skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Solar is priced at the peak output. So 1w solar produces ~8h * 365d * 15 = ~43.8kwh over 15 years.

Note, solar lasts longer that than 15 years, but has reduced output as it ages. Also, a major advantage over traditional investments is your saving money which is untaxed and it keeps up with inflation. Generally making it a much better investment than most bonds.

A 15 year home loan at 6% is a net win even on a ~5$/w solar system vs 10c/kwh electricity in most of the US.

PS: Though for real savings your better going for solar hot water / home heating that generally pays for it's self in under 3 years.
EverettForth's response: [How I Accumulated 2-Million Stellar in Less Than 24 Hours] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8126282

Everett's response is much appreciated. If I remember correctly, he asked mTurkers to create a Stellar account _without_ an identifiable account name so the transaction couldn't be easily backtracked. Also, he did not use his real name in mTurk and impersonated someone else. Not sure if his actions violated the ToS.

It was right for Everett to have come forward and disclose his means. His suggestions to improve the system are excellent. It will improve the Stellar system for everyone involved. Nevertheless, I believe that he should donate his balance to a charity. It will be an honorable thing to do.

Sandro
re: the "Impractical for single repository of libraries" section... The author seems to think the only way to manage many different plugins is to split them into different repos: "If you have e.g. 100 plugins, you should have 100 repos."

Many times, 1 repo works perfectly fine for 100 plugins. As for wanting to only work with a subset of the files, the way git wants you to do that is to branch and change the subset you want to change (someone else has already pointed that out too here in the comments). What to split into how many repos is often a very subjective call, and depends on team, respository size, and workflow.

A real-world example where 1 repo works perfectly fine is the Linux kernel. Within one repo, you have all sorts of drivers for all sorts of hardware, and you have arch-specific support for a dizzying amount of processors and variants. The repo takes a while to clone the first time since it's kind of big, but thereafter works perfectly fine as you whizz between branches and jump between tags.

On some level, I understand the author's frustration with git, since it's quite a paradigm shift from centralized repos like Subversion. I made that shift myself once, and at first I didn't like being forced to play by git's rules of the universe (or more correctly, the DVCS rules of the universe). I have come to deeply appreciate those new rules over time.

There are, in fact, valid criticisms of git. One that comes to mind is the complexity and amount of operations... looks like others have already commented on this sort of criticism.
Of course, this assumes he tells the truth. ;)

Personally, I just use random aliases of two words [e.g. open+dais] that are meaningless and use them for things. If asked me age, I lie, etc.

You can poison the well pretty effectively as long as it isn't RL.
Must I have a degree in the field of research related to this study in order to have a valid opinion on the torment, suffering, and eventual euthanization of 20 innocent monkeys?
Sounds like the author has a workflow problem here. Most of the reasons given of why Git sucks could be from the OP's inability to adapt their workflow.

SCM is a matter of choice; there is no right or wrong answer and people need to get over being right.
So an RE failed and flipped to the secondary. They run mlag from the agg layer to their tors. Said mlag had a grey failure. The time to recovery was predominantly fault detection. After detection they upgraded the os on the known good switch. Presumably this bounced, affecting remaining traffic. After upgrade they downed the failed switch, shifting traffic to the known good.

Moderately interesting that they run everything off a single agg pair. Also that they use mlag instead of routing/mpls/etc for availability.

Key finding is lack of visibility in to the layer 2 availability and performance. Would be interestin to see if they try to ecmp layer 3 or use existing lacp frames for fault detection in the future.
Show HN: Ringator – A summary of the best value diamonds
I actually thought it is way too much. People are filling surveys for cents there, after all.
I know there are clever people working on this, but I can't see how any system based on handing out free money can really work.

"Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt leaves as legal tender, we have, of course all become immensely rich."
>desktop computers haven't got much better in the last 10 years or so

I'm sorry, that's just utterly ludicrous. Even if we're just talking about CPUs, the fastest desktop Intel chip in 2004 was the Pentium 4!
Yes, you're able to confirm this by setting:

ulimit -s unlimited
I wish I did. I can say that watching a lot of Rich Hickey's talks and Gary Bernhardt's Destroy All Software screencasts have made me a better programmer in general, and that has carried over into my Node development practices.

Here's a few nuggets that will help you:

- Use promises instead of callbacks, specifically Q. Don't let anyone tell you the performance will hurt you - I guarantee that promise execution time is not your bottleneck.

- Use event listeners for things like kicking off email notifications.

- Use Mandrill for sending those emails.

- Use promises.

- MySQL is still good tech.

- Use Sequelize to make using MySQL/Postgres not hurt.

- Abstract into middleware when you can.

- Bogart > Express.

- Use promises.

- Use dependency injection (Omni-DI is a good library for this).

- Route handlers are for orchestration, not core business operations.

- Avoid for loops. Prefer Array methods like forEach, map, reduce, and filter.

- Use promises.

I plan on doing more writing about this sort of thing when I have time.
Is the answer 'use a better tool'?
Hey rmorabia, why is it different than twitter or fb pages ?

First, we are focused to provide a native, ephemeral and anonymous app : You can create or subscribe to notifications channels without any registration or whatsoever.
Next, we only provide push notifications, no less, no more. There is absolutely no content on the app beside channels managements ans sending notifications.
Finally, you don't have an username, you can create a thousand channels if you want(with our open and free api). You can create ephemeral channels too.

Example : You have a flight, you add +AA7658 and you start receiving notifications about your boarding. Once your flight has taken off, the channel auto-destruct. Period.
Sounds like you were bit by rebasing, rather than by git itself.

Yes, the API is large and complex. But git itself is easy to learn, and extremely powerful. Whatever situation you might have gotten yourself into, git probably has a good way to handle it.

There's one rule I abide by, which makes my git usage sane: no rebasing. Everything stays in the history, and there's no reason to squash commits into one giant context-less commit.

The only common case in which rebasing is valuable is in getting rid of meaningless commits constantly merging the latest master into a feature branch.
Used both too, the main reason we are moving away from SVN is the hell created when something deletes a folder outside of SVN. Storing .svn inside every single folder creates a world of pain with web apps that update themselves.
Compared to Reddit as a whole, yes, but that's because Reddit is a collection of disparate subreddits, not a single common area. Slashdot had 5.5 million users in its heyday, which is on the same order of magnitude of the biggest subreddits.
> In Git, you can checkout neither a single folder nor a file.

Yes, you can. It's called sparse checkout[1] and not that hard.
Also, you can subtree merge[2][3] directories back and forth preserving all the history and merging back if you wish (cutting a directory out of the repository to a separate one and putting it back). It's pretty easy to do in git>2.0 because there is a builtin subtree command[4] for it.

[1]: https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-read-tr...

[2]: https://help.github.com/articles/about-git-subtree-merges

[3]: http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Tools-Subtree-Merging

[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3926683
Everett's response is much appreciated.

Per my original HN post last night which broke the story [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8124119], I still think that he gamed the system. If I remember correctly, he asked mTurkers to create a Stellar account _without_ an identifiable account name so the transaction couldn't be easily backtracked. Also, he did not use his real name in mTurk and impersonated someone else. Not sure if his actions violated the ToS.

It was right for Everett to have come forward and disclose his means. His suggestions to improve the system are excellent. It will improve the Stellar system for everyone involved. Nevertheless, I believe that he should donate his balance to a charity. It will be an honorable thing to do.

Sandro
Ah sorry "tweeting" is an action to post a tweet. I thought that's what they meant.
> o Git has been bundled with code review systems like Gerrit which encourages developers to rebase heavily to create a false history presenting themselves as fantasy 10X programmers who don't make mistakes, debug, engage in trial and error, or all the other things developers actually do. When a bug does slip through as if often does despite the supposed quality-control benefits of code review, then reconstructing what happened from the rebased "history" can be a nightmare.

I've never seen anyone do that in a professional environment. My coworkers laugh at me because my most common commit text?

"fixed XYZ??"

Sometimes, multiple times in a row.

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

I think this stems from hanging out in online forums. Git is flawed.

Git's virtues are the size of its ecosystem, the fact it is distributed, and the fact it is useful to some people.
> Both of the statements in that link are just tautologies...

I do not understand, and there are four statements, not two.

> Right. And I'm saying that, in my experience teaching, it's better to teach CS and then let programming be something that kind of just falls out of that naturally, as opposed to focusing on programming itself.

Where did I say that the focus should purely be on programming?
Thats a loaded question and bit paranoid IMO. Has the secret police come to anyones house in the US? All the stuff NSA is doing is not to raid your house. My stance was and is:

that Domestic Spying is wrong but Snowden revealed international espionage way more than domestic. I am fine with international espionage its why I pay taxes and if the USA stops guess whats going to happen via China ?
Partly because the terminology tends to be slightly different than other source code control systems use. Also partly because if you do any research on git usage patterns you will find like 6 totally different ways you can use git to do roughly what you used to do in svn, and any one of the options you choose of those will have pages and pages of blog posts explaining why doing it that way is stupid and wrong and you should really do it in this other of the 6 ways, with no real authoritative explanation of when you should use which pattern.

The end result is a situation where you have to learn a lot about how git works internally to actually have an idea if how you are using it makes sense or not in relation to your project.

git isn't nearly opinionated enough for simple usage patterns, IMO. I like the flexibility it offers but it would be nice for new adopters if it were more hidden and there was a more obvious "happy n00b path" to take when first starting with it for the majority of projects that don't have the sort of distributed development challenges that the linux kernel does.

Note: I'm not the OP and I'm really comfortable with git now, but I've been where OP is and totally understand.
This looks to be an assertion failure, i.e. code that was thought to be unreachable is not. So there's no evidence that any of the negatives of C++ (memory safety, etc.) are in play here.
Weird Supernova May Blow Away Star Explosion Theories
> Git has been bundled with code review systems like Gerrit which encourages developers to rebase heavily to create a false history presenting themselves as fantasy 10X programmers who don't make mistakes,

I am not sure if I understood you correctly... 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?

My workflow can be different depending on what I do. For most personal projects, since I am the only audience, I will just rebase as many times as I want. However, I would use git's branching for experimental stuff if I don't want to touch the master branch. For professional / real OSS I will create new branch, submit pull request and merge in. For real project, before I merge in, a code review is necessary. And I keep my work using git's branch or mercurial's patch queue.

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

Yes, this is obviously the first thing that makes me unhappy. I switch between git and mercurial and sometimes after using one or the other for far too long, I will forget the correct syntax. I wish both will just work together and standardize a set of command once and for all.
Sorry, I can't provide a list.
That statement reveals a stunningly large unconscious bias. Let us assume that Study A produces result X, and Study B failed to reproduce it. Let us take for the sake of argument an assumption that one of these studies is flawed.

Which one is it?

You can not tell.

There is an old saying: "A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segal%27s_law
Honestly, I'm mainly just angry someone went out and basically ignored the fact multiple people told Stellar this would happen. Then went and did it.
Use Magit, it's great.
You've just invented CaaS: "Cyrano as a service".

I'm not sure what this says on the state of Western civilization, but it's the sort of app that could easily be covered by mainstream newspapers, so you must be onto something. Good luck!
Yup this is exactly it. For developers fluent in git, it is a very real part of their development cycle (branching, rebasing, etc). What I've seen of most SVN (and going back to CVS) is that their SCM is more or less just an archiving tool. A place after you've done all your hard work you use it as a fancy rsync tool to back it up. I don't see a lot of SVN users making svn the same part of their workflow the way git devs do. Maybe it's just the developers I work with though.
I don't get the "rebasing sucks" argument about why git is bad, at all. Most professional arenas will have a source control best practices document, how hard is it to say "no rebasing allowed"? Just because a feature exists does not mean it has to be used or even should ever be used.
Justdropapp: "Thanks chagan! Hey rmorabia, why is it different than twitter or fb pages ? First, we are focused to provide a native, ephemeral and anonymous app : You can create or subscribe to notifications channels without any registration or whatsoever. Next, we only provide push notifications, no less, no more. There is absolutely no content on the app beside channels managements ans sending notifications. Finally, you don't have an username, you can create a thousand channels if you want(with our open and free api). You can create ephemeral channels too.
Example : You have a flight, you add +AA7658 and you start receiving notifications about your boarding. Once your flight has taken off, the channel auto-destruct. Period."
I still have my newton and every time I power it up to show it to someone, I'm blown away at how good it is. Even the hand writing recognition is pretty solid. Interface, capabilities - decidedly ahead of its time.
In my experience, these solutions are like passive income; you spend more effort upfront, but save in the long run.

I've managed dynamic blogs in the past (first using Dotclear, then Wordpress), and I had to be constantly installing security updates and making sure the backups were being correctly made. Backups on Pelican come for free, since it's all on git and on your machine(s) in the first place.
Thanks, toyg!
I modded you up because clang is written in C++ and even if I didn't know this I'd suspect it because segfaults in languages that are not weakly typed (i.e., C and C++) are incredibly rare.

There are better languages to write compilers in. OCaml is one.
...well, quite a lot actually, because 20 year olds are more like other humans than different.

Humans don't have life stages. We don't wrap ourselves in cocoons and change from grubs into butterflies from ages 16-20. For most of human existence, 20-25 year olds were the substantial power holders.

There's a branch of psychology called developmental psychology. It has to do with how humans change over time. If developmental psychologists only studied undergraduates, we wouldn't have a good grasp of the area, but they don't. It's pretty easy to get kids and elderly people to study. It's even pretty easy to get adults to study. It's more expensive than undergraduates, but it's doable.

Beyond that, what sort of differences do you expect to see in areas like, say, input attention, working memory, fluid intelligence, social behavior, perception, motor control, etc.? 18-22 year olds are pretty much normal adults in all of those regards.

The thing that makes this really insignificant is that we know so little about how minds work. Psychology has only really existed since Skinner and behaviorism made it a real science. If I spent 10 seconds I could think of nice, clever-sounding retorts as to why the perception system of a 22 year old is vastly different from the perception system of a 32 year old, but in reality we know almost nothing and learning anything is good. As Heinlein said, it's wrong to think the world is a sphere, but it's much better than thinking the world is flat.

These discussions about replication always sadden me, because they miss the point by so much. Psychology is one of the least respected and yet most vital sciences. The problem is that everyone is a lay expert, because everyone has a mind and thinks they understand how minds work. Psychology has taught us so many valuable, horrible and beautiful things about ourselves.

If you're reasonably intelligent, you can come up with reasons not to believe anything. It's easy to discredit things. It's hard to build things.

(It's also false that psychology studies are only performed on undergrads, usually undergrads are a good pilot testing base and then you move on to externally recruited populations, unless there's really no reason to do so based on the field.)
Why would you tell people this?
It's impressive how a software became a defacto standard when things like mercurial or SVN existed long before it.It's not just hype or Github,though it helps.It's the distributed nature of the software that makes it powerfull, also the fact that git itself is more like a protocol than a piece of software.But git dont work for every use cases though( big binary blobs ),so there is still room on the market for such cases.
Thanks for the idea - I'll try and add this today
Maybe a new constitution amendment could be created to protect legitimate whistle blowers... since you can't count on politicians/Obama to do the right thing.
We're aiming this at people who can get/already have a visa. I haven't specifically mentioned it on the front page, as I think most people who would consider applying for this would already understand the visa situation. I have mentioned the requirement on the actual "apply" page, however.
The idea of Git is that everybody has their own local copy of a whole repo so it doesn't really matter what they do with it or if they mess it up. If other people want to merge the changes to their repos they will see what was changed and what wasn't so if you get pull request from "XML only guy" you just verify if only XML files were changed.
You seem to think about it in terms of one master which isn't Git way.
Maybe the answer is to perform distributed research by default. Design experiments and have them conducted by unrelated teams in different locations.
Don't pay for Reflector. Throw JetBrains some more money - DotPeek [1] integrates nicely with ReSharper, or you can use it on its own for free.

I think the latest build can also provide PDBs to Visual Studio on the fly by acting as a source server (insane).

After years of Reflector being a free tool, Redgate added a time-bomb to new downloads and released a statement [2]

[1]: http://www.jetbrains.com/decompiler/

[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20110205074826/http://www.red-ga...
"I never felt that type of pain with SVN, it more or less just maps to directories."

Ironically, that's one of my major fatal objections to SVN, the way it casually encourages developers to have a code checkout that doesn't actually exist in the source repo, as you check out various versions in various subdirectories without even thinking about it if you aren't careful. Back in my SVN days I lost track of how many times it worked on somebody else's box and not on mine, because one or the other of us (or both!) had a checkout that didn't actually represent any particular revision.

"Well, don't do that then!" Of course not, but A: I can still be bitten by other developers doing it and B: SVN really, really affords this. By accident, sure, but it is afforded nonetheless.

In fact in a lot of ways SVN vs. Git reminds me of static vs. dynamic typing... many of the "easier" things that SVN does are also wrong, and many of the things that people are objecting to about git are actually the underlying model being correct, and refusing to be wrong. I don't mean the UI, which is sort of dodgy, sure, but the underlying model.

(Git submodules are sort of that way... in many ways, the difficulties in using them are reflective of the fact that correctly embedding one source code repo in another is actually fundamentally hard, and anything that makes it easy is probably just glossing over some fundamental problems. It is probably possible to make it easier, but if it has been made easy, one should immediately be very suspicious.)
I hire people. I ask this question because I sincerely want to know if there is a good fit. If you are honest and I am honest then we start off a little better with a higher probability of having a good working relationship.

I also ask this because I want to know if you are a curious, growing, learning organism. We want those. We don't want 9 to 5 people. Tell the truth. Why start off lying?

The truth will come out soon enough. Why hang out for a few weeks and get bounced because of a wrong fit? It's bad for everyone.

But then that's our shop. We do it our way. In Dilbertville it is probably different. But you get to choose your life, so why not do it right?

EDIT: if you answered me "I like programming. You're hiring programmers" and you showed me you really did like it, that would be a winning answer in my book. I hire tax professionals. Someone who says they really really like the hard core "work out the numbers" paperwork would be exactly what I want. Or someone who loves to figure out seemingly intractable problems.

So I think your throwaway answer is probably the best one. Say it with a laugh and then follow up with something that shows you REALLY like programming. Winner.
World Talk Rock Report With Kat Vecchione and Chuck Skull 08/02
I remember reading that and reeling, shocked that anyone could write and sign their name to that. Whenever I am pessimistic about my chances in science, I remember that that guy has a job at Harvard.