skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Interesting thing about the double pendulum - it is very difficult to get the numerical integration correct, even using very high order integrators like RK4. The simple Euler integrator used here has no hope of getting it right (not a criticism, just an observation!)

The problem is that the double pendulum equations (in fact, any equations of motion derived from a Hamiltonian) have symplectic structure, i.e. they have conserved quantities. One of the conserved quantities is the total energy of the system.

When you discretize the equations to simulate them on a computer, you lose this conservation property (due to discretization error - nothing to do with floating point). The structure of the equations means that the total energy becomes an increasing quantity in time, so you tend to see the simulated system "speed up" or become more energetic as the simulation progresses. The error builds up in the same direction over time - exactly what you don't want!

The simplest example is the harmonic oscillator, with second-order equation of motion

x'' = -x

which gives the first order equations in terms of position x and momentum p

x' = p
p' = -x

which conserve the total energy 0.5 * (x^2 + p^2). Discretizing these using a first-order forwards Euler scheme

x(t+1) = x(t) + p(t) * dt
p(t+1) = p(t) - x(t) * dt

you can see that the total energy changes on each time step to

x(t+1)^2 + p(t+1)^2 = x(t)^2 + 2 x(t) p(t) dt + x(t)^2 dt^2 + p(t)^2 - 2 x(t) p(t) dt + p(t)^2 dt^2
= (1 + dt^2) (x(t)^2 + p(t)^2)

so the total energy increases by a factor of (1 + dt^2) each step. Over time, the total energy increases exponentially.

The solution is to use a geometric or sympletic integrator which explicitly takes into account the symplectic structure, producing a set of discrete update equations which still conserve a total energy quantity.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symplectic_integrator
What you need to know about DARPA, the Pentagon's mad science division
This is the most important bit, IMO:

CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST TOR

6.1 A civil conspiracy consists of a combination of two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means.

6.2 Pinkmeth and TOR conspired to and had a meeting of the minds regarding the commission certain torts against Plaintiff more
adequately described in paragraphs 5.1 - 5.15 above, as well as certain felony offense described in paragraph 4.8 and 4.9 above. The specific object to be accomplished by the conspiracy was the publication pornographic images of Plaintiff (and other women) on the Pinkmeth website in such a manner so as to prevent its operators and users from being held civilly and criminally accountable for this unlawful behavior.
The most common form of unreadability I see is overly abstracted code in Java, littered with patterns that obscure the kernel of logic, forcing you to do global code searches in order to see through all the indirections.
stirling engines are also known as hot air engines. there are different models and systems but i have one that already works with the temperature difference between room temperature and my hand temperature. Awesome. There is a german manufacturer under www.boehm-stirling.com that makes really nice stirling motors in different forms like cars, machines and so on.
Nice way to pass a `rm -rf ~/' somewhere in there. :)
Lean Startup - Eric Ries,
Business Model Generation,
The Design of Business - Roger Martin
Private Messages: Once read, deleted forever. Hosted in Switzerland too ;)
I have the same reservations as eps. It's not how Chocolatey works, it is how it's administered.

With Steam and Microsoft I can be reasonably certain that I will not be getting an infected update. With Chocolatey, being a smaller entity, I have to assume the opposite until proven otherwise. It may work, it may have wide support, but none of it matters, because it may get me screwed. Bluntly put, Chocolatey is simply not trustworthy.
Makes sense. Thanks for your time on the builds until now.
Teiid: a system that allows to use data from multiple, heterogenous  data stores
I have a different experience tutoring (exercises and labs) in an engineering school in France for programming / CS beginners.

We moved from Java to python this year and I miss a few things. Due to the absence of explicit typing the students don't bother to understand types anymore and it leads them to a lot of mistakes and misunderstandings: confusion between simple types, lists, dictionaries, instances of a user created class, etc. Besides I think the verbose and rigid syntax of Java forced them to understand what their wrote and for a first language that was a good thing.

Overall I found that since it is easier to write code in python they rush to writing anything without understanding the algorithmic problem first. Thus they are less able to decompose a problem in sub-problems and write atomic functions to solve each of them.

Note that I think teaching python as a first language is a viable option but in our case the course needs to be intensively rewritten and the labs adapted. For instance my lattest point about algorithms is not a problem with the language: it could be resolved by having a part of the lab being pure algorithmics and then an implementation part.
The tl;dr seems to be that "pinkmeth.com" is a revenge porn site (who are also being sued) and that the Tor Project is being sued because they "knowingly assist sites such as pinkmeth.com".
Further to this. I'm interested if this is a "limited hangout"...

What if Snowden really is a limited hangout and the Arab Spring was just the rehearsal. What if the powers that be wanted to see how far they could poke the stick at the American people to see (like in a controlled burn) how they would respond.

Even after ripping up The Constitution, spying domestically, and approving drone strikes to kill US citizens abroad, the general populace are asleep. No mass protests. No impeachment.

What if this all was a charade to prove that complete control is within grasp without consequence.
Hybrid apps: Do not copy. Do get inspired. Avoid reimplementing native UI
>> Suing a revenge porn site.
Fair, next.

Oh wait there's more.

From https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq-abuse.html.en

>> Tor aims to provide protection for ordinary people who want to follow the law. Only criminals have privacy right now, and we need to fix that.

True, but distribution has always been the hard part in any kind of scalable criminal activity, and Tor is unwittingly facilitating this.

There's definitely a case here against PinkMeth.com. Revenge porn sites don't really receive protection under fair use.

So here's the sticky part.

Here's Tor's hidden services overview:
https://www.torproject.org/docs/hidden-services.html.en

Since the hidden services are themselves run over Tor, it looks to me like the only thing Tor can do is refuse to serve PinkMeth.com without identifying the agents. Which might be good for privacy precedent on the one hand, but bad if Tor as a result receives all the flack for all criminal activity run over Tor -- that means Tor relays (who are identifiable) are next.

Ideas to save Tor?
>How do you punish someone who unwillingly commits atrocities, someone who cannot control it and didn't ask to be born that way?

Usually you confine them to the closed psychiatric ward, to either be sedated or locked up there instead of in prison.
You do have a point here. What I wrote ("The novelty is increased utilization through sharing of what used to be exclusive.") is actually not the core innovation but its consequence for society.

The core innovation of sharing economy is scaling up trust networks people traditionally relied on to mitigate risk involved in sharing transactions. Since the risk of this type of business is high, it used to be done only on a longer term basis, among friends and family and by people who really needed the money and so just had to put up with the risk. This meant that in the old economy sharing transactions were few and far between. Scaling up the trust networks means that they can now become commonplace.
excellent and insightful
I have no idea if such company exists:

- No politics. If the whole team agrees that something benefits their work then we will try it out. I do not have any respect for managers sabotaging team decisions because of gut feelings. Hard facts count. I can help getting those, just ask.

- Working fully remotely from Europe.

- No BS. No, your video serving backend written in Ruby which does 3k requests/min isn't something to brag about. No, you do not need to brag about your Sales guy who brought in 200$ more revenue this month. Let me fix this bug for you in production and save a few servers of your AWS bill.

- I don't care if it's Ruby/Java/Scala/Go/Erlang/Self Invented Foo

- No Perl.

- No quizzes during interviews.

- Even though I am only a software engineer everyone around me says that I get stuff done. Ownership does not stop at QA/OPS/PROD/Customer Support. I love finished products, not pushing lines of code to git. Empower me.

- Smart colleagues

Looking at these few criterias I should start paying people to find such companies.
Looked like a thrown match to me tbh

Dont think models need fitting to this kind of result
It'd be interesting to see if this is going to work on scale... but I don't think it will. There's something inherently wrong with the idea of a machine bossing people around.
The exact same file for Windows that is being fetched by Chocolatey is available here: https://github.com/atom/atom/releases
> Far better to test it in court with a stupid revenge porn website than testing it with a case of, for example, a whistleblower where authorities feels they need to win.

Disclaimer: I'm one of the less privacy-obsessed posters on here. Even so: really?

Hypothetically speaking, if the US state apparatus wants to clamp down on Tor and anonymising services, then you don't want your test case to be a whistleblower for whom there may turn out to be wider public sympathy. You want it to be some obvious, incontrovertible scumbag. Plays much, much nicer in the public gallery. That's just how it's done.

Cf. how a more punitive defamation regime in the UK was won on the back not of politicians trying to protect their expenses or some such, but the hacking of a dead teenager's voicemail and various other dirty tricks of the gutter press. This is just the way you do things.
These resources helped me in doing the switch:
- nethack, for getting the hjkl in muscle memory
- watching a few vimcasts
- vim-adventures
I'm sure it's been said many times before but the book Code Conplete 2 is a great follow up read to this article.
A video like this could also be cool to have on the front page.
“Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute. ” - Abelson / Sussman
It is Google's responsibility to be a positive actor in the Internet ecosystem on behalf of end-consumers. If not because it is the "right" thing to do and also essential to the long term vision and success of the company.

Let me be expository on this for a moment, please.

Right now there are three competing visions for the future of the internet:

1. The GNU vision: the internet becomes decentralized and every individual has the tools to replicate and manage small, individual infrastructural tasks.

2. The Google/Microsoft vision, where a series of non-government economic entities create centralized and competing infrastructure while being supervised by governments in the jurisdictions they operate in.

3. The Centrist vision where the internet is essentially a public utility and operated by a quasi-governmental agency or a series of joint governmental agencies.

Currently our Internet is somewhere between 2 and 3, with a lot of talented individuals trying to write software and doing research to make #1 more feasible.

But #1 is inherently never going to work. Moore's law should tip us off, if not the current state of affairs in the world. As software and computing get better, its rate of improvement (or just change, take your pick) increases. This means that it's progressively harder to stay abreast of security, devops, and software products. With the best of intentions but a quintessentially first-world outlook, #1 simply creates a series of digital under-classes and rewards the people with the huge time investment and economic support structure implied by people who are currently good at computers.

#3 could work, but it assumes that Governments ultimately start to shape up and actually reflect the collective will of their population (as contradictory as that can be). It's possible, but I'm a sceptical.

#2 is the closest to working, providing a tension between government and corporation that resembles the tensions present in the American constitution. What's more, economic and technical concerns reward this approach. It's cheaper to centralize computer infrastructure and when done correctly it's a huge cost and materials savings. Competition between said environments also works to keep Corporations focused on the people abandoned by approach #1, keeping their products approachable and with low overhead for starting up.

But if Google is seen to constantly violate their user trust and not act as a sufficiently strong user advocate, eventually the populace will demand scenario #3 be enacted (or something with so much governmental input that it is indistinguishable from #3) and we'll be in a terrible situation.

The biggest benefit to the current system is that Google, Microsoft, and even Baidu all have so much to lose. They need to be receptive to government arguments while all competing with each other.

So yes. Google needs to be a white knight in shining armour because they benefit from user trust in a big way. The benefit in the short term with better engagement and margins. They benefit in the long term with superior positioning and longevity for their corporate rights.
The sad truth about youtube
There's something quite ironic about this statement if you swap out Pinkmeth and nude photographs and replace with US government:

"Pinkmeth has intentionally intruded on Plaintiffs solitude, seclusion or private affairs. Specifically, Pinkmeth gained unauthorized access to nude photographs constituting the property of Plaintiff"
Microsoft working to bring Android apps to all Lumia devices
I've recently begun digging into Haskell; it has a lot of interesting and novel features. However, I can't get over it's syntax. It often uses non-alphanumeric characters in place of function names. Many functions are poorly named, e.g., `elem` vs Python's `in`. I strongly prefer the more natural English style syntax; even when you know a language well, it reads faster. That being said, Haskell is awesome for numerous other reasons.

500 line functions are the devil, they're harder to read, test, modify, and reason about. They tend to encourage code that isn't DRY, or reusable. The only benefit they have is an almost always insignificant performance boost, at the cost of everything else.

Also magic isn't terrible if it's used in moderation, and it's well documented. Though it usually results in things being substantially harder to GREP.
Do you think agricultural schools sit people inside for a month to learn geology and meteorology before they let them step on a farm?

C is important to know, but there's lots of stuff you need to learn before that.
> Good when cannot afford/access a proper IDE.

Or when you don't want one of those at all.
For anything community related, I always read up at feverbee.com. The guy behind it is also worth contacting, extremely knowledgeable.
Yes, exactly this.

If they lose, then there's going to be precedent for when the stakes are high. And I can't see how they can totally escape culpability, since they can't even turn over the source if they wanted to.

The anonymity Tor provides is fundamental from an Internet activist perspective but in the eyes of the law (and the world outside our tech bubble) it's aiding and abetting. There's a reason why we're not allowed to have encrypted landlines.

I don't feel good about this at all.
Not sure if you would like to know some answers to your questions, here are they anyway:

- It's unclear to me whether map is a function which takes two arguments ... or if the first part "map (+1)" evaluates to a function which acts on [1..5]

The latter is true. In Haskell you can pass arguments to functions one at a time each time the result could be a function that takes another argument. You might even say that Haskell functions always take one argument, and that Haskell's function syntax is just a bit of sugaring. The process of returning a function that takes the second argument is called a 'curry' after the man Haskell Curry.

- Is a (+1) a tuple with one item (the function "+1") or is it just similar syntax?

A tuple of 1 is just an expression. The ('s are just to determine expression scope, it's the commas that would make it a tuple. A tuple of 2 would just be 2 expressions bundled together, so I don't think there's a meaningful difference :P
i assume this would be done by looking at the issuing date of the cert and rejecting certs with issuing date > date CA was 'executed'.

however, a CA could just issue certificates with the issuing date in the past. they probably wouldn't do this for real customers because it would be detected easily. however, they could do it for fraudulent customers and it would be a massive temptation for CAs who have no other source of revenue to do this.
Fails Compilation – Fails Compilation Best Fails Year 2014 | 9 July 2014
Some of the WiFi management tools that I've seen can locate a devices to within a 4' radius based on triangulating the signal strength. There may be others that can bring it in to an even more detailed location.

The advantage of iBeacons, of course, is that you can do this cheaply.
Thanks for posting the links, I am guessing the deployment list will grow.
https://plus.google.com/+NickMossie/posts/TB32wTtMSZS
I'm sitting here wondering what possible motivation someone might have for running a site like Pinkmeth. It's one thing to share the amateur porn, but why share the names and locations?
> There's a reason why we're not allowed to have encrypted landlines.

Wait, what? Is that true? It isn't true, as far as I know, in the UK.
Is high-end audio obsolete?
That's a horrible algorithm though, it takes exponential time. Any good implementation of Fibonacci numbers would be logarithmic in the number of arithmetic operations and polynomial in overall running time (because the numbers get bigger). Here's a good implementation in Haskell: http://nayuki.eigenstate.org/res/fast-fibonacci-algorithms/f... , and the same in Python: http://nayuki.eigenstate.org/res/fast-fibonacci-algorithms/f... . BTW, I think even functional programmers would find the Python code slightly easier to follow :-)
That's going to depend on your specific set of edit patterns. When I checked a week ago my core set of patterns were there except for C-i/C-o.
Meh, it's mathematically deterministic. In reality there is always error (modelling error, measurement error, simulation error) which means that chaotic systems are effectively random on long time scales, even though they are technically deterministic.
I've always thought that what makes code hard to read is the fact that several persons are usually working on it.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as we all know. Some developers like snake case, others prefer camel case. Some prefer 4-space indentation, while other can't stand it and much prefer 2 spaces. Some like braces on the same line, some others prefer it on the next line.

What really bothers me is that editors in general force people to share a codebase formatted for a given style that may or may not satisfy everyone.

And the worst is that I don't see why that has to be. Ideally "code" would be some form of abstract syntax tree and the editor would apply a user-generated "stylesheet" on top of it to display the code as the user wants to see it.

Upon save, all the style would go away and only the abstract representation of the code would go to the shared repo.

Not an easy thing to make happen for sure, but that'd be awesome.
Lessons I never expected Canva to teach me
My favorite example is the FPS .kkrieger (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NBG-sKFaB0) which is entirely contained in a 96 KB EXE. Recently I learned the source for that (and other projects) was released a couple years ago, even if in a pretty messy state: https://github.com/blog/1103-ten-years-of-farbrausch-product...

Skimming around I found this snippet at the end of chapter six. Are the authors even aware of .kkrieger?

As we can see, all existing work on generating graphical game has targeted games
in the style of classic arcade games and home console games from the early 80’s, or
simple arcade games. There is still considerable work to be done here, and nobody
has yet constructed a system that could generate novel graphical games of high
quality, comparable to the novel high-quality board games produced by Cameron
Browne’s Ludi system. However, there is also considerable opportunities in devel-
oping game description languages that can effectively and economically describe
other types of games, and game generators that take into account the specific game
design affordances and challenges that come with such games. For example, what
would it take to generate playable, interesting and original FPS games?
Matt Pokora : le nouveau juré de Danse avec les stars
Découvrez prochainement le chanteur Matt Pokora au sein du jury de Danse avec les stars 5. Ce dernier remplacera Shy'm pour cette cinquième édition.
"I can't get over it's syntax"

I think there is a syntactical pain barrier for a lot of languages. However, once you are through that barrier you stop noticing the syntax.

e.g. When I first looked at Python I remember thinking "significant white-space - that is evil". However, I forced myself to write some Python and after a fairly short time I didn't notice that aspect anymore and now I think significant white-space is actually pretty sensible.

I've had similar experiences when starting out with Common Lisp, PostScript and a variety of other things that don't look like a variation on C.

I would agree that Haskell does look a bit weird - but everything looks weird the first time you see it. Indeed, I can remember seeing C for the first time when I was 16 or so (early 80s) and thinking that looked weird compared to the Basic I was used to...
That's a risk you take with all package managers. The ones on linux operate on basically the same principle, with (usually) even less oversight. It's a public gallery that everybody can publish to, so the trust/distrust should be put on the package level, not the platform. Chocolatey also won't install anything unless you ask it to, so if you don't consider them trustworthy, do your homework and check if the package is legit before installing it.
I think DNSchain offers some compatibility with .bit domains, but the real innovation happens with .dns domains?
Reportedly, accessible browsers do support JavaScript well enough. Modern ones are usually based on WebKit. They have to contend with the real world of websites (already) using JS to display content.
There are a number of arguments for funding the thing but from my point of view I like it because it's kind of cool - they've already done some neat stuff. €1.2bn over 724 EU citizens is 1.65/head or a bit less than the typical cup of coffee. For me the stuff they've done already is worth 55% of the 3 euro latte I'm just drinking. See http://vimeo.com/52664485 . Compare with EU agricultural policy with costs about 200 euro per person per year. I'd say ditch subsidising the farmers and fund scientific progress instead.