skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"mostly due to all the Objective-C/Foundation heritage".

Huh?

Objective-Smalltalk (http://objective.st) is also based on Objective-C/Foundation:

1. Hello World

stdout println:'Hello World'.

in fact since it's an expression language, you can also just write

'Hello World'.

(Might change the quotes to double quotes at some point).

2. Sending e-mail

Have to admit I haven't implemented the mailto scheme yet, but will be 1 line or close to it once it's in. Can probably get there

3. GET/POST

page := http://objective.st

Save page to disk:

file:objet-home.html := http://object.st

PUT

http://objective.st/index.html := file:newHomePage.html

I haven't implemented POST yet, it interacts with a bunch of other features that are in the works.

4. Days between dates

Whatever you did with NSDate ...

5. JSON

The http and file URL scheme handlers have cooked versions that will figure out the MIME type and translate for you, but I haven't full figured out complex literal syntax yet.

6. Modern Datatypes

Actually, Swift has a big fail here for the single numeric type. Objective-Smalltalk currently just inherits to Objective-C stuff (so fail), but a real numeric tower is in other Smalltalks and both a goal and achievable in ObjST.

Why they didn't do this in Swift is puzzling.

7. Package distribution

ObjST has always been heavily framework based, for example 'framework:' is one of the supported URL schemes. Now that we have frameworks for iOS, it's time to start thinking about a "cooked" framework scheme that can do name mapping to URIs for the source of that framework etc.

8. HTTP server

This serves the directory passed as an argument:

#!/usr/local/bin/stsh
#-<void>fileserver:<ref>dir
framework:ObjectiveHTTPD load.
httpserver := (MPWSchemeHttpServer serverOnPort:8081).

server := dir ⇨ (MPWCopyOnWriteScheme memoryCache) ⇨ httpserver.
server start.

This will serve "Hello World" from an in-memory scheme-handler:

#!/usr/local/bin/stsh
framework:ObjectiveHTTPD load.
scheme:site := MPWSiteMap scheme.
server ← MPWSchemeHttpServer serverOnPort:8081
site:/hi := 'Hello World!'.
server start.
The article doesn't actually answer its own question fully. It does not list the estimated cost savings of removing a bathroom (I assume that's how they would save money but the article is incomplete) or of the weight saved by empty bladders vs. full ones. It also assumes that such removal wouldn't have any effect on longer flights, such as international ones, which are often conducted using the same planes. Even the flight listed form Boston to Denver is four and a half hours. It's unlikely that this would keep most people from using the bathroom at least once, even if they had used it before the flight. So the reasoning is flawed across the board and the article incomplete. The other numbers are quite interesting, however.
Actually there was an article a couple years ago about "super sleepers" in the NYTimes. People who only need, at most, 6 hours sleep to feel completely refreshed. I believe they had their genome copied hoping to find why they can do this. Who knows, there might be a gene therapy or pill to need less sleep one day.
Finally we are starting to focus on real problems... Way to go.
Exploring Swift using GPUImage
On principle, it's one of the rare cases that I'm glad Modernist Cuisine is available as a Torrent. The man deserves it.
>>> Progressive tax on incomes >$1,000,000. This won't slow anyone down except the ultra-wealthy.

What do you think happens to anybody, let alone people who are really rich when you continually increase their taxes? They stop spending, they start hiding their money, they it send it to foreign countries, they will find ways around the taxes you're trying to levy against them.

It doesn't matter who you tax, they're going to try and avoid paying taxes regardless. People have this notion that since they're super wealthy, they have money to burn - which is hardly the case. Most people making over $1 million per year live a lifestyle that's congruent to the money they're making. You think those people are thinking , "Aye, it's only 10K more to the governmnet, no big deal?", right?. Hardly. They want to hold onto their money just as much as the next guy.
Is this post about angle investing, or about misperceptions of sexism?

There are probably as many definitions of angel investor as there are angel investment deals. I think he was trying to make a point about modern gender relations.
Most of the people in this class are able to hire accountants and re-classify much of their income in such a way as to avoid the taxes.

Part of the problem when you start talking about massive tax bills is that the higher the tax, the higher the return on investment from avoiding it. So if you can pay an accountant $500,000 to set up a bunch of shell corporations and trusts as legal tax shelters that will save you $5,000,000, you'll do it in a heartbeat.

Add in Citizens United to the mix and you can see where this is going. If it's suddenly a great return on investment to lobby Congress to introduce a tax loophole, people will do it. The entire premise of modern corporate finance is that if you don't like what a company is doing with your investment, you are free to cash out your investment and invest in something else. That doesn't work with governments; but it doesn't prevent people from trying to apply the same attitudes.
The issues of debt relate to a Minsky Moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsky_moment

It happens when the assets can't pay their interest payments any more.

For now interest rates are low, so the government can pay it's billed. Unfortunately, we hold a lot of short denominated debt. We should lock in these rates while the going is good. If interest rates spike up, the government will have to cut programs, borrow a lot more money, or increase taxes. It's a very negative spiral.

The reality is that nobody has been in our exact situation, so there is more speculation. Are we becoming more like Japan? Or Europe? And how might aggressive immigration help us?
> The next problem is getting it through the uterus, but existing IUDs have to get the t-bar through the uterus. Is it so different? Couldn't there be a design that allows a perforated IUD ball to expand once inside the uterus, in a way that can be reversed to extract it, all while not presenting any pointy surfaces to the uterus?

I can understand why most investment overseas (mostly for poverty-stricken areas) is focused on barrier methods like condoms (limit the spread of disease), but something like this seems worthwhile. Since the mechanism of copper IUDs is believed to be the presence of copper ions in cervical mucus [1], I'd imagine that the shape of the device isn't quite as important as its composition (correct me if I'm wrong--I haven't seen a study that the shape is important for anything more than holding it in place). If it were of a "safer" design, a woman could be more confident that the device will function without damaging her innards. As an anecdote, I know I wouldn't be comfortable with something like that in me--and I know for a fact my girlfriend isn't. (Aside: It appears they were also invented by men.)

Of note, it appears that IUDs are the most common form of birth control in China, but I seem to remember reading they were fairly common elsewhere and can't find the resource. Maybe someone else can chime in.

Edit: xxxargs (below) [2] provides some interesting information that may alleviate some of these concerns.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iud#Copper

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7966881
As it gets easier to integrate patient- and consumer-facing software with clinical systems, digital health is going to continue to grow like this. Apple, Google, and Samsung are all building what appear to be pipes for making those connections. I a co-founder of a company that helps devs with HIPAA compliance (think Heroku for healthcare), and we're seeing massive interest in developing software for both sides of the "pipe". Very exciting times.
Is this like http://bufferapp.com?
HN users are hopefully mature enough to make a distinction like that.

We did take his name out of the title, though, mainly because we usually do, but also because it's baity in this case, at least for this site.
The accelerometer is actually really helpful. We are naturally paralyzed during deep sleep and REM, so that helps to distinguish those stages. Lighter sleep and being awake is easier as a kind, but less so as a degree.
I haven't done any voting myself (but thanks for naturally assuming), but if I would venture a guess, it would be that your reply was considered off topic and that it added nothing to the discussion.
It's the government's own term, used by nonpartisan entities like the CBO.

If anything, "welfare" is now used as a more politically loaded term. It's almost never used anymore without attaching a negative connotation -- whether by the right in the old way, or by the left when decrying "corporate welfare".
Google+ almost certainly has more than 130 million users, however we see less than 10% of logins coming from Google+ in comparison to Facebook. This to me means that people are either more careful about what they share their G+ info with, or they simply don't care about Google+ at all (neither option is good for a social network). And let me tell you, I personally never login with G+ despite having a profile. Google+ accounts get created because the process is nearly automatic, not because people actually want to use Google+. Their user base growth is completely artificial in my opinion, so I would definitely call Google+ a failure.

Didn't Google also rename their social I/O presentations from "Google+" to "Google Identity Services"?, that might show you their confidence in the network. I'm still sour about the Youtube account merging though, so I'm biased.
Traffic results when car densities pass a certain threshold and the speed the cars are traveling at prevents humans from being able to react in time or appropriately.

You might have even seen this phenomenon in real life: Driving on a highway, suddenly you get stuck in traffic. As you pass through the traffic zone, there are no cars pulled over, no accident, no disruption in the quality of road. What most likely happened was that someone accidentally slammed on their brakes which caused an increase in car density. If there are enough cars that are in bound to this traffic zone before the density can disperse, the traffic zone will persist.

Also notice that traffic zones often appear in situation where there's a positive increase in elevation. What happens is that if people aren't using cruise control (or their cruise control, control system isn't tight enough) their speed will decrease as they ascend the hill, causing some congestion and as like if the density of traffic is high enough, the cars behind them will have to slow down. You may think that if the cars behind them are also ascending the hill they'll also slow down in the same way but some cars may use cruise control while others don't (resulting in congestion) or the differences in each car's torque, power-output, efficiency curves differ causing each to slow down at different rates (often leading to the least capable car governing the rate)

Use a worst-case scenario to analyze. Assume you have a network of diverless cars all linked together that maintain equidistant space between each other. If a new cars needs to join their network / pack the minimum amount of delay that the cars (behind the entering car) need to encounter is the (Length of the incoming car + gap tolerance between the other car) / (the sustained speed of the pack) =25/5280/65*3600 ~= .25 seconds per car. Now do a thought experiment that the high way you drive on was completely full (like we said in our original problem statement) do you think if you added one additional car to the highway, would everyone's (who's downstream of the merge) commute time be only increase ~.25 seconds? I'm very confident it's be much more than that.

Traffic management is a task that needs high coordination, cooperation and reaction times above what unassisted humans are capable of.
Agreed, would be nice if the author used the correct name.
Is that any different to understanding road signs/given road directions?
My server returns 410 GONE to robots.txt requests.

The robots exclusion protocol is a ridiculous anachronism. I don't use it and neither should you.
Short term maybe, but long term it is really just a waste of resources and certainly not a better life for the next generations.

Promoting alternatives outside big cities and spending the money there to attract companies instead of spending it on roads would make much more sense.
There are two key innovations missing from this oven that would make it revolutionary. I won't say them out loud because Nathan might run and patent them...
I don't believe "zero-sum" is the term you want, there. A better one might be "winner-take-all"; for more information, see the work of Robert Frank: http://www.robert-h-frank.com/
Yes, but they generally have their fortunes in various bank accounts, investment accounts, land/property, and other things that are very difficult to steal and monetize without leaving traces. How much security would you need if you had $20 million in gold bars in your living room, and the general public knew about it?
I suppose one of the larger hurdles would be that during this 4% time that you calculated, a majority of the vehicles are in operation.

If "everybody" still has to go to and from work between the hours of 8-10 AM and 3-6 PM, pretty much everyone's going to want their own car.
For those of us who feel that this article is important, and thus upvote this submission, make any difference then?
Except that the compilers and toolchains already exist for other languages, and --as far as I know-- don't currently exist for JS.

If I wanted to run $SOMEFILE.js on an msp430 today, how would I go about it?
Yeah, there's plenty of other alcoholic drinks this could be named after
It did mention the difference between full/empty bladders:

>So if every passenger remembered to go to the bathroom before boarding, shedding an average of 0.2 liters of urine, the airline would save $2.66 in fuel on this flight alone.
It is possible that I am wrong, but I Netflix using it does not necessarily proves that it is not a fad.
How is a 2.4% price jump in a market as volatile and illiquid as bitcoin indicative of anything?
...but shouldn't data collected by two independent process come "very close and alike"? Otherwise we wouldn't have efficient markets.
Android, Heartbleed, Testing, and DevOps: An SEI Blog Mid-Year Review
Empirically, it doesn't seem to work very well to try for that level of precision.
This. Especially when some economists recommend recession spending as a way to fight it. We've already spent the money, maxed out the "credit cards" and currently interest rates are poised to go up.

If another recession does take hold, it will be a nasty fight.
Some of the figures Altman gives are important. There are some more:

http://monthlyreview.org/2008/12/01/financial-implosion-and-...

If you read that article and consult the (mostly government) sources, you'll see:

* It's not just government debt that is high - household, business, and especially financial debt is high

* The financial sector has been growing much faster than the "real" economy

* Less and less of the GDP goes to consumers in wages and salaries

* Industrial capacity utilization goes down and down and down (so why invest in new capital?)

* Since the 1980s, profits have been an increasing share of GDP, while investment has been going down

Macroeconomic collapse on the scale (or greater then) it happened in the 1930s will, I believe, inevitably happen.
Ah, the classic paternalistic argument. It's deeply appealing to many people's preconceptions. But a growing body of experimental results call it into question.

When you actually conduct the experiment -- a randomized controlled trial where you give some poor people cash and others in-kind services, the cash group outperforms.
This.

It took me years to realize simply going to be easier was, not only the obvious answer, but also the cheapest & most sustainable.
https://garrickvanburen.com/archive/how-i-learned-to-get-up-...
> Thing is... in the late 70s the supply siders may well have been right and the Keynesians wrong

Keynesians were definitely wrong since at the time sustained stagflation was considered basically impossible. Which is why what is today colloquially called "Keynesian" is different from Keynesian as it was then because important parts of it were disproved.
I'm wondering at point do we stop relying on the government to provide us with everything we need.

What happens when we have too many unfunded liabilities and the government runs out of money and all the millions of people who suddenly depend on government from everything from medical care, income, employment, and other forms of support?

All you have to do is take a good, hard look at countries like Greece and Argentina for examples to see what happens when countries go bankrupt.
"Is this post about angle investing, or about misperceptions of sexism?"

It was about both.
Stacker's Outbox offers similar functionality to Buffer(scheduling,timezone targeting etc). Stacker additionally pulls together all Comments, @replies and @mentions from your Facebook and Twitter accounts into a single universal Inbox so that you can Reply from one place.
"you run the risk that the receivers spend it on shiny objects"

The problem is, what is a shiny object?

For me it might be going to grad school without a care in the world how I'll feed my kids.

For another it might be a car. Well, that's OK, car sales are imploding on a decade or so scale.

For another, housing. Anytime housing goes up thats trumpeted as an inherent good. It isn't, of course. But no one will say that in public.

Usually "wasted money" is just whatever someone doesn't personally like, its not actually bad. The problem with central planning, including of what everyone will have to invest in, is lack of flexibility.
Thirded. The AJAX UI is precisely when I stopped using Groups. It's not that AJAX is bad (obviously), it's that this is a really poor implementation.
"If I had to guess, I'd say Silicon Valley would be among the easiest for women to penetrate"

This is not an opinion grounded in any sort of reality. Attrition for women in technical roles is nearly double that of other industries. In finance, women make up around 20% of corporate boards. Not so in tech. Not by a long shot.

This is Scott Adams saying "hey guys, here's some stuff I think but haven't really tested even a little bit."
I disagree completely. Putting quantum mechanics on firm ontological footing will probably aid developing intuition for whatever the real truth of the matter is.

Note Einstein developed his theories of relativity based on very scant evidence just by contemplating the aesthetics of what physics should be. I think there's a big lesson to be learned here - that some heuristics are generalizable.
I agree and disagree with what you're saying. I agree it is laziness and bad science that physicists stopped caring about the philosophical underpinnings of quantum mechanics but I disagree that it was because quantum mechanics not being the ultimate theory.

The reason most physicists don't think about the philosophical underpinnings has more to do with the way quantum mechanics is taught. Many of the founders were interested in the philosophical questions but after WWII you can see a sharp decrease in that aspect and more of the hardcore calculation and the philosophy kind of disappeared. Here [1] is a great talk that discusses this very point. Unfortunate for quantum mechanics because understanding the philosophical underpinnings is critical to understanding what quantum mechanics says and doesn't say. But, thanks to things like quantum computing and better experiments, interpretations is becoming more mainstream since there are experiments being planned (at least when I was heavily involved in the area in 2010) that would be able to test some of the claims made by different interpretations.

>We are all waiting for a better theory of physics. Of course rewriting the quantum theory in different forms, like this attempt, might help in getting there.

To me this is a contradiction. If we are all waiting for a better theory, then why are we re-writing the theory? A critical part of all the interpretations I've encountered [2] is making different ontological claims about quantum mechanics. Take Bohmian, which posits a guiding wave. Sure we can make some of the mathematics nicer, but we can't go very far without explaining what this 'guiding wave' is, which itself is rather ad hoc. Plus, how do we rectify it with Bell's theorem on hidden variables? To me, we can't really begin re-writing quantum mechanics without inevitably running into ontological statements.

But I still agree with your premise. I believe that by pushing the limits of quantum mechanics both scientifically and philosophically we will get a better grasp of what things to look for / where to look, for a deeper theory. Case in point, wavefunction collapse. Some might consider it a huge problem of quantum mechanics, but if you take a different ontological view, wavefunction collapse isn't that interesting or important. So maybe wavefunction collapse isn't as important and trying to develop a theory that doesn't have it is the wrong idea.

[1] http://pirsa.org/08090000/
[2] http://pirsa.org/C10002
Supreme Court rejects appeal by Google over Street View wifi data collection
>Investors understand risk management.

Heh. That's putting it mildly. Yes, he's hedging his bets. He has some Dilbert money he doesn't want to lose in case CalendarTree tanks. This is antithetical to a typical image of an entrepreneur who goes all in, and is a fanatical believer in the success of his or her product. A cynical angel may look at his start-up from that perspective.
And the smallest planes have to worry about distribution of passenger weight to maintain proper balance.
But no modern government seems capable of running a surplus for any length of time.

Can you name any government, ever, that was capable of running a surplus indefinitely (say, until it was brought down by plague or war)?
He said Go had something new to offer, and listed old things.

He said Go makes concurrency safe & easy, when Go emphasizes features that contradict safety and ease.

He said Go tackled problems in a newer way, when Go is really Algol69 + coroutines.

He denied Go regressing from other languages, when it throws away decades of PL research.

In none of this did he say "Here's an alternate set of features that ...". No. He said concrete, specific, wrong things.

What you are saying is a different thing -- and I also disagree with you.

These "bullet list" features weren't invented for the lols. They were created to solve real problems. Problems that Go doesn't have an alternate solution to.

Go programs dereference null. That is a bad thing. Languages with my "bullet point features" do not dereference null.

Go programs duplicate code to handle different types. Ditto.

Go programs can (and thus do!) mutate some data after it was sent to a concurrent goroutine. Ditto.

Go programs can cast down to incorrect types. Ditto.

The "bullet point features" are important. There are alternatives, but Go doesn't sport any of them.
If you know that all the elements in the loop are already in the array then traversing it is easy. Of course, if you have an upper bound for the length of the list, there's an easier check...
Take the Well Known Bank job, change is good. It looks like a promotion from a career perspective.

Assuming the bank has it's own innovation team, befriend the people working on those projects-- or you can champion innovation with your new colleagues. Also, you can ask the bank for budget/time to attend relevant industry congress events.
Introducing Tessera, a Graphite Frontend
What is the point of posting this? No volume control, no transport control, no explanation.