skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For some reason the link to the other HN thread got downvoted so:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8124119

He got outed.
> "Doctor, it hurts when I do this"

.. though it never used to.

I don't agree with the criticism of the article (though there are plenty of UX reasons to be critical), but this is hardly a punching yourself in the face kind of behaviour.
Eclipse Internet of Things portal
> I also see no way this would work for branching. You would have to change all your submodules.

`git submodule foreach`
Sure you're being paid to program, but do you want to create something from scratch? Do maintenance work? Build internal tools? There must be something interesting you can say. Imagine you're on a first date and you get asked "where do you see this night ending?" You shouldn't say "my place" even though that's what you want. You should say something more charming.

EDIT: If you are interviewing for a startup, a good answer is that you are excited to be a part of something from the very beginning, and being able to shape it as it grows. If it is an established company you can say you are excited to see how an established player has dealt with the challenges of serving a large customer base, etc.
What happened to the old idea that when you observe a quantum system, its wavefunction collapses? Is that not true anymore? It seems like these guys observed it "gently" enough that it only sort of mostly collapsed with some bias?
Don't Trust God
>Wikipedia Zero cannot be sold as part of a bundle. Access
> to the Wikimedia sites through Wikipedia Zero cannot be
>sold through limited service bundles.

Sounds to me like it is ONLY available in some sort of bundles.

This is a brilliant display of the good that non-NN can bring to the world while showing the potential sliding slope. Interesting stuff.
Web Components are the real deal
All flirting jokes aside, this would be a fantastic service for communications within government and corporate environments.

For those in marketing, managing people on the street that are handing out flyers, promotions, etc from one number would be a fantastic asset.

For groups of friends who wholesale stuff on craigslist, having a single point of contact via text would also be great.

Nice concept.
The 'ethical treatment' of animals includes respect for their natural diets. A significant portion of the bio-mass of the planet is genetically architected to consume other animals--they are true carnivores. You might as well go feed the bears in yosemtie a snickers bar. Its not consistent (morally or scientifically) to pretend the world is designed another way. In the same way its not consistent to feed (even) omnivores human-junk-food.
Do you not know how to download apps?

I'm asking this question as seriously as you asked yours. There are apps for markdown, ssh, sftp, ftp, and all sorts of related tools that would let you do this from your phone.
And you're thinking about a workflow in which no one ever uses "git push". If most devs do, and "the XML guy" can't (because someone else needs to look over his commits), that's a headache, which could be solved technically.

Come to think of it, it could be solved technically even with git -- the XML guy's repo gets a pre-commit hook that verifies that he's committing changes only to the files he's allowed to edit. (We're now requiring him not to mess with that hook, but if that's a problem, maybe they shouldn't have source code access at all. The point is that now a tool is doing the checks, which frees up the humans for things that really do require human judgment.)
And it will. There's nothing revolutionary about Stellar. It's a fork of Ripple (the founders of which already cashed out).

Instead of inventing yet another premined coin Stripe should have integrated Ripple.
Smart meters are deployed in massive numbers and maintenance/upkeep of flaky units is an intractable problem. They are BOM-constrained products. So they tend to use dirt-simple bulletproof embedded processors; mostly, MSP430.

So provisioning "2048 bit keys" (more realistically/reasonably: aggressively small ECC keys) is not as simple as pulling them out of the air and assigning them.

On top of that, and for the same reasons I mentioned above, smart meters tend to communicate over very simple RF protocols. There isn't a lot of headroom in those protocols for large moduli or, for that matter, for many round-trips.

I'm not arguing that these systems should be more secure. They obviously should be. I'm disputing that securing them is an easy problem. It is not.

Later

(There are better smart meters, as someone mentioned downthread. But remember also that it is very, very difficult to get cryptography right. It has essentially never been done in the first major deployment of any system.)
I often see people asking feedback from one another regarding how a conversation is going, what another person could have implied, etc. An app to facilitate sharing and collaboration over SMS conversations sounds like an extension of this behavior.

(Not endorsing it, but it doesn't strike me as something that only socially clueless people would use.)
Ah, right -- we've got some odd behavior there as well; newly-shared folders not showing up in particular.

I suspect there are bugs in how the (locally-cached) LastPass vault stays up to date, possibly coupled with a delay on the server side for updates to be propagated to all vaults.

Just from my experience working with encryption... I'll bet the sharing process is fiddly, and they have some unresolved flow problems. E.g., imagine a new folder share offer is encrypted and queued for the recipient's vault, and can't be merged in until the recipient next signs in... but depending on their browser plugin settings, they may only sign in once every few weeks. So the plugin pings for queued updates and can send up auth keys... but already we're getting into enough complexity that bugs would be likely.

(I don't actually know how their folder sharing functions, but deploying encryption where the server only occasionally has the keys can quickly make simple requirements turn into Rube Goldburg contraptions...).

In our case, the shared folders eventually showed up for everyone (we specifically tried signing out of LastPass and restarting browsers... though I don't think we quite nailed down an "always works" solution), and once the basic shared folders were set up, it was smoother sailing.
He is a scientist; unless you're also a domain expert in his field with at least as much expertise as him, or a newcomer with radically impressive work, you can't just not call him a scientist because he disagrees with you. If a domain expert disagrees with you, it is probably because you are wrong. That's just the base rate and it's probably true here as well.

Traditionally, replication hasn't been done in psychology because the experiments have to be set up in really clever complicated ways in order to tease out effects. Even the most dedicated replicator can't ever fully replicate a psychology experiment. You'd have to ship the actors used as confederates across the country to do that and of course nobody does that. It's foolish to think any psych study has ever been replicated.

The way psychologists deal with this is the concept of converging operations. This has to do more with being clever and considering implications of a thing you're trying to study with respect to other theories you have much more evidence for and in different situations. If you think stereotype threat is a thing, for example, it would make sense for stereotype boost to exist if the stereotype is positive. If a priming effect speeds up the recognition of "doctor" after a subject has been shown "nurse", maybe recognition for "warmth" will be slower after a subject has been shown "frozen". If people only encode based on schema variables, they'll be unable to remember information unrelated to a schema even if they're provided with congruent encoding cues.

Converging operations is just studying the same concept from different angles and seeing if you keep seeing consistent results. If the results aren't consistent the hypothesis you're investigating will, in fact, die. Psychology is an advancing science as of right now. If people were just publishing random noise there'd be no reason for concepts to fall out of favor.

I think people on hacker news tend to wildly underestimate the degree of skill involved in experimental psychology. So much of statistics, even, has come out of psychology because of the need to refine and clarify what effect you're seeing.

Alternatively, if you think because of this existing academic psychology is lacking, you're in a fantastic place to be. Do literally anything to get some seed money, just working in a standard SDE job would be fine, and then run some small experiments (and replicate them, of course) on learning or addiction. Then write the next Farmville or build the next Facebook. If there's really that much low-hanging fruit, go out and pluck it. Put up or shut up.
What smart meter brands (and in which models) actually support this protocol? I haven't seen it running anywhere. Is this more common outside the US?
Here's the official namesake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertha_Knight_Landes
You could only come up with two things that no one ever runs in to?

Git has tons of problems but neither of these are important problems.
How to lose a potential user
Is there a reason that a country cannot just let someone in if they want, even without a valid passport? What exactly is preventing his travel if everybody is OK with it except for the USA?
Applications in customer service, sales and CRM.
Automation and Disruption in Stolen Payment Card Markets [pdf]
https://twitter.com/EverettForth/status/495725720464023552
Hal Abelson disagrees with you. "Computer Science is a terrible name for this business. First of all, its not a science. It might engineering, or it might be art. But we'll actually see that computer -- so-called science -- actually has a lot in common with magic."[1]

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQLUPjefuWA
The prizes are ridiculously low.

Netflix did it right.

Stop being so greedy, Yelp.
That's true. I simplified for the sake of not delving too far into the details, because it makes sense at the smaller level. It's also true that a commit isn't always just one pointer to the commit that came before it, in a merge there are two pointers, from commit_head and merge_head
The error message is unhelpful and requests the user to submit a bug report. I would argue this is not good behavior no matter how absurd the input is.
Really curious what you think
Gameplay App Turns Android Device To A Gamepad
Can just git pull --rebase too instead of fetch/rebase.
I follow your rule, but with a slight tweak - only rebase on non-master branches, and before having pushed. After that it's out the window
Editing the commits has always seemed the inappropriate fix. Editing commit messages and tagging commits seems like a more reasonable approach - tag a commit as a typo/mistake/intermediary and tag the "build-ready" commits as such.
Our background is in sales, service, marketing strategy :)
>git rebase enables users to rewrite history which subverts what should be the main, if not only, function of a version control system.

This is a common complaint but it's based on a preconceived notion of the word "history" rooted in intuition instead of re-evaluating what "history" means in the universe of Git. (Actually the generalized universe of DVCS and not just Git.)

One type of "history" is something immutable and suitable for forensics. Examples such as a history log file of changed bytes written to database blocks. This history must be perfect and unchangeable or things like db recovery and master+slave replication will not work. Another example is "history" of financial credits and debits across accounts. That type of "history" shouldn't be changed because it would render financial audits and fraud investigations useless.

In Git, there's another perspective on "history". It is a "history for public dissemination" which is very different purpose than database log history or financial accounts transaction history. Since the "D" in DVCS is "distributed", it's this "history for public consumption" that expands how "history" should be viewed in Git/DVCS.

If you're working 100% local private repository and never collaborating with others, you can avoid rebase and just do merges. However, as a social courtesy to other distributed programmers, rebase is a cleaner public presentation of new changes for others to see/review. Whether you did your work against on a public tree you pulled down on Monday or Wednesday makes no difference to people upstream looking at your changes. Rebase eliminates a lot of noise.

It's letting go of forensics type history and embracing social public consumption type of history. This type of disseminated history was important enough that Mercurial also added an extension for it[1]

[1]http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/RebaseExtension
Pulling is equivelent to doing a fetch then a merge. Unless you plan on doing something between the two steps (like inspecting FETCH_HEAD yourself), then there is no advantage to not simply pulling.

Of course, if (like thrush) you do not plan on doing a merge, then you will need to do the fetch manually and do what you do want to do. Although, git pull does have a --rebase option, but I am not sure if you can pass the -i flag to it.

Having taught people how to use git, I found that it is easier to not show them the pull command until they are used to doing fetch && merge.
Exerpt from http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/itprnn/book.pdf (page 564):

"Deconvolution in humans

A huge fraction of our brain is devoted to vision. One of the neglected features of our visual system is that the raw image falling on the retina is severely blurred: while most people can see with a resolution of about 1 arcminute (one sixtieth of a degree) under any daylight conditions, bright or dim, the image on our retina is blurred through a point spread function of width as large as 5 arcminutes (Wald and Grison, 1947; Howarth and Bradley , 1986). It is amazing that we are able to resolve pixels that are twenty-five times smaller in area than the blob produced on our retina by any point source. Isaac Newton was aware of this conundrum. It's hard to make a lens that does not have chromatic aberration, and our cornea and lens, like a lens made of ordinary glass, refract blue light more strongly than red. Typically our eyes focus correctly for the middle of the visible spectrum (green), so if..."

I recommend the read for those interested. There's even an experiment you can do yourself to experience your own eyes limitations!
Also relevant but not really talked about on HN much: http://www.crowdpilot.me/
Putting your nonsense accusations and political correctness hypersensitivity aside, can you please provide us with a better single-word term that precisely describes something (such as an argument or a justification) that's so narrowly and uncompromisingly focused so as to totally miss how society at large will interpret it?

And, please, be serious about this. Suggesting words like "intolerant" or "wrong" wouldn't be helpful, obviously. If you have such a problem with the term used previously, provide us with one that offers just as much meaning, but isn't "offensive" to people who are overly sensitive.
Introducing the 1Password App Extension for iOS 8 apps
Open semantic data sources? That's very vague. :) Freebase?
"Nothing could be further from the truth" is an explicit denial.
The computations just get more technical. So in research it's rare to "know" a computation in the sense that I think you mean because it's different almost every time you apply it. A common example is rounding linear programs to integer solutions for the purpose of approximation (or exact solutions, as the case may be). There is almost no way to tell in advance if it will work, and most problems require significantly different versions of this technique. There are many textbooks showcasing the many variations. So you might need days or weeks before you figure out if it will work on your problem, and then it's a "standard calculation" only in retrospect.

People really don't compute things "on the fly" in mathematics. When you hear stories about Gauss these are folk legends about people with extraordinary practiced abilities, and the majority of the mathematical world doesn't work like that. People do the grunt calculations offline so they can spend their time in talks/discussions doing actual work.
sqrt(2) sounds like a doodle to me, something you do to distract yourself while considering another problem.

For some reason I developed the habit of sketching an Escher Cube* (with a cross in the middle) when I was in highschool, I still do it when my mind is blank.

*Perhaps it isn't Escher after all, I cannot find an image online. It is an impossible 3d cube where each corner crosses through the centre.
- Use better data structures that map well to the problem you're solving.
- Use caching.
- Use an actual database, if you aren't already.
- If you're CPU-bound, rewrite it in a faster language. If you need speed, C or Java is the only way to get it. Javascript is also surprisingly fast. Even Python is a factor of ~ 2 faster than Ruby.
> Just because we can break dumb mechanisms like these just means we have to show restraint. :/

Dumb mechanisms inherent in a cryptocurrency should be broken early and often. This is just one inherent in Ripple/Stellar. Everett is a hacker hero.
I'll grant you that, although I get the impression it's largely someone wanting to have fun with oddities of the language. Although I wouldn't necessarily go as far as to claim that it's "marveling [sic] at the weirdness of the perfectly logical result"--there are some PHP behaviors that are just plain strange.

On the other hand, had you written "perfectly logical result (within the confines of PHP's idea of what's logical)," then I might be inclined to agree.

But yes, I made the mistake of linking the site without re-examining it. I recall seeing it first from HN some time ago (probably 2010ish) and thought it might have improved. I do believe I may have indicated its quality isn't on par with wtfjs.org, however. Take it as you will.
> say the doc string has a typo and you already merged in, are you suggesting you rather see a separate commit rather than rebase it

You probably mean amending an existing commit, not rebasing. Gerrit encourages repeatedly amending a commit to incorporate review feedback, thereby erasing history from git.

And why NOT have the typo fix as a separate commit? Are you paying by the SHA1 hash? The thing is, you aren't really keeping a clean history, you're just redirecting it to another, less flexible abstraction layer. The complete history is still in gerrit for anyone to look at, but now it can't participate in git blame, git bisect, etc.

> For real project, before I merge in, a code review is necessary

But this is just begging the question. Why is it necessary to do a code review before a merge, instead of after?
Comments on Bitlicense (Proposed Bitcoin Regulations)
U.S. IT investment as a share of gdp
Git is overrated.

No, it's pretty widely regarded as a good, but not perfect, DVCS.

Complex, confusing terminology including multiple non-obvious names for various components.

DVCS is inherently complex. Git's terminology might possibly be improved, but it's not really all that bad. It just requires a bit of learning.

Huge number, about 148, of commands with many sub-commands that often do non-obvious, even unrelated things.

That's the same point. There are a lot of tasks to accomplish in a DVCS, which requires a lot of commands. You don't have to use these: they just have to be available for those that need them.

git rebase enables users to rewrite history which subverts what should be the main, if not only, function of a version control system.

Rebasing allows a user to rewrite history such that it makes sense, in terms of the changesets applicable to the repository as a whole. That's not a subversion - it's intentional.

Git has been … reconstructing what happened from the rebased "history" can be a nightmare.

This is a workflow problem, not a tool problem.

There are numerous commands to do similar, overlapping but nonetheless different tasks. If for example you want to back up to earlier versions of code you can do git revert, git reset --hard, git reset --soft, git checkout -- <SHA>, git checkout <SHA> -- all of which do different but overlapping things.

This is the same thing as your first two points. These command all do similar, overlapping tasks, but are all useful in different circumstances.

A supposed virtue of git is that it makes it extremely easy to create "branches." This often leads to a proliferation of branches

Yes, and git's lightweight branches are great. I have never been in a situation where this causes problems; if you are encountering those, then you have a problem with workflow. Don't blame the tools.

Cryptic hexadecimal SHA for identifying commits instead of sequential numbers for individual files

I don't even know how you think that would work in the context of a DVCS.

* These many flaws in git and its command line interface have resulted in a proliferation of third-party add-on tools*

That "third party tools exist" is not a valid complaint.

Lack of backward compatibility with RCS-style version control systems like Subversion. Instead of building on 30+ years of success and experience with RCS-style version control systems, but extending them sensibly for distributed projects, Git took a "reinvent the wheel badly" approach.

Git can be used in almost the same fashion as SVN by learning that a couple of commands have different names.

A fanatical, cult-like following apparently mesmerized by Linus Torvalds that is unable to recognize or acknowledge the many obvious problems with Git.

Not that I've observed. Git is popular because it's quite good - equivalent or better to other DVCS systems. That's not a cult of personality.

tldr; git isn't that bad - it's quite complex, and it's a powerful tool that relies on users to be responsible. But that's not really a bad thing, as far as I'm concerned. It's certainly better than subversion for every project I've worked on.
True, False, FileNotFound
How many times am I going to have to re-buy this app? I would love to just buy install it once for each device and then pay a subscription and have the versions all just update everywhere. As it is right now I only use it on my laptop because I still have not upgraded on my iOS devices and the sync between v3 (the version I own for iPhone and Mac) is not that great.

Are there alternatives to this situation? I can't go back to not using a password manager.
“The sage speaks of what he sees”: War Games and the New Spirit of Capitalism
Nice! I'm trying to convince my brother to use similar techniques in his game to allow the environment to respond to music played by the user.
Is your goal to get into YC or have a successful startup?

If your goal is to get into YC, go find yourself a warm body to be co-founder or join numerous others looking to get into YC but don't have teams. Of course, as a YC alum (Nikkey or someone from Australia, can't recall exact detail) wrote in the blog post, be prepared for the situation when co-founder bales out on you after getting YC stamp.

If your goal is to have a successful startup and business, focus on growing your business, gaining traction, gaining customers, building product, getting revenue and not on getting into YC. You don't need a co-founder or YC stamp to start a business or have a successful business. While working on your startup, if you meet someone who fancies as a potential good co-founder, explore to bring them onboard, otherwise continue focusing on growing your startup.

IME, more successful people become, more tunnel vision they get. There is more than one way to any destination.
5) No programming on the standardized tests.