skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I suspect the "second NSA leaker" is just Jacob Appelbaum with the same set of documents that Laura Poitras brought back to Der Spiegel. There's already several people in the infosec community doubting the veracity of some aspects of the Tor article[1][2][3], including from within the Tor developer community itself[4]. Though there's no confirmation, some have suspected that Julian Assange's most likely source for the Afghanistan revelation back in May[5] was Appelbaum[6].

[1] http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/07/validating-xkeyscore-code....

[2] https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/485158875721523200

[3] https://twitter.com/electrospaces/status/485193336912093185 (scroll up)

[4] https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2014-July/007...

[5] http://gawker.com/why-did-wikileaks-name-country-x-when-glen...

[6] http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2...
"AW", the one who claims' equal a rape offense (#4), says she was initially attracted to him through his being a public figure. From the most detailed account I've come across, including excepts of the summaries of the plaintiffs' statements from the London High Court (warning, they're fairly explicit and his alleged behavior is disgusting: http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-... ):

"In her statement SW said that she had been captivated by Mr Assange when she had seen him in a TV interview. She had attended a lunch with him and others on 14 August 2010. He had flirted with her over lunch...."
In that case, please enlighten us all, instead of simply posting pithy remarks.
If you use CUDA + a GPU, you know for sure, since you are basically responsible for scheduling all memory movements yourself. On the other hand, even CUDA is doing some optimizations behind the scenes that can drastically effect the performance of your code in ways that are not so obvious.

A lot of the HPC work has moved over to GPUs, it is amazing what one can do when you have almost complete control over the memory hierarchy.
Not the OP, but I'm speaking as someone who's been a language early adopter over and over (I wrote one of the top Haskell tutorials on the net, wrote an Arc interpreter in Javascript, and also know Ocaml, Scheme, Common Lisp, Erlang, Dylan, Go, etc.) I'm now trying to figure out what language I'll use for my startup, and leaning towards Java.

Why? Because it's old and boring. Most of the terribly bad yet seductive ideas - JSPs, JSF, J2EE, RMI, Jini, ORMs, XML config files - got tried a decade ago. As a result, the new stuff that's coming out - Guice/Dagger, Guava, Java 8, Hadoop, Apache Spark, Quasar, Android - is the result of people trying to solve real problems, and tends to work a lot better. And it's still possible to find a library for basically everything. There's just a lot less bullshit in Java these days now that it's no longer the hot new thing. In hype cycle terms, it's reached the plateau of productivity.

One of the GitHub founders once said "Your tech should be boring. Make your product interesting." In my early-adopter experience, I've found that one major problem is that everybody focuses on how cool the technology is and all the neat abstractions they can do with the language, and that means that they aren't focused on how they're going to make users' lives better. (This is what killed Common Lisp, IMHO: it's just so much fun to extend the language and play with the technology that everybody in the community spend their time extending the language, which gave us awesome devtools and pretty shitty products.) The advantage of using boring tech is that you attract developers who are smart in the "What can we do with technology?" way rather than "What can we learn about technology?" way.
Are you just now discovering that simple heuristics don't always contain all the truth in the world? I think the rest of us generally know that, which is why we're comfortable with the notion that broad, pithy statements aren't perfectly accurate across all time and space.

Comcast is a fine example of something where you're the product even if you're paying for it. (Note that "if you're not paying for it you're the product" doesn't have anything to say about the case where you are paying.) Monopolies and oligopolies basically get to treat customers like property, because they know the customers don't have much real choice. Comcast is exactly what I had in mind when I said it depends on the industry.
They're a member of the AllSeen Alliance, so in the future they will probably support AllJoyn for control.

Disclaimer: I work on AllJoyn.

https://git.allseenalliance.org/cgit/lighting/service_framew...
https://allseenalliance.org
The band wanted to release both the album through the record label they were signed to and an acoustic version by the singer through their own record label. Somewhere along the line, the major label started getting really pissy at the band and both (A) wouldn't release the album at all unless the acoustic version was cancelled and (B) refused to send the band preorder copies.

The albums are The Hands that Thieve by Streetlight Manifesto and The Hand that Thieves by Toh Kay, but I'm not sure if there's a detailed writeup anywhere. The band posted this: http://streetlightmanifesto.com/update-the-continued-struggl... and eventually had to cancel all of the preorders. They also posted this about their label: http://streetlightmanifesto.com/streetlight-manifesto-proudl...
I find the use of this picture quite immorel.
For what it's worth, I think it an interesting question. Considering just how hyped Mongo was a few years ago, and how many other NoSQL databases (CouchDB, Riak, Cassandra perhaps even Postgres with its JSON support) gained mind share since then.
No argument there.

BTW, for anyone interested in an overview of the non-determinism built underlying modern hardware architectures, I recommend watching this great talk[1] -- A Crash Course in Modern Hardware -- by Cliff Click, one of the world's top JIT experts.

[1]: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/click-crash-course-modern...
In addition to color, designers should check to see if their sites break when minimum font size is set in browsers. I like to browse at 18 pt min, and many sites are awful. Mostly because they insist on fixed widths for many sub-elements on the screen.

HN is one site that works quite well at 18 pt min. I don't know about color issues, but HN seems simple enough that it's probably not a problem.

HN also works great w/o JavaScript.
We struggled with this and our designer wrote up a bit about how we solved it. One great example:

> In Illustrator, just go to View > Proof Setup > Color Blindness - Deuteranopia-type, and immediately see how your design looks in a limited spectrum.

http://wistia.com/blog/heatmaps-for-colorblindness
I just want to say: Awesome logo.
so beautiful, thank you for sharing this!
Sorry about the unconstructive comment, folks. Does anyone have an URL that just serves up HTML with the text of the article? Thanks.
The best method to not merry wrong person - do not marry because its the best option you have.
Reasoning have no saying in love.
Just follow your true gut - thats good enough. Your subconscious already know if the person is good or not for you. And subconscious never follows social demand, but truly best option for you.
If you gut says - dont, but your reasoning says yes - then you are up for a really bad time if you follow second.
Memory and caching is a big part of nondeterminism, but it's not just about memory. GPUs employ a far more primitive execution strategy than modern server CPUs with their branch prediction, ILP etc. Also, GPUs, while terrific for parallel workloads, are terrible for concurrent workloads, which require very intricate branching.
Also the largest part of the packages are probably not code, but assets which presumably don't get compiled further ;-)
On your first point, I am not a consequentialist, so I doubt that I will be convinced by your points, and that I can convince you of mine. Though I must state that it should not be the purpose of government to knowingly do immoral things.

>"I think the voucher system doesn't do that. You could always chose not to give your vouchers to anyone."

Do you get a refund when you refuse to give any politician the voucher? If not, then your tax money is actually going towards paying for other people's vouchers, whether you like it or not. You have been effectively disenfranchised.

>"I don't see how this would happen under either system proposed on https://mayday.us/the-plan/#fundamental-reform-in-the-way-el.... Can you elaborate?"

People operating in the existing parties will get the great majority of the voucher money, as most voters pay little (if any attention) to the political process (operating largely on name recognition). These voters will automatically donate to members of their own parties (especially if faced with limited choices), or simply the incumbent, while the little-known third party candidates and non-partisan causes will fall even further behind where they already are. This problem may be alleviated (though not solved) by allowing the vouchers to go to any political cause, including charities, lobbying organizations, and think-tanks.
I remember reading a thread once about Kenton trying to optimize some protobuf deserialization routines. After much profiling, the outcome was basically "I can't believe the compiler is doing this. It means it is basically impossible to predict the performance characteristics of source code." At this point, a number of old compiler guys jumped in (we have a number of folks on the C++ standards committee at Google, and most of the team who wrote HotSpot), and said "Yeah. The best way to make sure your program runs fast is to get it into a compiler team's benchmark."

Chrome/V8 has this problem as well - if you talk to really skilled web developers, they have a lot of performance "tricks" in their head, and the pitfall is that this knowledge decays much more rapidly than people think it decays, and so what was common knowledge in 2008 (or even 2013) is now no longer true. One major problem we faced with Google Search and specifically Instant was that it was optimized for the performance characteristics of the browsers of 2008; pretty much none of those rules apply to modern Chrome and Safari on mobile networks, and so performance is ridiculously bad on mobile.

Go achieves predictable performance only because it's relatively new. It's true that the team has tried very hard to keep things simple and predictable, but the problem is that the hardware that Go runs on keeps changing as well. As a language it was designed to take advantage of multicore chips that are just coming into use now. What if in 5 years we're all using quantum computers, or memristors, or flash memory, or the memory hierarchy no longer applies? What if everything is peer-to-peer over mobile devices?
Using this bookmarklet, is the graph better or worse?

javascript:(function()%7B%7Bfunction%20%24(el%2Csel%2Ccb)%7BArray.prototype.forEach.call(el.querySelectorAll(sel)%2Ccb)%3B%7Dfunction%20fix(el%2Cbgcol%2Ctxtcol)%7Bel.style.backgroundColor%3Dbgcol%3Bel.style.color%3Dtxtcol%3B%24(el%2C%22*%22%2Cfunction(el)%7Bel.style.color%3Dtxtcol%3Bif(el.tagName%3D%3D%3D%22A%22)%7Bel.style.textDecoration%3D%22underline%22%3B%7D%7D)%3B%7D%24(document%2C%22.legend-color%2C%20td%22%2Cfunction(el)%7Bswitch(el.style.backgroundColor)%7Bcase%20%22rgb(170%2C%20170%2C%20255)%22%3Afix(el%2C%22black%22%2C%22white%22)%3Bbreak%3Bcase%20%22rgb(255%2C%20204%2C%20187)%22%3Afix(el%2C%22%230055aa%22%2C%22white%22)%3Bbreak%3Bcase%20%22rgb(255%2C%20153%2C%20238)%22%3Afix(el%2C%22%23ff9900%22%2C%22black%22)%3Bbreak%3B%7D%7D)%7D)()

Source:

javascript:(function(){
function $(el,sel,cb) { Array.prototype.forEach.call(el.querySelectorAll(sel),cb); }
function fix(el,bgcol,txtcol) {
el.style.backgroundColor = bgcol;
el.style.color = txtcol;
$(el,"*",function (el) {
el.style.color = txtcol;
if (el.tagName === "A") {
el.style.textDecoration = "underline";
}
});
}
$(document,".legend-color, td",function (el) {
switch(el.style.backgroundColor) {
case "rgb(170, 170, 255)":
fix(el,"black","white");
break;

case "rgb(255, 204, 187)":
fix(el,"#0055aa","white");
break;

case "rgb(255, 153, 238)":
fix(el,"#ff9900","black");
break;
}
});
})();
This is a really bizarre romantic notion.
So your brain is actually divided into 2 brains that are thinking independently and one that you have identified as 'gut' is superior in matters of choosing a partner?
I think he's generally right. Look at the informational content of most ads. What is Coca-Cola telling you about their products that you don't already know? Nothing. They changed their product once, 25 years ago, and it was a disaster, so they changed it back. There's nothing new to say.

They spend $4 billion per year not to inform people of the value they provide, but to manipulate people into purchasing more Coca Cola. And it works.

If they stop, then Pepsi will spend more, capture Coca Cola customers, and Coke will shrink. Or people will say, "Hey, maybe I should drink something more healthy," and stop buying sugar-water altogether. Can't have that! So Coke will keep burning money on manipulating people.
Bill Murry summed it up pretty well, 'Take her around the world--nice and, not so nice places; then decide if you
still want to get married.' (That is if you have the funds?)

Personally, I was told this by an old Sailor. "If she is
willing to live on a boat in order to save up money; You
better marry her. It takes a special type of woman to live
on a boat. If she is willing to put up with the cold, and misery of daily boat life--she is an angel, or really loves your ass?"
I've seen this mentioned before. Has anyone rigorously applied this method when dating?
Disagree with this. The owner was domain squatter.

Also, if everyone chose the name of their company based on available .com's there would be no good names anymore. They took a risk and it seemed to work out.
>"Long time incumbents can assume their position is safe unless there is a well funded challenger."

You have restated my position quite succinctly; FEC campaign regulations are a way of preventing "well funded challenger[s]".
Confirmed release date of iPhone 6.
Thanks for organizing swombat, looking forward to seeing everyone there!
> there's no credible reason to think we will need this particular trillion-dollar aircraft

> A single ballistic-missile submarine is enough

> the absurdity of a combat aircraft with a human pilot in 2014

I'm curious to know what are you basing those statements on.
Note: beta7 is out as of 90 minutes ago, everyone update!
Yeah Mongo was "The Flavor Du Jour" just a couple years ago, with MongoDB articles hitting frontage like every week. Now we don't ever hear about it and people don't really use it much either.
I found out that I had the “first” Show HN post this morning when someone mentioned it on Slack. It's nice to think I might have some small footnote in a bit of Hacker News history.

Actually, about 5 months before I posted “Show and Tell HN”, I posted a link called “Show and Tell YC” (the link and domain is now owned by someone else, but the original post is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=237544).

As lbrandy said, it was a play on the “Ask HN” or “Ask YC” posts going around at the time.
>> It was. So what?

So maybe you should read all the way to the the last line of my post, which explains my exact point: someone currently being a billionaire doesn't mean that they will make the world much better if they spend an hour on one thing versus another.

Ergo, kourt's point stands: somebody being wealthy is not any sort of proof that they can create more value per hour. Which is the (wrong) notion that NhanN was promoting.

If you're going to jump into a conversation in the middle, please try to pay attention to what's going on. It's frustrating to have to connect the dots for you.
Nice to see sanity once in a while.

When did gaming become a chore? I know it has been asked to death, but I cannot for the life of me figure this disgusting logic out: People play a game that is not enjoyable, and then pay extra to skip the unenjoyable parts and basically win the game, henceforth skipping the enjoyable parts of the game along with it!

It's disgusting. A money grab, pure and simple. You shoot people who don't know better, then sell them the bandaids at premium prices.
In this process, you add zero value. You trap people who are likely to be trapped (most often parents of the healthy non-helicopter kind) and squeeze them. This money at the end of the chain most often comes off our various governments as these people end up running into debt.

There is nothing that describes this better as the words "predatory behaviour".
Well, you can branch as much as you want on the GPU, as long as your branches are coherent among each thread sharing the same control unit :) I wouldn't say this is "primitive", just a very different way in thinking about computation that has been very very very effective for a lot of use cases.

GPUs are obviously not the solution for concurrent or irregular workloads (yet), but many are surprised how much mileage one can get out of Python + CUDA for scientific workloads. The only point I was making is that there is a world where the hardware is much more deterministic (even if most of us can't go there).
Thanks for expressing exactly how I feel about CSS. Especially for mentioning preprocessors - a child comment mentions that CSS lacks abstraction, but in a world with Sass/LESS/etc, and tools like Gulp that make these preprocessors pretty much effortless to use, that's really not a concern any more. Hasn't been for years.

There are things I would like (computed properties like attr()), but things like this don't exactly trip me up: a solution is never more than a few lines of Javascript away.

Also, even if you're not a "skilled coder", there's always Google if you get stumped. The likelihood of you being the first person to have trouble doing [supposedly difficult thing] is close to 0.
There's Foundation Made[0], which seems to be operating for about a year now.
[0] https://www.foundationmade.com
You're right, for some reason this wasn't apparent to me when I was reading about it. Thanks for pointing that out.
> It's true that the team has tried very hard to keep things simple and predictable, but the problem is that the hardware that Go runs on keeps changing as well. As a language it was designed to take advantage of multicore chips that are just coming into use now.

This has already happened; what many people don't realize is that we're arguably past the multicore era. Desktop-class CPUs aren't adding more cores as quickly as we had predicted, because people aren't using them (although note that this is different in mobile). What they are adding is wider and wider SIMD units, and more and more SIMD instructions. To get maximum performance on the CPUs of today, as well as those in the future, using SIMD effectively is every bit as important, or more, as using multiple cores effectively.

In my opinion, programming languages have been fairly slow at responding to this.
With meditation, the failure mode (if you're not ready for higher levels of conscious experience) is... non-experience. It can be frustrating to sit for half an hour and experience nothing (we've all been there) but it won't put you in a mental hospital.

With psychedelics, the failure modes are a lot worse.

I feel like psychedelics are karmic time-accelerators, by a factor of about 100-1000. The good news is that, in a way, this means that you can have a month's worth of experience in a few hours. The negative is that, if there's something negative about to ripen in the next six months, a trip can have you encountering it immediately and deprive you of the time to react to it and get the help, or make the changes, that you need.

Also, there's a perception that "meditation" is closed-eye sitting, and that you don't get to experience the external world while doing it. That's not entirely true. There are walking meditations, for just one example, and one of the goals of many meditative practices is to bring that meditative mind into your daily life. That's easier said than done; it's quite difficult, to tell the truth, and probably not desirable, for average working people, to bring the meditative mind into all aspects of daily life.

All that said, these drugs shouldn't be illegal (even for personal use, what a person wants to do with his or her own body isn't the state's business) and they definitely deserve more research. I think they have a lot of potential and deserve further study, and that the stigma/illegality do more harm (in terms of supply problems, set-and-setting issues) than good.
"I earned that for our class by learning to code."
Went through one of his courses, and although I don't use Perl, I learned quite a lot about programming as a whole.
Yeah, it's next-level stuff, here. He said around 12 billion instructions which sounds like a lot, but with our current processors, not that much work for the CPUs.
Last year I wrote a small bookmarklet for doing live, on-site color blindness simulation:

https://github.com/jaz303/ColorScope.js

It's by no means foolproof but I've found it useful for testing sites in development.
It would be better to promote Machiavellianism in children so they are better equipped for harsh realities of life.
What browser-based apps offer is a uniform platform for applications development. It's a HUGE revolution in applications space, and as much as it's frustrating to me (on both the user and developer/ops side), there's no denying its impact and significance.

Supporting a zero-install or minimal-install path, supporting all platforms from the same runtime, and providing instant updates to all users is tremendous. It's a large part of what's made smaller Web ISVs (SaaS) possible. Systems integration and platform support kill applications design in other contexts.

But those same features are also limitations. I've had multiple horrible app upgrades, apply massive amounts of styling to Web sites and apps, and _still_ run into compatibility issues, as a Linux user. And then there's the security profile.

There are a number of compromises possible, but pulling the "applications runtime environment" out of my "information delivery tool" seems an increasingly positive step.

Not that we haven't had attempts to provide that runtime, e.g., Java and ActiveX.

One problem is that the runtime itself cannot run as the same UID as the user invoking it. It's got to be fully sandboxed and separated, further by origin site or authoring authority. Possibly within its own VM. Trust of Web content is a real problem and one that will only grow.
You're dangerously close to making the leap I made a while ago which is horrifically un-PC. I'm going to say this and hope HN can appreciate the point of view even if they don't agree.

A fundamental problem with wealth redistribution as practised by governments (and credit card companies) is it makes the easiest route to riches taking advantage of people of . . . not necessarily the greatest ability to manage their finances responsibly. This means an enormous proportion of the smartest people in the western world are engaged in attempting to extract cash from people they are essentially exploiting, which ends up costing society as a whole since those people should be actively employed doing things which are more valuable.

You can't regulate taking advantage of stupidity out of the market, so the only answer is to come up with a redistribution mechanism that doesn't create such giant holes.
Have CPU SIMD units been very successful? Many cases where you can use SIMD, you can also just go and use the GPU (the ultimate SIMD) instead and get a much better speed up. Larabee (or whatever its called now) hasn't seen very much use either.