way possible?
"What you see is what you get". Great! - however it assumes that your audience is using the same media presenter, e.g. use Word to depict an A4 and you print an A4. What if I want it as a webpage as well, do I have to type it twice now? Does someone remember how horrible this even is when you export a webpage from Word. This stuff is not solved, and is only getting more difficult in the age of 3" up to 70" screens
IHMO, PyPy isn't a strong counter-argument for Python's slowness.

Yes, PyPy is probably faster than CPython. But what then? In most cases, CPython is THE PYTHON. PyPy is still in its early age and has a lot to demonstrate itself as a serious alternative to CPython.

On the other hand, programmer could get out-of-box performance boost from adapting Go without worrying the potential compatibility issues.

PyPy is a very interesting and promising project. I highly respect that. I just don't like the idea of merely using it to dodge the blame of performance slowness, when what people are really talking about is CPython.
Does anyone else find this to be quite hard to read? Just visually. Especially length of the lines and thinness of the font.
Interesting - maybe it varies by industry. What industry are you in? These two companies are in telecom and software. I don't think many people in the US are retiring at 50 though - maybe in Europe ;-)
Your own distributed, redundant, and encrypted storage grid with Tahoe-LAFS
I can't use Spotify or Pandora because I'm in Canada.
A lot of the goodies from 3.3 were back ported into python 2.7, to ease portability. Python 3.4 makes it more backwards compatible still (whilst staying elegant). However, now there are also some new features that are not getting back ported.

Using argument annotations for type checking is quite useful in IDEs and for statically checking your code.

Asyncio, and yield from have been in the design phase for many years by Guido and the community. This is seriously well thought out concurrency done by people with lots of experience. It's the 4th generation async framework for python.

The better unittest framework saves me time, and helps me with error handling.

pip installed everywhere is a serious productivity improvement.

Function dispatch based on type (ie, pattern matching like some functional languages) is something I've missed for years. It was originally planned for py3k, and I think is the main missing piece from the original design docs.

Importlib is much improved, so you can do some really interesting things with importing code. If you're working on IDEs, or other apps like games this is pretty cool stuff.

Little things like the enum module make APIs that tiny bit cleaner and more intuitive to use.

Speaking of nicer APIs, the Documentation got a lot of fixups too in Python 3.4.

Want to track down memory leaks? Python 3.4 has a whole new set of memory debugging primitives to make this much easier.

There were also a lot of security improvements for 3.4 that have not been backported.
Express your creativity with custom boards today
All staff and students want their ideas to be noticed on whiteboards in the office and classroom – this is completely understandable, as this is one of the ways that you can get ahead in this day and age
These aren't SF startups (see above). I see plenty of 30's and quite a few 40's, but where are all the 50's and 60's? These days I don't think many are passing away at that age, right?
Reabilitação e Construção Sustentável no Porto
Python was created by a non-native English speaker.
As I was glancing down the front page, I read the title as "DIY facial transplant".
Extracted to a couple of CSV files (but didn't have time for the appendices): https://github.com/BigDataMalaysia/MH370_Inmarsat

Watch out for errors.
Not bad, but you should check Jeremy Ellis! Maybe you already know him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdFlFxJFnfY