skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Why wouldn't he tick the always translate this language? I feel like it's very uncommon that someone would like a language translated half of the time.

I'm Dutch myself, so I have English and Dutch never translated. And everytime I'm on a webpage with another language I like that I can ask Google to translate it for me and remember it for that language.
Anybody have information regarding the strength of the output signal? I know the FCC here in the US very touchy about radio broadcast strength...
I thought it was pretty fantastic the whole way.
The Most Important Milestones in History
> It's not about a statement being less than flowery. It's about a statement that is misleading.

It is not misleading in the least to say that the 5C was a disappointment. It did not do a particularly good job of living up to its all-but-stated goal of penetrating the lower-income market in the developing world, namely China[0].

As GP said, you would be hard-pressed to find someone either inside Apple or outside who would seriously make the argument that the 5C was anything other than a disappointment.

[0] Nor did it even do a particularly good job of selling to lower-income households in the US (which wasn't even the goal in the first place, but since OP mentioned the US, let's address that). It's hard to say, but inferring from the movements in market share, it seems the 5C ate into 5S sales more than it converted Android or Windows Phone users.
Interesting. Here is a similar animated graph of the population of our solar system over the last 10K years or so.

http://www.nationsonline.org/gallery/Earth/Solar_System.jpg
I don't think it's true that "The country is richer than it's ever been." According to this graph, that would be in 1999, not now. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Median_US...
> Other people hold a different political view, and what they did about it was to try to punish someone who had expressed the first political view.

No, no, see. Other people hold a different political view, and what they did about it was lobby to have a major organization run by someone who doesn't express that first political view.

I know of NOBODY who wanted to "punish" Eich for his actions. I know of PLENTY who wanted to have someone tolerant running the volunteer driven organization.
I don't claim it's identical, I claim it's the best point estimate we have.
I wouldn't like to perform update && upgrade (and also reboot!) automatically every day or so. Why? Because updates/upgrades are always something that should be overseen by a capable administrator. Sometimes updates break, sometimes they override your personal config files with less secure default files, sometimes the system crashes and you're left in an inconsistent and dangerous state, etc etc.

I definitely don't want to automate my server's updates in such a way.
> an order of magnitude smaller than the bubbles mentioned

The thing about money and markets is it all relative(%).

Whenever talking on these topics people revert to absolute($) comparisons, this is where most analysis breaks.

I am not arguing or commenting on bitcoin success, just that your mention of "order of magnitude" sounds like an absolute value.
Chrome has a good flow for this already if you want sometimes-translation. If the feature is bothering you,

1. Never translate this language

2. When you want a page translated, click the Translation icon in the URL bar and choose to translate.
Isn't self-hosting forbidden by the terms of use in most consumer level internet packages these days?
Can you find the link? FLAC is not supposed to be lossy under any circumstances. In the worst case, if none of several algorithms are successful at compression, the block is stored verbatim. A single-sample deviation on any input would be considered a bug.
I don't understand what a functor is or why an array is a functor. Can anyone please explain? I did the wikipedia article for category theory and I read some stack overflow questions and I'm not sure I understand why an array is a functor. It seems some languages have their own meaning for what a "functor" is, confusing the issue.

My initial guess is that a functor is just sort of like a function that casts or does something like return an interface type from a type that implements the interface or a base class. Is that right? I still don't understand why an array is a functor though, I'd imagine it would at least have to be a function?

Edit:

Actually I think he's talking about Haskell's version of an iterable, and it would then make sense to call an array a functor.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/The_Functor_class

Why is that called a functor instead of an iterable or enumerable though?
Thank you Nanzikambe.

This is anon48191, I apologize for using yet another anonymous user. As outlined in my, unfortunately dead, comment I have reasons to stay anonymous (check shadowdead if you're interested in my original comment).

I would also like to quickly address the comment by Flow:

It might very well be that people around me already know. However, there's a big issue between knowing and officially knowing. Further, I never talked about medication. I personally don't believe much in medication. The steps I was considering were talking to a psychiatrist and take it from there. However as soon as I do this, it is bound to become public, as in public within my circles.

I will not question Flows intention in their comment, their knowledge or familiarity of the issue. However, and you'll have to take the word from an anonymous commenter on the internet for this, I am most definitely depressed, if not worse, and outright claiming my (however anecdotal) comment is wrong, seems a bit harsh.
> How do languages get popular? Money, syntax, portability?

One particularly good way is to be attached to an OS or platform.

- C came with Unix (although was so good that it migrated off it to Windows and basically every other platform).

- JavaScript came with the browser

- C# comes from an OS vendor; Microsoft. They built APIs for their platform in C#.

- Likewise, Objective C was for NeXT, and Swift is for iOS. They built APIs for their respective platforms.

- Java is an interesting case because Sun wanted the JVM to be an OS, to replace Windows, but they ended up with just a language. This is great evidence that a language itself is unprofitable; an OS/platform can be hugely profitable.

You have all the main OS cases represented: Unix, Apple, and Microsoft.

Google is sort of an OS/platform company, with Android and ChromeOS. However they reused Java in the former case. They designed their own VM (Dalvik) instead of inventing a new language. For the web platform, they are designing and implementing Dart. For the "cluster of servers" platform, Go is very appropriate.

Mozilla is also a platform company; it's not surprising that they are investing in Rust.

So my takeaway is that OS/platform vendors are the ones with the main interest in the huge effort of designing and implementing a language. How successful the platform often has more to do with the success of the language than the language itself. Java might be the exception.
LOL.. perhaps you should secure it better.
Compiler bugs really don't worry me - despite the name, this is is really an alpha release. However, I ran up against the lack of generic protocols myself today (for those with access, there's an interesting debate at https://devforums.apple.com/thread/230611?tstart=0). It seems like a deliberate design choice, but one I'm not really sure about.

The primary vibe I'm getting from Swift is pragmatism. They had various red lines to follow: must be as fast as Objective C; must have a minimal to non-existent runtime (so AOT compilation all the way); mustn't have garbage collection, must interoperate with Objective C/normal C with ease; etc. This had led to a language which, despite being at version 0.1, has a fair few oddities and warts already. For example, the "almost but not quite immutable" arrays seem to be an artefact of absolutely wanting array performance to be equal to standard C. Typealiases vs parametric protocols seem to be a desire to have as much type information fixed as soon as possible.

It seems that rather than design a language where they might not have solutions for their red lines up front, they've designed a language where they can provide them. Rather than make theoretically "better" choices the compiler can't deliver perfectly in V1, but can in V4 or 5, they've gone for "yeah, we can almost certainly ship that". Given that this is essentially Apple's private language, I assume they'll be quite aggressive about deprecating features and moving people onto the "better" solutions (high-kinded types, richer immutability etc) when they can deliver them whilst meeting the core goals. It's an interesting approach - most other languages are happy to take a few years to get going, whereas Swift seems to want to go from 0 to 60 in 4 months. It reminds me most of C# 1.0, but with harder restrictions on what they've been told to deliver. At the moment, it's interesting, and a big leap from Objective C. By V3, it might be "excellent".
I meant, just accessing a matrix element i,j which in many languages happens by m(i,j) or m[i,j].
Does anybody happen to know if it's just as easy to read the pins at 91.25, 94.75, and 95.75 MHz?

Lately I've been trying to find a way to do exactly that - initially using audio in - but so far without any luck.
In a way, randomness would be preferable because those with ability (who otherwise wouldn't meet the criteria or pass the tests) would get a chance to succeed. The ones that flunk out would make room for some more random attempts. Eventually the system would settle into a steady-state of X% of previously-found high performers and Y% of ever-rotating randoms, where occasionally one of the randoms moves into the high-performers group.

This stuff also continues to reinforce and highlight how arbitrary and capricious success often is; many people are successful as much for their family/money/connections/opportunities as for their actual talent.
Correct IS "widely seen as right by a large group". People in the 1950s were not evil or stupid, they were much as people are now: well-meaning and sincere in their beliefs. Their correct is not our correct, but in context, it's not "worse" than ours. If you'd been an adult then, you'd have beliefs in tune with the zeitgeist too.
JavaScript became popular because it was the only(1) language that did what it did -- scripting in the browser. It has become popular on the server side lately(2) partly because some people are reluctant to learn another language, and partly because people believed that Node's nonblocking hype was something new.

(1) Yes, there were others from MS, but only JS has been cross-platform and cross-browser.

(2) Node.js wasn't the first server-side JS environment, but it was the first to be popular.
Author here. To be fully honest, it's somewhere between the two. Yes, I'm aware of the irony of the statement. But what I failed to make clear in the post is that the code in the last two examples passes the type checker. Where it fails is at the intermediate representation stage. So the grammar of the language supports the constructs but the backend hasn't caught up yet.

It's possible, of course, that Apple will modify the grammar to make these use cases impossible. But I would be very surprised. I can't blame anyone for accusing me of rose-tinted glasses until we know for sure, though.
We didn't change the url. As far as I can tell from the logs, no one did. A moderator changed the title from "Fonts in Google Chrome on Windows no longer look like they’re from the XP-era", which was a blatant violation of the HN guidelines.
In addition, the post was flagged by users, probably because of that title.

Submitters: please read the HN guidelines and don't rewrite article titles to express your opinion. Please post an article that pertains to the news you have in mind. If no other article will do, you can always clarify the context by posting a comment to the thread.

Edit: I also just added "(2011)" to the title because https://web.archive.org/web/20111109050857/http://msdn.micro... makes it clear that it goes back at least that far.

Edit 2: If you or anyone else can suggest a better article, we'd be happy to change the url.
Mostly insightful, but this bit:

Those who criticize the behavior of "greedy Wall Street bankers" underestimate their tendency to do the same thing if offered an eight-figure salary.

You have to be greedy to go into Wall Street banking in the first place. Most of us deliberately didn't become bankers because we aren't motivated by greed. This makes bankers fair game for criticism.
Most but not all, and that won't change without consumer pressure in that direction. Projects like this, if they become popular, can help create that pressure.
I don't think IKEAhackers passes on 2 or 3.

They use the mark in the URL and site design, which is more than is necessary to identify the origin of the goods mentioned on the site. They use the livery and typefaces (or look-alikes) and the site style matches IKEAs - eg the line drawn cartoons are close in style - and I'd say all these factors suggest an endorsement that is not clearly and prominently disclaimed (it is disclaimed on the site however).

Now all that with no commercial aspects to the use (no advertising) and it's looking a bit thin on the plaintiff's side; but with the commercial use ... in short the use doesn't feel [!] purely referential (or "nominative" in the language of the US caselaw) to me.
>As GP said, you would be hard-pressed to find someone either inside Apple or outside who would seriously make the argument that the 5C was anything other than a disappointment.

Nope, that's not what they said. What they said was:

>I don't think many people inside or outside of Apple are arguing that the 5C was a disappointment sales wise.
You'd probably want to combine ECN and dropping.
http://read.cs.ucla.edu/click/click
It's always hard to say about the 5C because Apple isn't going to telegraph their punches - I suspect Cook & co are quite happy - it's like selling the iPhone 4S but with higher margins, which is probably what it was intended to do.
C# isn't particularly new. It's almost 15 years old.

You might be more interested in Microsoft's as-yet-unreleased new language, which seems to be codenamed "Oslo"?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6974494

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6983649

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_(Microsoft)

http://joeduffyblog.com/2013/12/27/csharp-for-systems-progra...

http://blogs.office.com/2014/03/03/work-like-a-network-enter...
You can always re-enable the translation popup through the page's context menu. It has an entry for "Translate to English" (or whatever your preferred language is) right there.
Ask HN: Any tool to scrap Twitter handles from webpages and blogs?
There is a lot of variation in how people taste artificial sweeteners.

In my informal surveys, some people think Diet Coke tastes sweeter than regular Coke, and some people think regular Coke tastes sweeter. In general, people seem to prefer the one that tastes less sweet.
Thank you for pointing this out.

Always read gates notes with a huge grain of salt.

Mostly because he is always pushing a corporate agenda. Last time it was about why we should eat soy based meat.

And never trust anyone that drinks that much diet coke. Obviously only a satanic drone would be foolish enough to drink 3-4 cans of toxic waste a day.
Yes there is! It's always in the context menu of the page, right next to "View Source."
The best websites to learn coding
Speculation:

- LLVM is an awesome project and quite mainstream now, making it a bit easier to write an optimized compiler.

- Rust: C is a language built for single core use. The future is many-core machines. Mozilla realized that the archaic C language was making multi-core processing far more difficult because of missing language constructs, slowing down development and holding back the future of browser performance. The idea is that multicore/multichip aware languages can greatly simplify developing parallel applications.

- Go: Also aims to modernize "systems languages". Dependency management, better type systems, garbage collection, parallel computing. multi-core awareness, compile times. http://mashable.com/2009/11/10/go-google-language/ . It's your C/C++ replacement.

- Swift: Probably an Apple move to attract more app developers and to increase the quality of apps with better tools.

So the answer is both because the computing landscape is changing, and the move towards Python, despite its performance issues, signals developer demand for better tools.

Remember that HN/proggit users are generally interested in new ideas and ways of working, and most people working in industry have probably never heard of Haskell. HN is also susceptible to marketing from time-to-time - MongoDB and Rails were two huge trends that did not deserve their popularity, at least at the time.
Unix pioneer Rudd Canaday has a blog
The name "Functor" can be confusing; it's a thing you apply a function to, not a function itself.

A Functor is a type t parameterized by some other type a, such that if you have a function from type a to type b, you can apply that function to a t of a and get a t of b.

Most commonly, a functor will be a container of values of type a, and the mapping consists of applying the function to each value, resulting in a container of values of type b.

Other common functors include a computation that returns type a (use composition to apply the function to the result to get a computation that returns type b), or a possibly null pointer to type a (map null to null, map pointer to a to pointer to b).
Being vulnerable is powerful.

http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability

You are vulnerable, but you are not weak.

It is a sign of weakness to avoid showing signs of
weakness.

- Nassim Taleb
That ridiculous fedex quest at the end kinda took the shine off it for me. It felt really lazy.
Let's begin with the array. Imagine I have an array of characters:

var a = ['a', 'b', 'c']

I'd like instead to have the index of their position in the alphabet. That's another array of the same length that would look like this:

var i = [0, 1, 2]

To each element in a, there corresponds an element i, at the same index. And the operation we use is the same for each element:

f('a') = 0

f('b') = 1

f('c') = 2

But we could also want an array that gives us the next letter in the alphabet, like so:

var n = ['b', 'c', 'd']

Here the function is:

g('a') = 'b'

g('b') = 'c'

g('c') = 'd'

But we're very much doing the same thing. We call it mapping. So Arrays in Swift have a map function defined that works like this:

var i2 = a.map(f)

We're passing the function to apply to each member, and we get an array back, of the same length, with the result of doing so.

A functor is a generalization of that concept. It takes a type parametrized by another type, say Box<V> and a function from the parametrized type to another type, say f:V -> W. Then, according to rules that are specific to Box, if you map f over Box<V>, you'll get a Box<W> out.

The key is that exactly how a Box<V> becomes a Box<W> is up to Box.
Towelroot by geohot to root Galaxy S5 with one click
Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies
This is extremely insightful and applies to a lot of industries:

I've learned that we can't tell the difference between luck and skill. Out of millions of investors, a few will be phenomenally successful due to luck alone, yet no one is willing to admit they are one of the lucky ones.

I recall reading this statement written in different words in a few articles and essays from PG and others.
The literal answer to your question is

readIOArray m (i,j)

But that is misleading because there are two kinds of arrays in Haskell, and the kind (namely, mutable) I used in my literal answer is the less common kind. In fact, it is so uncommon and so contrary to the spirit of Haskell that the language implementations do not take the trouble to make it fast. Last time I played with the Glasgow Haskell Compiler, for example, a related operation (readIORef) was over 100 times slower than its counterpart in C.

Parenthetically, because you need to use "a monad" to perform any sort of mutable operation in Haskell, the translation of

m[i,j] := m[j,i]

into Haskell is not

writeIOArray m (i,j) (readIOArray m (j,i))

like someone unfamiliar with monadic style might think, but rather

readIOArray m (j,i) >>= writeIOArray m (i,j)

or equivalently

do
element <- readIOArray m (j,i)
writeIOArray m (i,j) element

But that is a side issue. The central fact is that even though it is technically possible, it is considered bad style in Haskell to access or update individual array elements.
One person I know explicitly refrains from treating his bipolar disorder because he thinks manic episodes make him productive.

Does he have hypomania or actual mania?

True mania (not hypomania, which is sometimes benign) is a hot mess and I'd be surprised if he's employed 12 months down the road. It's pretty devastating, and I can't see why anyone would want it.
Totally agree. It is at best a semi-portable sensor (with wet prep) not a sequencer. Cost would be another big obstacle for using MinIon on human data. At about 100 megabases and $1000 per cell that's three orders of magnitude more expensive per base than a HiSeq X. (edit: spelling)
I want to hear from people who do math all day every day, and not just programming language theory. I want to hear about algebraic geometers, topolgists, ring theorists using Haskell and saying "Yeah this is really helping me in my work."
More precisely it is an endofunctor in the category whose objects are Swift types and morphisms are functions between Swift types. All this really means is that given a Swift type, say Int or String, there are Arrays of Int or String, and given a function like showInt(a : Int) : String, a functor gives you a function from an Array of Int to an Array of String (in this case it would just apply showInt to each element of the Array and the result would be the Array of String) in such a way that if you have two functions (to keep with the example, say toUppercase(s : String) : String, the function you get by applying the functor to the composition (toUppercase . showInt) is the same as the composition of functions gotten from the application of the functor to the individual functions. In addition it is required that the identity function is mapped to the identity function.
I don't think it's primarily the distance. It costs less than $200 to travel from Sofia to London by bus. This is less than half the median monthly income.

However, getting a job in London or another city will take time, and the cost of essential services like accommodation and public transport will quickly add up.
I think the point is that any system which is meant for people to self-host AND which is based on a Linux distro (Debian, Red Hat, etc. -- YunoHost is based on Debian) is broken by design.

Running "sudo apt-get update" and "sudo apt-get upgrade" in a cron job is not a security solution.

Operating systems have to be designed so that a security hole in a single application can't compromise the entire system. If not, I would argue they are unsuitable for the average user to "self host". Modern Linux distros don't meet this criteria.

OpenMirage is solving some of the same problems as YunoHost, just on a longer time scale and with real solutions rather than hacks piled on top of hacks (I'm not affiliated with the project). apt-get is a big hack and not suitable for distributed computing.
The principle difference between BRK.A and BRK.B is voting rights. If you don't intend to exercise your voting rights (or don't need to -- if Bill Gates has a concern about how Berkshire Hathaway is being run, you don't think he can just call Warren Buffett up and have a chat?) why would you pay the premium for voting shares?