skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is really a fantastic, in-depth article, and highlights a lot of pieces about Motorola's history of which I was totally unaware. The breadth of their innovations was far greater than I realized, and the early decision to set up a world class shop in China seems to be very visible today in that area of the world.

That the internal competitions eventually led to internal war between different "tribes" doesn't totally surprise me. It seems you always read about that eventually happening in the post-mortem of any company with that type of structure. I wonder if there's a good way to balance internal competition. I imagine you would have to keep close watch on the overall silo-ing of each department.

I'm from the Chicago area, and I remember driving by their campus many times over the years as a kid, only really having an idea that they were somehow involved in phones. I was in high school when the Razr came out, and based on how popular it was I thought Motorola was an absolutely world-dominating company, not a business on the rebound from extremely heady heights.
Undefined behavior isn't limited to from that point on, it can have terribly surprising consequences.

A great example at: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2014/06/27/10537...
Based on the Glasgow Coma Scale, people with Locked-In Syndrome _are also in comas, technically_. Figuring it out seems remarkably hard, and is almost certainly wildly under-detected. I'd be interested to see if we are able to use tools like this to discover whether our assumptions about comatose states are at all accurate.

Also, of course, the obvious Inception-oriented ideas would be good to test out as well.
About 15 years ago I saw Paul Kwiat at UIUC give a talk on "Interaction Free Measurements" which seems to be effectively the same thing as here. (cf http://physics.illinois.edu/people/kwiat/interaction-free-me... )
I could never figure out why this did not get more attention at the time
Wait, what do you mean by "complicity"?

Mass surveillance and the large scale violation of privacy is Google's core business model. I was assuming she was referring to that, and not any NSA-related conspiracy allegations. (And although this may be coincidental, Google recently announced they will be targeting children, circumventing the law by tempting parents into consenting.)
http://floored.com just jams for me in chrome on osx; I just see a rotating blue triangle and nothing else
Codefund – Crowdfunding for Aspiring Coders
What Happened to NASA's Valkyrie Robot at the DRC Trials, and What's Next
Hi Hacker News,

I want to introduce Codefund, a crowdfunding platform for aspiring coders. We have built a platform that enables users to crowdfund their tuition after being accepted into a programming bootcamp.

Our first campaign is now live, and we're fundraising for Rose Afriyie, who has been accepted into the Starter League (http://www.starterleague.com/) in Chicago. She's hoping to learn web development in order to continue building mRelief, a social services app she is developing in partnership with the City of Chicago.

Check out her campaign here: https://www.codefund.io/campaign/rose

twitter: @codefunding

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Codefund is the bootstrapped project of Adrian Moses and Dana Alibrandi. Adrian is a software engineer with a keen mind for good products, and I'm a product manager filling in the gaps. We're aware that there are holes in our product, but we feel like this platform is something that should exist in the world. Maybe its current iteration isn't the ideal, but if you agree that we should find a way to help diversify and bolster the tech industry, then we'd love to hear your feedback on how to improve.

And most importantly, donate if you believe in the campaign and want to see Codefund grow :)
The program starts the stream of frames and then blocks/jams it after receiving the first frame.
You might find NASA's page on warp drives interesting.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/warpstat_p...
Well, she did it before resigning, which is pretty unprofessional imho.

I say this because, a Director position is a pretty "in-the-spotlight" position to hold, and therefore anything you say reflects on your company even if you state they are personal views.
The largest door in the kitchen is the refrigerator door. Kitchen equipment with front panels matching the furniture panels are quite popular (refrigerators can be bought without front panels, panels can be then bought together with furniture to match it exactly).
If you didn't know Scrabble I'd ask you to code another game. The fact that it's non-trivial is kind of the point; you have to ask questions (gather requirements) to do it.
Does this work internationally or is it US only?
It was just an example. You're completely doing the double standard thing the OP is going on about. PHP and C++ are very comparable in how much they nearly encourage programmer mistakes, yet somehow in PHP it's the language's fault, and in C++ the programmer's just an idiot.
If I may expand the scope of the Q a bit, specific advice for the middle-ground of Benefit Corporations would be very welcome as well.
I was really hoping for a continuous (rather than discrete) fourth dimension. The concept is cool and looks to be well executed, but it's not very different from other alternate reality implementations such as the Dark World in Legend of Zelda.
Is Hypercard always mentioned in 'make programming easier' manifestos because it was really easy or because we remember it nostalgically? I used it a few times in school but can't remember much about it. Never really got into programming in it much.
Coding on a whiteboard is also impossible or infeasible for candidates with some kinds of disabilities (e.g. blind). Sure, you can make an exception for those few candidates, but I suppose the fact that you even have to make an exception to your normal process for a particular candidate might bias you against that candidate.
Being able to memorize things is valuable to a developer. I'm with you that other things are more valuable, but you don't always have to make a trade-off.
Unless 3d space is 'wrinkled'; in 4D you could travel straight there. Imagine a crumpled sheet - the 2D traveler would have to trace a route through all the convolutions to reach the other end of the sheet. The 3D traveler may only have inches to go. 'A Wrinkle in Time' was a story about this.
"Is that not something you could solve with more employees? If the task does not lend to parallelization, let each team work 2k weeks on every application instead of the current k weeks and employ doubly the amount of teams."

The USPTO does not have the budget to double their staff. They are also getting pushed as hard as possible to lower pendency periods, which are already 3+ years in a lot of cases.

If they did double their staff, the union would just demand even more concession, because they would have more power, not less.
If they doubled pendency, they'd get murdered by congress.

So they can't really win.
The trouble will be the fuzzy definition of "extremism" which can be used by racists and religious fanatics to paint those seeking tolerance and equality if you crowd source. Doublespeak is exceptionally dangerous because it is so very hard to filter out from actual stories of repression and hatred.

Governments also make use of force to keep articles from being published before others can spot them or you can scrape them. Take China for example: They employ similar technology to censor and stifle speech that is deemed "disturbing".

I am not saying "do nothing" instead, I am making sure you're aware that you may get few results or counter-productive results depending on how you structure your site.

Be Careful!
International.
You can check our rates in all countries in the world:
https://dialzoo.me/rates
When people talk about physics that's what it means. But nothing stops you from making a game with 4 independent axes you can move along.
Just in case someone does not remember the discussion around http://steady.stupeflix.com/ here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8048413 I am posting the links. I came away really impressed by their page, couldnt try it out for the lack of a device. Would be eager to hear reactions about hyperlapse from those guys.

I wonder how troublesome it is to keep the gyro stream and the frame stream in sync.
Agreed; or like doing nothing, or choosing whatever value the CPU produces when overflowing.
Which is a fairly simple application of well known typestate analysis?
Brain Krebs: DQ Breach? HQ Says No, but Would It Know?
That the program can not be uninstalled once it is locked?
The linked articles by Chris Lattner explain why this is very difficult.

http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-...
What does the acronym 'PL' stand for in the sentence: "...partitioned software into boxes: OS, PL, DB, UI, networking..."?

OS = Operating Sytem, DB = DataBase, UI = User Interface, PL = I can't work it out but I'm sure it will be stupidly obvious once it's pointed out...
Some demonstrations of how simplicity can be pursued:

The Viewpoint Research Institute is trying to build an entire computing stack in 20kloc - http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2010004_steps10.pdf

The Berkeley Order-Of-Magnitude group reimplemented Hadoop and HDFS in a few thousand loc whilst remaining api compatible and having similar performance - http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/eurosys10-boom.pdf

Both efforts required questioning the assumption that the complexity of modern systems reflects inherent complexity in the problem. That is the point of this manifesto - to get such drastic improvements we have to step back and rethink our entire approach to build software systems.

I suspect that a large part of the problem is the different response curves for features and complexity. Adding a new feature for a little complexity seems like a good trade. Thousands of people make that decision in their own individual areas and suddenly the cumulative complexity falls off a cliff and we can't handle it anymore. To get simplicity back we have to take a very high-level view of the tradeoffs and demand much more power in return for each unit of complexity we add.

EDIT "Programmers tend to overlook the fact that spring cleaning works best when you're willing to throw away stuff you don't need." - http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/12/codes-worst-enemy.ht...
Data and Design: A simple introduction to preparing and visualizing information
FAA Faces Legal Action on Its Rules for Model Aircraft
Makes sense. Would have been nice to put a note about that. Something like 'sorry, due to really high usage, you have to sign up for an account.' Just letting people know. Good luck!
> That statement makes it sound like you have additional information about this situation. If that is the case would you care to share it?

With no additional information available, it is not logical to jump to extreme conclusions, in either direction. If anything, you should assume they don't rather than they do (you know, the entire not-guilty until proven thing)
Dropbox Upgrades Pro Plan to 1000 GB
Programming language?
Nice to see another post addressing the biggest issue in Software Engineering head-on.

This of course is nothing new - it's something Alan Kay has been telling us for more than 3 decades [1], who also has an enlightening talk addressing the biggest problem facing software engineering [2].

Before vanishing from the Internet node's Ryan Dahl left a poetic piece on how "utterly fucked the whole thing is" [3].

Steve Yegge also has dedicated one of his epic blog posts to "Code's worst enemy" [4].

More recently Clojure's Rich Hickey has taken the helm on the issue producing his quintessential "Simple Made Easy" [5] presentation, explaining the key differences between something that is "Easy", to something that is truly "Simple".

[1] http://mythz.servicestack.net/#engineering

[2] http://www.tele-task.de/player/embed/5819/0/?iframe

[3] https://gist.github.com/cookrn/4015437

[4] http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/12/codes-worst-enemy.ht...

[5] http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy
What I Wish I Knew About Creativity When I Was 20
Note that the "not searching harder" problem cuts both ways. Examiners get rewarded for moving applications off their desks regardless of whether they are approved or rejected. As such, I have seen as many frivolous rejections as I've seen frivolous approvals. One rejection I saw cited some unrelated reference and literally just made arguments up. There are no stats on this, obviously, but my anecdotal guess is examiners would prefer slightly to err on the side of rejection than approval. YMMV.
Hey - 3d artist here. When you're working with CAD/Solidworks drawings, you can import them directly into 3ds max as paths (2d shapes), and work with them in the viewport with accurate dimensions. I would be very surprised if that wasn't the typical Ikea workflow.

Failing that, I've heard of some artists actually whipping out calipers to take measurements from real-world pieces, but it seems like that method would defeat the purpose in this case.
Which is an awful lot like a 4th dimension. Arguably we are all 4th dimensional travellers, albeit somewhat constrained along one of the axes.

Granted, you had me at “This game isn't real life!”
The game looks fascinating. I'm still trying to get my had around the analogies, but get the feeling that playing the game for real will bring a level of intuition to the experience.

In the meanwhile, can anyone help me out?

In the 2D->3D example, you have one shared axis (Z -- vertical), and an alternating pair for the second axis (X and Y -- horizontal). In effect, from the 2D character's point of view, 'jumping' into the third dimension is just swapping your horizontal axis. Your previous horizontal axis is a vertical section through your current one, and vice versa. As such, when swapping axes, you would expect one 1D line (ie. a 1-pixel-wide vertical band) to be the same before and after the swap.

When going 3D-> 4D, you have 2 shared axes. Your third axis alternates, as before. When switching between your 'third' axes, then, you would expect one entire 2D plane of your perceived world-view to remain the same[1]. This doesn't seem to be the case.

What am I missing?

[1] EDIT: This plane is likely to be a section through some concrete objects, so you won't necessarily have 'seen' it before, though it will have been there.
You'd just have to hope that the place you want to go to is wrinkled up so that it's next to you, and not still far away.
My point is that the inherent complexity of a UI toolkit is greater than many programmers realize. It's quite easy to implement your own UI that directly draws its controls on the screen and handles mouse clicks. Now, how are you going to make that accessible to blind users? Users with mobility impairments who can't use a mouse? How about right-to-left languages and non-Latin input methods? And there's probably more that I'm not aware of.
1) I know you can specify the number of restarts, not sure yo can specify the gradual decay of the restarts

2) No, this is not the goal of the restart policies. I think this would be best implemented by something watching the docker event stream.
A Manifesto for Mediocrity.

Every few years someone comes up with the idea of making programming so simple that anyone can do it. This is not new; the concept has been around at least since the '60s. Look at some COBOL history:

"They agreed unanimously that more people should be able to program and that the new language should not be restricted by the limitations of contemporary technology. A majority agreed that the language should make maximum use of English, be capable of change, be machine-independent and be easy to use, even at the expense of power." [1]

Many attempts have been made to achieve this Silver Bullet. The examples that get closest are things like GameMaker:Studio [2] or
Unity 3d [3], which are extremely domain-specific (for certain classes of 2d and 3d games, respectively).

So you CAN create a domain-specific language that anyone can use. But every attempt to create a completely general purpose language that anyone can use to do anything has failed -- or has ultimately (accidentally?) produced a domain-specific language that solves the specific problems that the authors are most familiar with.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Maker:_Studio

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_%28game_engine%29
I agree and disagree on Macs.

With Macs there are predominantly two "types" of users. Those who use a Mac because they want a UNIX machine that works well as a desktop/has a widely supported GUI, and then there are those who use Macs because they find them easier than Windows (due to the better consistency and less clutter).

I think rsync on OS X will widely appeal to this first group, but not appeal at all to the second group. As far as those people are concerned if it isn't in the store then it doesn't exist, and if it doesn't have a GUI it definitely doesn't exist.

As to Android you guys don't, as far as I know, offer an app? Maybe my information is out-of-date on that one.

I completely respect that you guys want to appeal to a certain demographic and there is something to be said for that. I was just pointing out above that rsync.net is niche and isn't "really" competing 1:1 with DropBox, Google Drive, or to a lesser extent One Drive.

Your prices remain quite impressive and I'm sure you do what you do very well.
This is a very interesting way of explaining the 4th dimension by relating it to the difference between the 2nd and 3rd dimensions. However, I think what would really solidify my understanding is to see the 4D level editor.

I'm not sure how truly 4D this world is, but it appears to let you switch between a fixed set of different 4 dimensional positions, each of which has a different 3D representation. Just as a plane in a 3D environment is a 2D slice, a plane in a 4D environment is a 3D slice. You could effectively fake this by imagining a triangular prism (like a cylinder, but triangular instead of round). Each face of the prism contains a fully defined 3D world. Switching to the alternate face of the prism is effectively doing the swap to the other 4th dimension, where you can walk along the alternate 3D environment to avoid the obstacle, then switch back to the original 3D environment.
Since the word "etch" is mentioned, my guess is that the team was performing some kind of IC fabrication process (or some thing similar), possibly involving Reactive Ion Etching.

In this regard, I can understand the frustration. The etching process itself may take up a lot of time. Not to mention the pattern on top of the substrate may require several stages to be established before etching, costing time (hours to days) and money (we are talking about photoresist, metal like gold etc, and other non-metal coatings). One step gone wrong then you have to throw everything in the bin and start over.

Since the etching time cannot be controlled in this batch (from 5 mins to 30 mins), this may suggests that the "ITO glasses" are not the same. And since there is no way to tell, the logical approach is not to bother with the remaining samples and simply ask for the new batch.
FTFA:

I have observed someone do this: _myarr[5]={0}; – they had in the
.h file the definition int _myarr[5] and they remembered that this
thing could be initialized with {0} in other contexts. What they
did wouldn't compile in C++98; in C++11 it promptly assigned the
int 0 to the non-existent 5th element of _myarr, and the usual
hilarity ensued. Imagine how PHP would be ridiculed for this kind
of little behavior – and PHP at least would never overwrite an
unrelated variable with garbage. Imagine how with C++, the poor
programmer will be ridiculed instead.

Let me repeat that one more time,

the poor programmer will be ridiculed instead.

From your response,

(and you shouldn't be having char pointers for strings anyway)

[...]

experienced C++ programmers don't fall to that pit either

This is what the article is about, about what you are doing again. C++
is weird, it has a bunch of unusual behaviours, and when pointed,
people who fall into those traps are the ones ridiculed, instead of
the language.

I don't know if C++ could have been made less weird with the
constraints that it had, as others have pointed out in this thread (C
compatibility with no overhead). Perhaps it couldn't be. But this
article is unhappy with the attitude of defending C++'s weirdness and
then blaming the programmers for falling victims to this weirdness.
I've been using C++11, and I really like it. Together with RAII it seems entirely modern and reasonable.

Is there a list somewhere that describes what the "bad parts" (in the Crockford sense) of C++ are? Bad practices, bad feature interplay, etc.

I've been thinking of writing a little C++ transpiled language of a limited feature set to make prototyping certain things easy. It would try to follow the accepted best practice conventions. I imagine it to be Coffeescript-like, with no separate header files, support abbreviated syntax, syntax for managed pointers, etc. It would probably follow a rudimentary linking scheme.

It might be opinionated in ways that turn some people off: const vars and args by default, virtual methods by default, auto virtual dtors, and probably other "sensible" (in average usages) default patterns.

Finally, I would want to generate simple intuitive interfaces that are linkable to existing C++ headers.

Anyways, this would just be a side project for fun. I don't do C++ professionally. Just for robotics and lasers and hobby stuff. Any information on best practices and bad C++ usages would be awesome to have if I undertake this.
> There'll be plenty of C code out there

Precisely. The idea here is that any C program that does not specifically require one's complement or sign-magnitude representation will work just as well compiled as friendly C as it does compiled as C.

Also, just because testing has found no exploitable bugs in a C program compiled with GCC 4.8 does not mean that GCC 4.9 will not introduce a new optimization that wreaks havoc with undefined behavior that was there all along. No such surprises with friendly C. It's the trusty C compiler that you had in 1995, and it always will be.

Security-critical programs would never rely on undefined behavior!, you might say. Let us take the example of ntpd, one of the building blocks of the Internet, considered critical enough to be part of two Google bounty programs. Here is a list of currently harmless undefined behaviors in it that a compiler could use as an excuse to produce vulnerable binary code tomorrow: http://bugs.ntp.org/buglist.cgi?emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=...

Friendly C is not a new language. It is C as most developers understand it, and with bad surprises prohibited as much as possible.

Disclaimer: Julien, who reported these ntpd undefined behaviors, is my colleague, and I am a co-author of the “friendly C” proposal.
Haha! Stupidly obvious indeed. Thank you both.
It's what results when there is no incentive for people to know what their best options are.

Regulation is to come to terms with drivers being dishonest about pricing to rip people off, and concerns about sexual advances on drunk passengers.

Any one who argues against it should at least be prepared to have an answer to these problems.