skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Rails especially is being overrun by bootcamp graduates.

I would say though that $15 - 20/hour is about half of what you could charge depending on what you have to show off (your portfolio of projects). If the portfolio is bare or small with nothing very impressive, then $20 - 25/hour is where you will be at until you have something to show.

I recommend finding a site that you use often that you think is cool/awesome/great, define a MVP (minimum viable product) version of the site and re-build it using Rails. Make sure the front end and backend are as solid as you can make it but also don't spend more than a few weeks on it.

This is now a project you have to show off to potential employers, freelance clients, etc to display that you know what your doing and really show the quality they will get.

Once you have 3 or 4 of these projects under your belt I think you can charge +30/hour at least.

If you can't think of anything to do as projects, take the top websites on the internet and re-build them with a simplified feature set:
> YouTube (shows you can work with video upload/storage/encoding even if its all through gems)
> Facebook (shows you can handle authentication and user relationships as well as many different models and controllers)
> Reddit (shows you can build sites that can handle lots of link organization)

As a fourth I would choose one of these: KickStarter, SoundCloud or some type of mini game.

With these make sure to go the extra step of using ElasticSearch or Solr for auto-completion in search as well as indexing. Basically take your simple feature set and go the extra mile to make them really good.

Feel free to send me a message if you want to discuss anything else. I just finished a dev bootcamp myself but I have recruited for developers in the past at a few startups.
The only thing this shows is that people like the OP drank the kool-aid and still believe that Apple (as a company) would care, in spite of irrefutable evidence to the contrary and a history of broken things.

The only department I give my kudos to is Apple's marketing and their external communication because they manage to convey this image with such persistence and over such a long time.

NB: I'm an Apple user myself
It is strange to you because it is strange period. It is also a strawman that people like to present for dismissing haskell without learning about it. Haskell does not do anything of the sort. This is why haskellers find the concept every bit as strange as you do. Haskell makes side effects first class. You can pass around side effects and manipulate them just as you would any other value.
Artist causes outrage with public broadcast of Grindr PMs
Nice idea, but there's a bug. Using the cursor keys controls both Mario and the camera, so for example when I press the right cursor key sometimes Mario moves, sometimes the camera moves. Of course the correct behaviour is for the cursor keys to only control Mario, and the camera position to be determined by Mario's position on screen. I'm using Firefox 32.0.3 (i.e. the latest stable build).
Some of their products are great and come from the same suppliers as Wholefoods. Great organics on a budget.
My theory about the "Windows 10" name is that there is an intermediate Windows Phone release coming in early 2015, and they've decided to call that Windows Phone 9. Hence the unified release will be version 10.
Simple approach which while took some time, did work great for me in long term:

- register on odesk.com and elance.com (same owner, but slightly different projects there)

- start from very low hourly rate to build history and feedbacks. Make sure that every client is super happy and leave only 5 stars. Try to focus on small projects in the beginning (you don't want to get stuck on large project with low hourly rate, and bumping hourly rate in the middle project both unfair and hard to do)

- As you get projects closed (also reason to start with small project - to close these quickly) follow with client to make sure he leave nice review. In the very beginning you don't want really to focus on relationship, since these clients unlikely be able to pay higher rate in future, but you have to get to get project to complete client satisfaction.

- Bump hourly rate few dollars every week/months/x projects/x dollars billed. You need to find perfect formula here for yourself. Good signal to bump rate - when you get offers to work on project and you don't feel like you will be able to do it 'cos of a time constraints.

- If project does not satisfy your curiosity or feels like a BS project (this all will be based on what you personally like and do not like to do) - never decline projects, but instead make a "fuck you bid", where you multiply your "normal" bid by x2 / x5 / x10 (again, you will need to find perfect formula here). Idea is that you never say "no", but instead make client say "no" or get paid a lot for doing something you do not want. This also makes you look more expensive and your work more precious.

- Don't be afraid to bump rate. It is a bit contradictory, but in my practice very often well paid work came with very reasonable clients, and work where project was on very tight budget came with manager-jerk. Somehow when you charge a lot, clients respect you more.

- Do all of this until you reach point where total revenue will start dropping off or you find yourself without necessary projects. It is very important to keep in mind that 100% "employment" should not be main driver behind hourly rate pricing. You need to find optimal balance of number of hours you need to spent on projects vs. your hobby project or self-education. It is MUCH better spend 20 hours a week at $50/hr vs. 40 hours a week at $25/hr.

Hope this helps :)
This is pretty true and certainly important but "Monad" does exist for many reasons. It's essentialy standing for "a monadic type" used when you're given a value of some monadic type but no specific one. This happens (in various forms) a lot in Haskell and so the term has weight.

But for learning purposes I agree wholeheartedly!
That might be true if you're driving through a national park.

It's less true of the New Jersey Turnpike.

You can also, of course, enjoy the journey just as well on a train. Arguably more, since you can actually pay attention to the scenery rather than the guy riding your bumper or the one who changes lanes at random, for no apparent reason.
while, true, do, done are all [bash] shell builtins. They are not running processes that can be suspended.

sleep(1) is the only process that can be suspended in this command. When you "fg", the suspended sleep(1) is signaled, and resumes. And then it exits.

When you do this in a subshell (in parens), you suspend/resume the subshell in its entirety, which capture the loop construct.

Why does it work in zsh?!
So, speaking as someone who loves functional programming but finds a lot of the flap surrounding the recent popularity of Haskell to be tiresome (just the flap, the language is great), I see it this way:

Purity makes it easier to reason about the semantics of your code. This isn't about parallelism, it's about concurrency, including single-threaded concurrency. Case in point, I recently spent quite a while scratching my head over a bug that happened because someone else had written some code to mutate a piece of shared state when I wasn't expecting it.

But the pure functional programming model is a very high level of abstraction (deep down, every interesting thing in computing is a state machine), and it has a tendency to leak like mad. One such case where it does so is I/O. In fact, you can't even do I/O in a 100% pure language - and that's what the I/O monad is really about; it's punching a hole in the language in order to let the big bad ephemeral outside world in. But in a controlled manner, so that the language's fundamental ethos of purity can be maintained, which in turn makes its laziness manageable. In short, the deeper downer reason why Haskell loves its I/O monad so much is because without it the language would be fairly useless. Anyone who tells you the I/O monad's really about making I/O concurrency headaches less of a hassle has been doing more blog-reading than programming.

So why preserve the illusion? Well, ghettoizing all things stateful lets you take advantage of pure semantics everywhere else in your code, which theoretically makes it easier to reason about and maintain.

As for monads themselves, IMHO they're kind of overblown. It's just another design pattern, akin to Visitor or Strategy or Decorator, only functional instead of object-oriented. Super-useful, applicable in all sorts of circumstances, and easily worth knowing. And, just like object-oriented design patterns, easy to make sound way more complicated than it is if you try to explain the idea to someone else without having fully digested it yourself first.
I do not know, as I am not a particle physicist. I got "emergent" from the popular press article. The terms "virtual" and "quasi" already have meanings in the field, so my point was it would be further confusing to use their non-technical meanings when trying to explain it to a layman.
>sacrifice the abilitity to write print statements to do debugging

No.

>lose the ability to reason about order of execution

No.

>But does it really result in more performant code?

That is not the goal. The goal is being able to reason about the code, and write code that is correct. The fact that it performs very well is due to a high quality compiler, not purity.

> Every benchmark I've ever seen, more practical languages like Ocaml have come out on top.

Doesn't look that way from here: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/ocaml.php
How exactly is a language that is unable to handle parallelism "more practical" than one that handles it better than virtually any other language?
Arduino 3D Printing and CNC Machines
Yeah, I do believe though that this year they messed it up really bad. Their products might have been buggy... it's software after all. But this year they are really really buggy.

They should think about it.
Yes: the term the VX scene uses is "crypter".

Code size and unusualness/uniqueness are goals here, as they're for obfuscation, not strong encryption - the code needs to be small, hard for an AV to recognise with a heuristic (so tables and baked constants are bad) and ideally amenable to being passed through a polymorphic/metamorphic mutation engine.
He made disparaging remarks about Jews as a class well before his prison sentence.
It's not really trying to be type safe either. There are lots of ways to break types with unsafePerformIO
Both Twitter and simple Google searches have been extensively used for basic C&C techniques.
>Haskell performance is very good when written by people who know how the compiler works

I know nothing about how the compiler works, and my haskell code still easily outperforms my clojure code. The only optimizations I do are the same as anywhere else: profile and look at functions taking up too much time.

>and know the bytecode they want generated.

Bytecode is not involved. Machine code is, but I don't even know ASM to know what I want generated or if it is being generated that way.

>When you need them, there is no real substitute for unboxed mutable arrays, something Haskell does NOT make easy.

This is simply nonsense. Unboxed mutable vectors are trivial in haskell: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/vector-0.10.11.0/docs/Da... No, there is no substitute for using the right data types. Why do you think haskell or haskellers suggest using the wrong data types?
>the workers income went up because we have a profit sharing program

So in this case, labor won because they also have a stake in the capital.

Unfortunately, that's the exception rather than the rule.
Technically - the land was free. You're looking more at a hypothetical that's similar to settling new land.

Also - calm down. There are businesses that are way worse than domainers.
Agree. I've got same feeling lately after I run in few issues, which required me to call Apple on each of it, because there was no solution anywhere on internet.

I felt, that Apple does not think anymore about use cases. For example, year ago I gave my old iPad to my daughter, so I had to create her apple id. She is under 13, so there was no way to create this id with her real birthday. Apple support told me to use mine- so I did. This year, they came up with kids apple id for Family sharing, but they didn't came up with the way to convert any existing ids to child ids. Nor they willing to find a solution.

Talking about family sharing - it just didn't work. How would you know, that enabling and then disabling allow user to approve purchases option will resolve my issue?

There are many issues. I hope, Apple will slow down and will come up with "Snow Leopard" for iOS. Snow Leopard was great release: no new features, but a lot of bug fixing. I want that in iOS. Please, Apple!
Scientists to ‘fast-track’ evidence linking global warming to wild weather
I don't think it really matters if people describe the place in too much detail; the ambulance/whatever is already heading for the central park and the extra directions are just relayed to them on the way.
I'm full-time employee at Advertising agency, I work for company clients like: Oracle, Lufthansa, DIRECTV, Kaplan and North Shore LIJ.
1 - You can do both. You can either place a `.vimrc` file in any of your projects and/or add specific settings in your global `.vimrc` file the way I show in my article.

2 - Vim will load 2 files for configuration. The global `.vimrc` and the one in the directory you are in, eg. often the root directory of your projet. The latter being prior.
iCloud iOS 8.0.2 bypass Bypass Activation lock
No, but courts generally do consider a thing called "context" in these cases.
Yes, runtime faults can happen in a static language as well.

However, I don't buy the usual argument that follows up (not saying you are saying this now, but I'm sure you've heard it): "therefore, you're not better off using a statically typed language, therefore just use a dynamically typed language".

Just because a statically typed language cannot rule out every kind of runtime flaw is not a good reason to stop using them. Statically typed languages rule out some errors that dynamically typed languages don't. In both cases you also need to perform additional checks, and in both cases, safety critical systems should be formally verified. Not "instead", but "in addition to".

A statically typed language is an additional, automatic safety net on top of everything else. Every bit of safety counts. You don't need to formally verify your generic list algorithm isn't going to try adding two elements (and throw an exception when the elements cannot be meaningfully added) because it can't by definition. That's one less formal verification you need to do.
>How does it differ from the guarantees we have in so-called strong-typed languages?

If you mean "dynamically typed" languages, then it differs in that they do not have types.

>The fact that compiler is refusing to compile type-mismatching expression for a simple built-in types doesn't imply that it is "safer"

No, it does not imply that. It means that.

>Other languages, notably Lisp and Erlang will catch and signal the same error later, at runtime.

Precisely. So if that piece of code was not executed, you do not know that it is incorrect. If that branch is only followed rarely, your incorrect code is out there in production waiting to blow up when it finally does run that branch.

>I am not a Haskell guru, but what I see, especially in the case of Monads, is an implicit type-tagging with additional tag

The article in question does a good job of explaining monads.
I love this bag for multi-mode travel.

http://www.ospreypacks.com/en/product/gear_hauling/porter_46...

It meets airline carry-on requirements, but can be easily be slipped on and off in urban environments as needed. It probably won't work so well if you need to wear a suit jacket, but is otherwise great.
Never seen Space Patrol, so missed that, but I liked the references to the Amiga, C64 and the game Impossible Mission... http://www.ohgizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/impossible...
Agreed. Murders/assassinations via drone, with no hope of determining who did it, are coming sooner than later. Drug cartels, street gangs, etc. can already easily afford a weaponized drone - they just may not (yet) know how to obtain/build one.

The ability to anonymously open fire on virtually any target one chooses is a scary reality, but it's almost here. With no risk of prosecution, murders will happen that never would have happened before. Be nice to your neighbors :) .
3 Math Problems That Could Catch You Off Guard in Tech Interviews
Why Spring Boot uses tomcat but not jetty?
Apparently one of the perks to not calling it Windows 9 is that Microsoft doesn't have to deal with poorly written OS detection code that searches for "Windows 9" in expectation of it matching "Windows 95" or "Windows 98".
> The fact that compiler is refusing to compile type-mismatching expression for a simple built-in types doesn't imply that it is "safer".

That's not all a statically typed language does.

Regardless, they are safer. The usual counterargument goes that this safety is too much of a burden, or not worth it, etc. But nobody I know argues they are equally safe.
The argument is that there's only one Sunrise phase. If Demand Media decide to sell it later to say a competitor of mine, I'm out of luck now aren't I?
What's the point then of even having a Sunrise phase? It's just smoke and mirrors.
Even if it went to waste while being potent it would go to a secondary containment. If the human error was in the secondary containment then I can see it being released. I have worked as a contractor for various pharma companies and know how they operate. Not all of them are all that good at what they do and paying for brand names is better than the generics because of the levels of quality assurance.

It was likely some polio introduced into secondary and they didn't process it correctly in that area.
I'd upvote twice if I could. In my previous business, I learned these lessons the hard way. Higher paying clients are nicer to work with. One regret is that I didn't spend enough time on "sales and marketing", which seemed like BS and a waste of time. Devote 30% of your time to it. Don't be afraid to ask for testimonials, keep a regular newsletter going, let everyone know what you're looking for and what you're good at.
I think a part of it is a slight weirdness of Haskell typeclasses. In math, the noun "monad" refers to is a triple containing a functor and two natural transformations. The equivalent noun in Haskell would be the typeclass instance for a particular type. However, because Haskell (basically) only allows one instance per type, you select different instances by choosing a different (possibly equivalent, as with newtype) type, and so there is some natural conflation that arises in the language people use to talk about these things.

The dynamic may be slightly clearer for semigroups. In mathematics, a semigroup is a pair containing a set and an (associative) operation on that set. In Haskell we say things like "ByteString is a semigroup" but that's short for "there is a semigroup where the set is all possible ByteStrings" and you assume the people you're talking to understand what the operation is because there is only one instance of Semigroup commonly defined for ByteString.
It's not just "in reality", it's codified into law:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=...

Or here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

It's tough for people to swallow because they've been subtly led to think that the police do have an obligation ala "To Protect and to Serve" like the L.A.P.D. OFFICIAL motto.

http://www.lapdonline.org/history_of_the_lapd/content_basic_...

But it turns out that like corporate-customer-service-speak "How can I help you? You want to cancel? I'm sorry I can't do that it's against policy".

Now why is it that way? People in government and the police are worried that you could end up in a situation where the police are held accountable for literally every thing that doesn't go exactly perfect. Even when the reasons it went wrong were out of their control.

But I suspect that the balance has been shifted a bit too far towards giving the police the benefit of the doubt, at least re: people's expectations.
I'm sure plenty of businesses would rather it all go away when it comes to things they can't control. But this guy isn't breaking any laws, and filling in an economic desire. Tough luck for Trader Joes, and I think they're behaving reprehensibly.
But are the junior developers of the same quality in NYC as the rest of the country?

If so, why are they paying 80k to people who basically only knew some syntax?
When you say "clause", do you mean a disjunction of literals in propositional logic? Because if so, I don't understand what you mean. Clauses don't have inputs. And when you say "resolve away", do you mean applying the resolution rule?
Originally when I read I thought "perhaps there was a leak in a barrel or something like this. I glazed over the "following human error" part.

Hypothesizing brings me to conclusion that this has to be caused at least in part by companies probably trying to streamline by merging branches or departments.

If I'm a fly on the wall in the board room I'm sure I hear something like: "Sure, of course it makes financial sense to manage all barrels of stuff headed for water-treatment facility in the same warehouse, and by the same team, as where we keep our barrels full of polio and other harmful viruses. Layoff the other department, close down the other warehouse, and merge the two asap"
$20/hr is intern pay!
I wrote about this in another comment a bit, but I'll try here to be a bit more florid.

The best way to understand IO is to think about working with pure functions in an impure language. Let's say I've given you a promised-pure function which emits commands (re: the "Command pattern" if that's the way you want to see it) and you operate them using side effects. This is a massive inversion of control issue of course, but you can see how it might work.

Further, you might understand that your job is easier due to the purity of the command-emitting function. You explicitly give it all of the inputs you desire and operate it as needed. For instance, you can perhaps run it forwards and backwards as desired. Or weave it in with another "thread" I parallel knowing that only you must handle races and shared memory—the threads are pure.

Finally, you might understand that the risk of bad programming is borne on your shoulders primarily—side effects are complex and you're the only one handling them.

In Haskell, "you" are the RTS and the pure threads are Haskell programs. The IO monad is nothing more than what it feels like to be "inside" a useful kind of command pattern. Finally, we compartmentalize all side-effects into the RTS so that we only have to get them right once.
Any idea why Microsoft isn't doing this as a first-class thing, instead of creating half-fixes like TypeScript?
If you go to freelance, don't make your price lower than $20, even for a beginner it's a normal price. I'm disappointed and desperate to see A LOT OF indians and people from SE Asia who are ready to work for a plate of rice, they are ready to work for $5! Don't be that stupid.

That situation also affects the employers: they see so low prices and they consider that normal. If I were to ask those employers: would you be able to survive in your country (mostly America) for $5-10 per hour, I'd be stoked to listen to their answers!
How leaky is the abstraction? Can you effectively use this with very little prior knowledge of front-end web development?

And what is the state of F# on Linux these days?