skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, no question. In fact, some amount of the sentiment you espoused is considered such airtight good advice that it has been built right into law. Universal education, for instance. No one seriously thinks everything taught in grade school is so essential that if you forget even one fact, guaranteed disaster follows. Clearly, the guiding principle is to teach a little of everything, under the theory that it's inherently good to be prepared, and even if you only retain 50% -- so what.

I think it might be literally impossible to totally reject what you said, in the sense that you could probably die if you were 100% against preparedness. So, yeah.
KMP starts with the first character of the pattern (or substring/needle) and then jumps forward by the length of the mismatch. A related algorithm is Boyer-Moore (BM)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyer–Moore_string_search_algor...), which operates the other way round: it begins with the last character of the pattern and then compares backwards until the full pattern matches. The advantage of BM is that it allows for bigger jumps.

It seems that KMP works well for small alphabets (e.g., DNA), whereas BM shines for larger alphabets (e.g., plain English).
Ask HN: Refactor Social Skills?
Any suggestions on how I might go about refactoring my social skills? I'm 35, maybe a bit Aspergers (have a clinical diagnosis, but still find people kind be kind of dismissive about it, like its no big deal and I should quit being so dramatic), but certainly I have issues with depression and/or social anxiety.

Honestly, I don't feel super lonely or anything like that... I was fortunate enough to meet my wife at a young age and I have two sons, and I feel most comfortable with a small number of intimate relationships like I have.

But this creates a hardship when it comes to trying to support my family (among other things), and we are living in poverty.

How do I go about "fixing" my social skills so that I can get over my anxiety about social networks like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn (even Github is social) and use them to get my career back on track. Right now, I use oDesk to try and minimize social interaction, but I'm back to doing the same stuff (LAMP stack PHP dev work) I was doing 13 years ago for less money... still the notion of networking and "selling myself" is completely overwhelming to me.

I'm working with my local Vocational Rehabilitation office to update my Java skills (through O'Reilly) with the hopes of getting a good job, but I have to figure this out because the idea of having to leave my house for 8+ hours a day and deal with the social demands of people is a huge mental block for me, and causing me to freeze up from making any progress in school... Even this fear presupposes the fact that I will get a job offer, but at 4+ years since the last dot-com I worked for tanked, I feel like this isn't going to happen unless I radically change something.

Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance.
So if you are willing to go full Grothendieck from the get-go you can dodge the need to have algebraic closures. Even making an algebraic closure doesn't require the axiom of choice, as you can adjoin the roots of all polynomials with coefficients in your field without invoking it.

The problem is that a lot of categorical constructions involve sets that get big. This isn't too much of a problem, but if you want to show that they are nonempty, choice comes in in a big way. Even worse, ZFC isn't enough: you need to play tricks to formalize category theory inside of set theory (or use proper classes instead).
Because that's what this leak seems to be implying.

Are you looking at the evidence or the articles written about it? Because the evidence is simply that there exists a method to select Tor-related traffic out of a stream. That alone is nothing. You know very little about what the input is or where the output goes, or what conclusions are drawn by the people analyzing it.

To reach the paranoid conclusions that are getting such traction around here one has to presume that the same institution competent enough to construct this collection apparatus is so fantastically braindead as to make, on a continuing basis, elementary mistakes of analysis on the data that would undermine both their avowed purpose and whatever totalitarian scheming one wishes to imagine is "really" going on. Mistakes which, somehow, miraculously, every single reader with the slightest bit of understanding of the subject matter detects and avoids! I don't buy it.
Professor aiding Kazakhstan in switching native language to Latin alphabet
Perhaps you can follow a basic rational investing principle: If, knowing what you know now, would you invest at the current stage/valuation? If no, dump it. If yes, buy more.
But what if they view the technologists as "incidentally" aiding the group with "nefarious intent". Remember a US president in our lifetime said: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."[1]

The treatment of Jacob Appelbaum[2] and David Miranda[3] suggests that members of US/UK Government may believe that if one provides "incidental help" to the current ideological enemies of the US you are a terrorist/extremist or at the very least targetable under terrorism laws (Miranda was detained under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act).

[1]: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...

[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Appelbaum#Detention_and_i...

[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald#Detention_of_Da...
http://antigengame.com
Audiobooks are awesome for long drives. Podcasts too. For me especially Radiolab, This American Life, The Moth, Escape Pod, and The Dunesteef Audio Fiction Magazine
The car split in half and the driver was ejected. It would be very difficult to make a case that the driver survived on the merits of the Model S's safety features. That is not an indictment of the Model S, however.

Automobiles are engineered for safety within an expected operating envelope. Automobile safety engineering is a compromise of three factors cost, weight, and safety. Tesla goes above and beyond in their engineering of their safety features, but they still target an operating envelope that is sane. The forces involved in a car accident increase rapidly with speed, so the compromises involved fail hard when you push well outside the envelope.

What is an operating envelope, exactly? Roadway speed limits are (ideally) set based on conditions. Things like the number of side streets, shoulder clearances, road quality, and even the design of road infrastructure (like guardrails) are taken in to consideration. Interstates are the only environment where an automobile should exceed 55 MPH (if you're obeying traffic laws). Roadside obstructions on an interstate are designed with this in mind. City streets are not. When you drive within the confines of traffic laws, you're within the operating envelope. Exceed these parameters, and you're pushing in to territory that was not explicitly considered when engineering the car.

Put more simply, there is no testing standard for impact with telephone poles at >55 MPH because that is never an expected outcome for accidents where operators are driving within an expected operating envelope.
Good managers are about getting the job done.

Bad managers are all about abusing the people under them to make themselves feel more important.

I agree but it's not that simple. Most bad managers (the garden variety bad ones, not the psychopaths) aren't trying to abuse the people under them, but are trying to make themselves look good at any cost.

They often look like they're making "hard choices" (i.e. choices against the interests of others in the organization, including their reports) in the interest of "getting the job done" but they're actually externalizing costs or pushing problems into the future.

I would say that good managers try to direct action toward the shared interests of the employees and the organization. Good management tries to prevent those kinds of conflicts, long before they've become obvious, because when the organization and employee play against each other, it starts getting bad for everyone. As you correctly mentioned, MBA culture is all about squeezing pennies out of every transaction, which endangers any hope of good will in the business.
I'm telling you because you're the one that thinks you're a target.
Haskell for me I like the most. Hmmmmmm
Frequency Analysis of XKCD's "What If?" series
I am impressed by how fast Neovim is coming along. I wonder how much faster it would progress if there were more donations? Perhaps those that use it everyday in their jobs or for personal use could donate the cost of the text editor that (Neo)Vim replaced, e.g. Sublime Text?
The time complexity of KMP is O(n), while the complexity of your idea is O(n^2). Considering the fact that KMP is not even doing a lot of things in its inner loop, (few memory accesses), a rep cmpsb approach is really no match for it, even in the trivial cases.

So no, it's much faster.
Definitely Lisp. That's where the force is.
I didn't realize that he had actually leaked any code: http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/xkeyscorerules100.txt

Is there a list of other code or rules files that were released?

Is this information legal to search for, store, or link to since it's now public?
Ask HN: Bloggers who talk about AWS?
I'm growing increasingly interested in becoming well versed in AWS, and I would like to spend some serious time reading and learning more. Other than official documentation, what are some recommended readings about AWS?
> Sure, MongoDB has its shortcomings, but so does <Someone's favorite database>.

I've been learning Postgres lately and have been liking it so far. What are its shortcomings? Haven't run into something bad about it yet.
Just like Facebook adverts this will be filled with fake accounts in no time
Worth noting is that the mobile CPU is only doing a fraction of the job, most of the compiling (from source to bytecode) was performed beforehand, and only bytecode to native remains to be done locally.
Kudos for posting this with a less sensational title than the original
Fortune ranks the World's 50 Greatest Leaders
"The axiom of choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who knows about Zorn's Lemma?" -- Jerry Bona
That may very well be true. A few considerations:

1) Most likely there are diminishing marginal returns from more advertising. That is true in most industries, based on may understanding (I have no expertise in the field). I suspect, though I have no evidence, that the returns diminish significantly.

2) Public funding would remove large amounts of money as a barrier to entry into campaigns. Even if the candidate didn't have much as those with other sources, they could run a realistic campaign.

3) Public funding would greatly reduce the need for elected officials to spend time fundraising, which many say takes significant time from their responsibilities of governing.

4) "1.5 billion of public funding? That's quite fat piece of change from public coffers": It's not a small number, but it's $5/citizen. I think (and I think many Americans would agree) that it's a very small price for removing money from politics.

Happy July 4th!
I'd imagine any language which is multi threaded and with plenty of race conditions, because he'd code that perfectly knowing it would work fine.
This is the "problem" with haskell. It makes you have a reasonably good model before you can even codify it.

You have to front-load all the whiteboarding. Everything is easier (and usually bug-free) after that.

There have been many times where my inability to codify a mental model in haskell made me realize why that mental model was inherently wrong/unsafe.
"The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's lemma?" — Jerry Bona
Not to mention that RTs are trivially reversible: You can undo them in the UI, and all tweets can be deleted.
Since you've edited your comment, I've deleted my reply, and here's a replacement ...

> That's not true. Set theory is based on a lot of
> assumptions and it only consistent if you assume
> all of them are true.

All of mathematics is based on the idea of taking some axioms, and then seeing what follows. We usually use axioms that somehow align with our intuition or experience, and then see if things develop as we expect. Consistency is nothing to do with "Truth".

> I could argue if you start at infinity and count
> down you never reach zero as there are uncountable
> many infinite numbers.

This doesn't make sense. To "start at infinity," what does it mean to count down at all? Certainly I can't interpret what you are saying in any meaningful way. Perhaps you could restate it in a more precise way.

> Worse there are uncountable many digits in an
> infinite number ...

There is no such thing as "an infinite number."

> ... so any operation based on an infinite sequence
> never finishes.

With care, operations on infinite sequences can be defined precisely and shown to be well-defined, so it's not clear what you're trying to say here.

> Making that argument and much of set theory
> meaningless.

??

> PS: There are many Axioms which are chosen simply
> because it makes math more interesting. One of the
> more fun ones is to do set theory but allow for
> some undefined relationships.

So you are creating a completely different math? Good, but not relevant here.

> Aka ...

I don't think you mean "aka" - that means "Also known as ...". I suspect you mean something more like "For example" which is "E.g."

> ... x is in set A but it's undefined if it's in
> set B. Now quick draw a Venn diagram.

You haven't defined any of your terms, and you're doing something completely different from standard set theory. Sure, it might be fun, but it's more likely a toy problem in a toy theory. Can you give more precise definitions for what you're doing? Perhaps you should write it up and submit a link.
Mailpile Alpha 2
Policy aside, as stated.

This is exactly who an intelligent group of analyst would target for completion of their task.

The problem is that you misconstruing the They that are policy makers and the they that are the individuals that wrote these configuration files. The transfer of little theys actions onto big theys policy is flawed logic.

If I told you to find a bug in a large code base, there are two gross options. Scour the code yourself(xkey) or talk to an original author(JA). Those tasked with monitoring TOR obviously chose to try both approaches.

The value of a target always dictates the cost tolerance of the acquisition process. ie detain JA at political cost.

Lastly, the inference that JA detention was something other that a collection action and somehow a "terrorist" designation is disingenuous.
Hacker News really is going downhill fast.
Watch Steve Ballmer Mock Linux While Dressed as The Matrix’s Neo
What about SELinux http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux

"The SELinux project was merged into the Linux Kernel back in 2003"

It's still listed on the NSA website in several areas: http://www.nsa.gov/research/_files/selinux/papers/x/x.shtml

To be honest though, if someone was downloading tails from region of know terrorist activity and such systems are actively promoted amongst terrorist sites then it obviously makes for a good target. But the Linux Journal ..comon.
Is there any datastore in this series that behaved correctly in a partition? I've seen ElasticSearch, Redis, Riak, Mongo, and all of them crapped their pants.
Assembly, for using "raw force" and thinking about the fundamental principles of everything.
I've never found a language better suited to quick and dirty prototyping and exploration than Haskell. I was part of a small team that built a core web service from scratch in Haskell. We had no idea what we were doing (feature-wise) when we started, and just put some stuff down. Make it compile, see how writing the next bit of code works out. If it's terrible, refactor. Every part of the Haskell toolchain is about empowering refactoring. Not with silly automated tools - with a set of language features that tell you when you didn't think about something.

Even after the service was up and handling hundreds of requests per second (yes, really - it was hardly the company's first foray, and we had a lot of customers lined up to use this as soon as it went live) we often found that the current design was severely hindering a new feature we wanted to add. So we'd just change the design. It wasn't uncommon for an update to require changes to 20% of the lines in 75% of the files. And it was no big deal. The compiler had our backs, and made sure we made all the changes in a way that made sense. We didn't always get it right - sometimes the system tests caught things the compiler missed, and on rare occasions a bug even slipped into production. Such is life in a startup, right?

But here's the thing. At no point in the process was there a monolithic design done ahead of time. In fact, it can hardly be said that there was any designing done ahead of time. Pretty much all the design work was a result of aggressive refactoring when adding new features. The whole process over years of development was nothing more than turning a quick and dirty exploratory prototype into a real, solid production system.

For contrast, an associated service was written using Rails, because we thought it'd be easy for what that service needed to do. It ended up being a nightmare to refactor and add new features. We were just never sure we got all the mechanical cases when something deep needed to be changed. Between the two, there's just no question which system was better when you start out not having any clue what the product needs to be.
When you figure out why it's a bad idea. That way you ensure you've actually learned something from the experiment, and it gives you closure.
do or do not where is no try catch exception
We can judge people on life performance, nobody has any problem with that.

Why do you want the word for successful life performace to be intelligence?

or to put it another way, the article you are responding to is making that point that high IQ people aren't always successful for some reasons. How is the point the author is making enhanced by changing the definitions? if intelligence means that your company will be successful, how will the OP write his article to make his point, because his point would still apply. Are you proposing another word?
What kind of scripts do you use?

I use xfce but I only use xrandr (not depends on xfce) to switch between monitors and don't really know what other scripts are useful or good to have. (or what can I achieve with scripting)
Program? Yoda would do whatever he needed to do by flipping bits in real time using the force.
Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 does not require a person to be a "terrorist" or imply that anybody detained under its authority is thought to be one.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7
It seems to me that in the paradox, although the Axiom of Choice plays a role, the bigger issue is how probability behaves in non-measurable sets. His intuition about how the laws of probability should work is not correct in this scenario.

Conceptually, it's not so different from the garden variety probability 101 issues taught in measurable sets - one can make a countably infinite number of picks from a segment in the real line, and the probability of picking any given number from that segment is still zero, despite an 'infinite' number of picks from a finite-measure segment.
I completely disagree, and I believe this is harmful advice.

If you are poor, no amount of book reading will convince you that you do not need money. What will convince you is not being poor. Only then will you feel like you are able to give others advice about how money is not important: and your advice will be as useless to them as similar advice was to you when you first heard it (and rightly so).

People with low self-esteem do not improve their condition by thinking themselves into happiness or forcing themselves to believe that everything is awesome. They improve it by actively working on those areas of their lives they feel bad about. If they are lucky and work hard enough - they might reach a stage where they realize how warped their thinking was, and many of the things they thought they wanted will no longer seem important. But you cannot "skip" this journey and go straight into the land of happiness simply because somebody who is already happy told you what the view is like from the other side. You have to get there yourself, even if part of your journey is based on a lie.
There's a lot of study in psychology about how our mental models of our future selves result in the choices in we make in the present. I know quantifiably from having worked in a both ML family languages and the popular dynamic scripting languages that the amortized time I spend debugging the software is far less with the ML-style languages. Yet with the scripting languages there's definitely a psychological appeal of seeing something appear to "work" ( it really doesn't ) and then debugging it into existence, although the engineer in me knows that this is a really bad way to develop solid software in the long run.
I would like to know other areas besides documentation as well. Mostly, I've only found piece meal blog posts, etc regarding how to solve specific AWS issues, etc.

AWS engineering blog is good - http://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/

AWS forum has helped me solve issues I've run into - https://forums.aws.amazon.com/

I can sometimes see new methods for approaching things with AWS tags on StackOverflow

High Scalability occassionally covers robust architecture learnings eg: http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/11/5/10-things-you-shou...
http://highscalability.com/blog/2010/8/16/scaling-an-aws-inf...
http://highscalability.com/blog/2014/3/11/building-a-social-...
There's been a couple of interesting tDCS papers but as far as I understand, they're hotly debated. It's hard to replicate; the little I've done w/ the devices (and rTMS, the magnetic pulse version), these things are extremely operator dependent, if you turn a few degrees the wrong way or move a cpl mm, you screw up the effect. Ideally, they should do it on a frame mounted around the head, but the psychology people felt that would totally confound their experiments...
If it is C - he would write "if (42 == answer) ... " instead of "if (answer == 42) ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda_conditions
If you go back and read early Daring Fireball posts you will find him complaining loudly about various parts of OS X not being as good as OS 9, and it very much was forced on them.

This is the same writer that makes a point of mocking pundits who assail Apple with poor advice that would be catastrophic if followed.
Obama's Executive Orders a Path to Tyranny
Definitely Assembly.

Luke: There's something not right here... I feel cold. Death.

Yoda: [points to a cave opening beneath a large tree] That place... is strong with the dark side of the Force. A domain of evil it is. In you must go.

Luke: What's in there?

Yoda: Only what you take with you.
A Forced Israeli Palestinian Peace