skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
HackerRank is growing at 100% Q-o-Q; be the first PM at our MV office
Our mission is to make the world flat. We're building a platform where hundreds of thousands of hackers visit to hone their skills and a % of them connect with amazing opportunities.

We have 5k+ programming challenges as of now across all the domains and our MAU of hackers is growing at 30% m-o-m; We've a very similar momentum on signing up companies as well (fb, amazon, bloomberg, fireeye, adobe, square, yelp, linkedin, etc.) are all our customers who use the platform to streamline their recruiting process. We're past a multi-million dollar recurring revenue run-rate and expanding rapidly.

We're a team of 80 people evenly split across Palo Alto & Bangalore and looking to hire a PM to focus on the engagement of the hacker community and moving hackerrank beyond just a solve-a-challenge site.

ideal person?
-- You have a technical background or deep interest in technology, and love working with and for an engineering-centric community.

-- You can understand the way hackers think and what they enjoy, and you are able to translate ideas into how it should reflect on the website.

-- You have experience working in user-growth teams in the past. Bonus for consumer web user-growth experience.

-- You are obsessed with data and analytics and the first thing you wake up to is an analytics dashboard.

If you're interested, please e-mail why you'd be great and how you can help to vivek [at] hackerrank
How about $75?

http://talkshopwithus.com/creatives/
You make it sound like the Africans are the only ones racing. There are plenty of Euro/Asian/American runners competing for it and probably had much better infrastructure and training counsel than their African counterparts. Yet still, the Africans dominate. By definition then, its definitely more than just 'economics' and certainly more to do genes/physique/etc.
It's an interesting idea but I can't see how it'd work cleanly in practise. The consumer won't even know what version they're using themselves, which makes documentation and API client updates more difficult than it should be.

I don't see why it's so hard to chuck a version in the URL. There's no great need to update the version when adding new features, only when changing existing functionality.
It's steep if you can consider a tall cliff steep.

Warcraft 3 has a steep learning curve, like RTS games do in general. One mistake can cost you your hero, which can cost you your hero if the death is untimely. (I guess DotA derivatives are more forgiving in that sense.) But there aren't that many units and heroes to learn, so at least after some time you won't be taken completely aback when your hero gets ensnared, critical striked (struck?) hexed and then critical striked again. I mean, it will happen, but the possibility would have already crossed your mind.

There is a ton of finesse and micro to playing a game like WC3, but learning to play the game isn't that hard; there isn't terribly much that you need to memorize, and then you can concentrate on strategy and mechanics. DotA (derivatives), on the other hand, is built in such a way as to be absolutely relentless towards anyone who isn't already experienced.

WC3 is hard to learn, but not unreasonably so for an RTS. It also has a high skill ceiling. DotA (derivatives) are really hard to learn (I won't comment on the skill ceiling, since I don't know). Yet, people - casual players included - have embraced DotA over the humble original game. I just don't understand the attraction, particularly when it comes to the more casual players.
Nearly all software works on ZoL. A small number of applications will likely need configuration of the application(s) to turn off AIO (until the next release), configuration of the application(s) to turn off DirectIO, or setting acltype=posix on the dataset to provide POSIX ACLs.
> The Fourth Amendment is part of a document legally defining and describing...

No disagreement there. But that doesn't mean that the document grants the right. It merely recognizes the rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

These rights are not granted by the United States. The United States cannot grant or take away natural rights. That's what they are and how they were intended to work.
Building A Better Build: Our Transition From Ant To SBT
Here's a TV news report on the incident:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EQA_Cm8SKw
Of course some radars did physically move their dishes to stay locked on to a target. I'm in the middle of The Invention That Changed the World (spoiler alert: it was radar) and I was stunned to learn how well this worked with analog circuits. An SCR-584, paired with an M9 analog computer, could detect that a plane was moving out of the center of its conical scan, and then convert that into a signal to the motors that drive the dish (and its associated antiaircraft guns).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conical_scanning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCR-584_radar
It's a little bit of the spirit of The Well, and some USENET/BBS to boot. I think this is really missing from the modern web, so I cheer you on! It is a toast-worthy activity, your little blip on the horizon ..
It is easy to get confused and it could happen to anyone.

That said, the only thing in the code remotely similar to "compound corruption" is logic for preventing such a scenario, which has the following comment:

/*
* Don't rewrite known good children.
* Not only is it unnecessary, it could
* actually be harmful: if the system lost
* power while rewriting the only good copy,
* there would be no good copies left!
*/

https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/blob/master/module/zfs/vde...

That touches more than obvious at a glance because the mirror code is used for processing both mirrors and ditto blocks.
Indeed. Be sure to click through: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with...
Is an 80 bit password good enough for all practical purposes?
Perhaps I misunderstand your comment, but you actually don't need to sort to compute a median (see O(n) median of medians algorithm [1]).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_of_medians
The article quotes the judge as saying"

"Defendant could have established such a personal privacy
interest by submitting a sworn statement that could not
be offered against him at trial as evidence of his guilt
(though it could be used to impeach him should he take the
witness stand)"

So it's not as Kafkaesc as the title makes it sound---he could have said it's his without incriminating himself---but it's still pretty kafkaesc in that it would have effectively prevented him from testifying.
I'm disappointed there are no samples.
> with LoL it's usually blatantly obvious who will win by the 10 minute mark

maybe in the pro games, but even then that's a pretty iffy statement. a bad engage in a teamfight or surprise gank can swing things pretty hard if the teams know what they're doing. in anything below, say, high diamond there's just too many mistakes to make this claim.
I was really disappointed in this film for how unimaginative it was. For example, they still had money (actual physical tokens) whereas in a world where everyone was honest you'd just have a number written down on a page that you would update with every transaction, or some other trivial mnemonic device for accounting.

They also didn't deal with the question of people who were honest but mistaken--how would dispute resolution work in a world where everyone in the world was telling the truth, but no one in the world had a very good idea of what the truth actually is? And so on.

It was a one-joke movie that could have been a much deeper look at how lying and our strategies for detecting and dealing with lying are embedded into our every social interaction, including those that apparently have very little to do with it. And it could have been incredibly funny, instead of just kind of meh.
A new toy! Thanks!
I've written programs for myself whenever I needed something that didn't exist (or I needed to improve), but I'm pretty certain I don't know as much as I should to consider myself a decent programmer. So, I'm learning as fast as I can. I didn't mean to imply I was still searching for employment; in fact I'm not. I'm working on a startup to help others who are struggling to get employed, and who (with better guidance) can acquire the skills employers want them to have.

I considered the biggest adversity to be losing my father. He'd always been a pillar of support for me, and really showed me what unconditional love meant. I lost him right when I had to become that pillar for my own son. But the thread kind of blew up about how I'd struggled financially.
> Spark _requires_ Hadoop to run

This is not correct. Spark uses the Hadoop Input/Output API, but you don't need any Hadoop component installed to run Spark, not even HDFS.

You can -- and many companies do -- run Spark on Mesos or on Spark's standalone cluster manager, and use S3 as their storage layer.

> this whole Spark vs Hadoop debate makes no sense whatsoever

If we talk about Hadoop as an ecosystem of tools, then yes, it doesn't make sense to frame Spark as a competitor. Spark is part of that ecosystem.

But if we talk about Hadoop as Hadoop 1 MapReduce or as Hadoop 2 Tez, both of which are execution engines, then it very much makes sense to pit Spark against them as an alternative execution engine.

Granted, Hadoop 1 MapReduce is pretty old compared to Spark, and Tez is still under heavy development, but these are alternatives and not complements to Spark.

(Note: In Hadoop 2, MapReduce is just a framework that uses Tez as its underlying execution engine.)

> I just don't understand this constant boasting about Spark, it seems very suspicious to me.

Suspicious how?

I think Spark's elegant API, unified data processing model, and performance -- all of which are documented very well in demos and benchmarks online -- merit the excitement that you see in the "Big Data" community.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with his lawyer screwing up:

>Forrest writes that Ulbricht could have nonetheless claimed the server in a pre-trial statement that couldn’t be used against him as evidence.
That's not contradictory; you're conflating past and future. Suppose you're a cop and you find a box with a label on the outside saying 'drug ca$h LOL.' You open it and to your surprise find $1 million dollars, some cocaine, and a passport in the name of K Ingpin. Later you establish K. Ingpin's whereabouts and arrest him. It turns out his fingerprints are all over the box and contents.

You had probable cause to investigate what appeared to be a cache of proceeds from the sale of contraband, despite not knowing who it belonged to. On discovering the identity documents in such close proximity to actual contraband, you had probable cause to locate and arrest that person on suspicion of drug dealing.

It's actually Ulbricht who wants to have it both ways. Asserting 4th amendment rights effectively amounts to saying 'hey, that's mine and you snoops had no right to access it.' Ulbricht refuses to admit or assert that the servers were his in any meaningful way, even though the prosecution could not put such an admission before the court as evidence. The only way the prosecutors could bring it up is if he took the stand and said 'no way, that's not my server,' in which case they'd say 'but you told the court that it is.' So as a defendant you can say that evidence is the result of an illegal search, or you can disclaim ownership of it, but not both at the same time.

I don't know whether the original warrant was deficient or not, and haven't looked it up. but bear in mind that the job of the trial court is not to establish whether it was valid (unless there is glaring evidence to the contrary), but whether it is admissible as evidence to be considered by the finder-of-fact (typically a jury). It's up to the defense counsel to raise those arguments, not for the court to preempt. In this case, the court is pointing out that it told the defense exactly what it needed to do to to make a procedurally valid 4th amendment challenge, and the defense failed to do so.

It's not the court's job to step in and assist the defendant if the the defendant's lawyer is no good, although bad lawyering is sometimes the basis for an appeal (on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, in which case the appeal court could order a new trial if it agreed with the claim). In the American legal tradition (and the English one from which it derives), courts are not investigative bodies, they are determinative ones, which can only rule on matters brought up by one of the parties. This is completely different from how courts operate in jurisdictions based on Napoleonic law, in which the functions of prosecutor and judge and virtually combined. Obviously this is a highly simplistic summary, please take it with a grain of salt as I can't compress centuries of different legal traditions into a few sentences.
Or more dimensions?
I had a recording of Ben Elton's standup in the mid-1980s in the UK, and he raised the issue of adding lanes to clogged roads just inviting more traffic, leaving the road just as clogged as before.

He was drawing an analogy to the 'swing-top' bin - how you always try to fit more in and never empty it. "What would be the state of affairs a week from now if I gave you all a brand new swing-top bin to put next to your current one?"
A great opinion. I heartily endorse that opinion.

But the FBI, and US DoJ, operate under some interpretation of the verbiage in the US Constitution. That interpretation has come to mean less and less protection against searches and seizures over the years, as the US Supreme Court interprets what the (to me) plain and simple language of the 4th amendment says.
Dota's wards are pretty different from LoL. The reason League of Legends used to devolve into a vision battle was that both teams could just keep placing wards as long as they had gold. So one team's support player would just go around placing wards and removing any wards they found, while the other team's support player would go around re-placing their destroyed wards and destroying the other team's wards that went up in the same place. Basically, it was a giant vision circle. Dota never offered unlimited vision.

Here's a quick rundown of the three systems:

Dota:

Observer Wards: Invisible, last seven minutes and give vision of a fairly large area, but there are only four available to each team at a given time. Cost 150 gold for a stack of 2.

Sentry Wards: Invisible, last four minutes and reveal invisible things in a fairly large area, but don’t grant vision of an area (so you need to find some other way to get vision of the area where the invisible thing you want to see is). Cost 200 gold for a stack of 2. There is no limit to Sentry Wards.

Old League of Legends:

Sight Wards: Invisible, last three minutes, give vision of a fairly large area, take three hits to destroy. Cost 75 gold. Unlimited.

Vision Wards: Invisible, last three minutes, take three hits to destroy. Give vision of the same area as Sight Wards, and also reveal invisible things in that area. Cost 150 gold. Unlimited.

New League of Legends:

Sight Wards: Invisible, last 3 minutes, give vision of a fairly large area, take 3 hits to destroy. Each player can only place three Sight Wards at a time. Placing a fourth will destroy your oldest ward. Cost 75 gold.

Vision Wards: Visible, last forever until destroyed, give vision of the same area as Sight Wards, reveal invisible things, take 5 hits to destroy. You can only place one Vision Ward. Cost 150 gold.
that seems really cool, I'm kinda jealous of the learning experience that would bring
Pretty sure they would do this.
People are not suicidal.

You don't have to be suicidal to be distractable, tired, or overconfident.

Edit: I also like how in the paragraph after you state your love of 'science and data', you promote vague, theoretical, self-reported anecdotal evidence (that isn't even part of a scientific study) as a basis for your argument.
If the government wants to erode the 4th, shouldn't they go through congress?
They also likely have a clear expertise.
Awesome. So the writer writes about how he might not have a story because a cat moves in next door. Problem solved by kids chasing it away. But, uh oh, no story because Fall occurs and acorns are on the ground. But that's no problem because he already has 700 words.
A System for Email Productivity
Hosting locally makes sense I guess, or at a server you control and using your credentials.
The issue is that it's no where on the webpage and the download is not from GitHub either.
Originally, the Bill of Rights bound the government to certain behaviors. It doesn't have a border because it applies to the government not their actions in a certain place.
You may enjoy watching this heroic catapult. Incredible pathing win. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9urYeLZ2uk0
Yeah, the weird thing is how large and critical these VBA applications are that he works on. Lots of local banks and small businesses have, essentially, their entire business wrapped up in an old VBA CRUD app. Not that there's anything wrong with continuing to use the old technology, but all we hear about is the latest and coolest.
I had to stop reading half way through. Whenever this type of examination is posted, it's usually that the author finally realizes he's an individual and doesn't have to adhere to any culture at all.
The P85D will probably be around $130K also. The current P85+ is around that already.
Do you eat them?

According to Uncle Eddy from Christmas Vacation, they're high in cholesterol.
Understanding Ebola: A Visual Guide
Associate membership card
The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution, you know.

Also, there are limits on those rights. There's one example in the opinion; if the police somewhere else discover some incriminating information about you and voluntarily pass it along to American police, it is admissible regardless of whether the foreign investigation would have been valid under the 4th amendment if initiated by American law enforcement.

As a simple example, imagine a drug bust in Thailand which would not be 4th amendment compliant turns up evidence that 50% of the money from the drug operation is always send to John Doe, who lives on 123 Main Street in Anytown, USA. The FBI duly arrests John Doe and he's charges with international drug trafficking. The Thai evidence is admissible notwithstanding the non-compliance of Thai investigative procedures with US law.

This isn't meant to be an analogy for this case, BTW, just an illustration of one limiting case.
If filter() returned an iterator instead of a list would the answer be yes?
Ah, the old "If I don't wear a helmet, I'll ride more cautiously and never get into a wreck" argument.
Thank you for explaining how easy it is for a game developer with plenty of resources to identify this type of exploit if used excessively enough to affect the game's economy.

Everyone who's complaining about game exploiters seem to focus on the ones who've caused obvious damage to the game's economy. What about the ones who are subtle enough, and possibly will never be caught?
Thank you for your work in this area.
Flames:
http://maxbittker.github.io/Mojulo/#KC0zMCt5KygoKHNpbigoeC0x...
No his landing page does not look "professsional"
> I would love to see MR and Spark compete on the exact same hardware configuration.

You may find this benchmark [1] interesting to read.

It needs some updating (a lot has changed since February 2014), but it compares Shark (which uses Spark as its execution engine) to Hive (using Hadoop 1 MapReduce as its execution engine) and a number of other systems.

The benchmark is run on EC2 and is detailed in such a way that it should be independently verifiable. Hive and Shark are run on identically sized clusters, though I don't know if the other details of the configuration were identical.

[1] https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/benchmark/
This sounds right to me but all my James Madison and Thomas Jefferson -fu seems to be failing me. Can we get a citation here for their intent? I'm getting some quotes that indicate they were worried about majority vs. minority stuff, but nothing with any international flair (and, of course, America is a minority of the world, so it doesn't quite pack the punch I would enjoy).

EDIT: I am concerned, the further I go in this search, that the reason they seem not to speak of the rights of foreigners as inalienable may be because e.g. so many foreigners are black or Chinese, and you didn't even get a rights guarantee back then if you were American-born and black or Chinese (not that there were a lot of Chinese people there at the time -- burning down their houses and threatening to kill them if they didn't leave comes later in American history, with similar problems for Japanese people even _later_ in American history), so there was just no chance anyone would even possibly consider the hilarious joke that we'd give rights guarantees to foreigners.

Could be off-base, but the context back then was... decidedly less progressive than we'd like to imagine them now.
HTTP Console in Go
Cyberchase
Hacking Your Consciousness: Listen to this meditation and go to the next level
> Microsoft miserably failed to scale it to the web

They did, in form of the abomination called ActiveX. Back in the heydays, it was the Java and Flash in terms of exploits and 0wnage.

Obviously the worst thing was that ActiveX applets allowed raw access to the win32 API (or any other external DLL which could be used with the FFI of VB). No one signed their applets and everyone clicked "accept and run"... and on DOS-based OSs like win95/98/98SE/ME or XP (which set up the primary account as admin) this basically meant local r00t on the web.
Keep the good work! Looks awesome, and it was my dream to create such game long time ago, but never happened. The tooling also looks amazing and powerful!
> In a general sense, people in other countries are not subject to American law

The rights are really limitations on the American government, so it's not "subjecting" anyone to anything, and there's no reason limitations on the US government couldn't apply to how it treats people all over the globe. It's no imposition on the sovereignty of Iceland for the US not allow itself to hack into servers there.

Moreover, in practice, it's way more complicated than you're implying. The Supreme Court has been clear that the geographical location of a US citizen actually doesn't matter at all:

> When the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land. [1]

So it's not just "people in other countries", and presumably the same thing applies to his property being in that other country.

And it's not just citizenship that matters: foreigners on US soil are protected by much of the Constitution, even undocumented immigrants [2]. So apparently neither location nor citizenship strip you of your rights. However--and this is the weird part--for some reason the combination matters: foreigners on foreign soil are not afforded the protections of the Constitution. See e.g. [3].

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/354/1
[2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrig...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquid...
Not worth my time. You are right. 65mph is killing people by the thousands. We should go back to 55 on Monday.

Please.