skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You probably just need to improve your ability to see problems. This question itself is an instance of a problem that might represent a good opportunity.

You're not the first person to have trouble finding motivation once they feel comfortable financially. Maybe there's some kind of product or service you can create to help with this situation. You know the target demographic has money to spend.
Given that you have 75 days to renew your domain after it's lapsed renewal - it's not really taking advantage of anyone.

There has to be some mechanism to release unused & unregistered domains back to the market.

And careful - you just dehumanized an entire set of people ("they're not people") because of the work they do. Domainners might be annoying - but they're not gangsters.
Safety protocols can't catch all failure conditions.
Samsung paid Microsoft $1B last year to build Android phones
Weight loss affirmations
Why does it tell us that?

The only thing we know is that they were under sealed court order.

Namecoin is not a magical solution to every problem with domain registration, and it barely scratches the surface of the decentralization issue as it's pretty cheap for anyone with the budget of a nation state to 'recentralize' the namecoin system, let alone a $5 wrench.

When it comes to things being seized under sealed court order, the authorities usually don't have a problem finding a wrench.
Therefore, a payload moving up the elevator would either need to be accelerated laterally somehow, or it would bend the elevator over.

Or both. A payload moving up the elevator does pull on the cable, tending to slow it down. The cable, however, being massive and under very high tension, pulls back, accelerating the payload.

If the cable is not anchored to the Earth, this causes the cable to slow down, and wobble a bit since the force is applied sequentially along the cable's length, rather than always on the center of mass, though tidal effects will tend to damp the wobble and keep it oriented practically straight up and down. For any one payload, the effect is negligible, as a space elevator cable would be freakin' massive, but without some sort of active stationkeeping it would eventually come down.

If the cable is anchored to the Earth, however, as soon as it begins to be pulled over even a little bit by the rising payload, the lateral force is transmitted to the ground. The cable pulls on the Earth and the Earth pulls back, re-accelerating the cable with no need for active stationkeeping and ever so slightly slowing the rotation of the Earth. Since the Earth is Gigantic and has ridiculously large quantities of angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy, no one will ever notice this loss in practice.
OK. All I am trying to say is that there are different kinds of strong-typed languages, and neither one is "safer" or superior.
Oh sorry I meant to quote the OP, not dehumanize them, also gangsters are people too :)
Yes, the head of [] is the best example. That is what I mean. Thanks for a clarification.

Absence of type errors is not safety, it is absence of type errors.)
> Or you just run two servers (or a single server that speaks both), you know, like you'll have to for the next 30 years anyway.

The point is not that origin servers need to be upgraded, it's that clients and intermediaries should not be forced to upgrade. That means the actual content of the web (HTML pages) should not require revision to support the wire protocol upgrade, especially considering HTTP has an upgrade mechanism already built in.

There's almost no benefit that I can see to require a new scheme, and tremendous downside.

> That first part, before the colon, is a protocol descriptor. It would be perfectly reasonable to change the protocol descriptor.

Actually, if you look at the specs, the first part is a scheme identifier, not a protocol identifier. There's a big difference. Schemes point you here: http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtm...

And then you look up the spec for how to interpret and/or resolve the rest of the URI. That may or may not involve a mapping to a wire protocol (e.g. the "about" scheme, or the "geo" scheme).
- You're citing a document from 2010, when IBM Watson hadn't beaten humans on Jeopardy, Google driverless car wasn't demonstrated, Boston Dynamics big-dog, atlas hadn't happened, DARPA robotics competition hadn't happened, quadrocopters weren't doing crazy things, Amazon kiva systems, Baxter, etc, etc. Things are picking up pace. (EDIT: hadn't happened or not widely known).

- Since then, Paul Krugman himself has covered tech-unemployment in at least one of his blog posts, in which he has expressed surprise at how things are changing but has concluded the post in humor and essentially dismissing the idea (not very wise!).

- Politicians lag behind economists in staying up to date, who themselves lag behind technologists. "This time" it would really help if economists try to wake up.

- CGPGrey's youtube video 'Humans need not apply' is a must watch for anyone serious about staying aware of upcoming technology.

- The accusation of lump-of-labor fallacy is itself a strawman fallacy. Tech-unemployment doesn't require labor to be fixed. It can happen even if labor lump is increasing but not as fast as humans are becoming obsolete, i.e., "this time".

- Side-comment: Adaptation almost always happens because of new-entrants (youth learning new trades) so it's a generational thing. Those thrown out of the job market are more likely to retire early or something like that. And "this time", even youth are not going to adapt.

- Side-comment 2: Recessions cause quite a bit of damage to social structures which intentionally or unintentionally doesn't get media coverage, or at least doesn't register in public's minds. Just the recent European recession caused suicide in the millions (I came across this article recently but can't find it ATM).

- I've put "this time" multiple times. I have to admit it's a claim without scientific evidence, but circumstantial evidence combined with conversation with technologists who agree what is possible in principle, really is a strong indication. Brain emulation has nowhere to go but in the direction of "a solved problem". The estimated time frame is 10 to 15 years.
It's really difficult for anyone to speculate on a sealed court order.

Probably a deal gone bad and the person convinced a judge that if it went through normal channels the persons owning the domains would liquidate them. That or the transfer was deemed illegal in the first place.

A quick google for Robert Olea reveals he is a domain broker.
NgMario
I believe the US hands out on the order of $3-4B in subsidies to dairy farmers each year. The Canadian dairy industry is unsubsidized. While dairy costs significantly more in Canada I suppose the government is still quite happy with the outcome.
Compromise needed on smartphone encryption
A look inside Facebook's source code
Crazy 3d JavaScript music film clip (watch till end for src etc)
Haskell has a slight, but consistent, edge over Ocaml in most of the "benchmarks game" tests, so it's certainly not true to say that Ocaml beats Haskell in all benchmarks (although, certainly there could be other benchmarks where it does). In either case, Haskell is very performant and is competitive with any other mainstream language in performance.

You can write print statements to do debugging (with Debug.Trace), and in practice it's not very hard to work IO into your code when you need it (even if only for temporary debugging or development). Crucially, however, it's much harder to accidentally work IO into your code. The few cases where I really miss print statements "for free" are vastly outweighed by the many cases in impure languages where I'm accidentally mismanaging my mutable state.

Whether it results in more performant code? In some cases yes (the restrictions make it much easier to prove certain compiler optimizations), but that's not really the point. Referential transparency is about making your code more expressive, and easier to reason about, to design, and to safely tweak.
I like the extension to this which is to make a cable that stretches much further out than geostationary, then you clip payloads to the cable above geostationary and let the earth catapult them up the cable and slingshot them into the outer solar system.
I'm confused. I thought if I bought anything, I'm allowed to do with it as I will? First sale doctrine, which limits the rights trademark holders had over their products once they've been paid.
Perhaps the best way to think of it is that a Haskell program is a pure function from FFI outputs to FFI inputs. Something like

H out in = out -> (FFIOperation, in)

The `IO` monad is nothing more than how operating "inside of this function" feels. The runtime thus operates the pure Haskell program evaluating its FFI demands and returning their results.

The AST POV espoused by this article is quite good as well, but a little bit less obvious how to "step" things forward or operate nicely in parallel contexts.

Also, in reality the above perspective is a good way to embed Haskell into other contexts.

http://comonad.com/reader/2011/free-monads-for-less-3/
Create your own Focus
It's considered 100% normal in everyday speech here in Greece, to use the name of the disease as an excuse when you forget something. I had absolutely no intent to offend anyone, and my heart goes out to the people fighting this disease - and the ones taking care of them.

I guess it's yet another cultural difference I was not aware of...
Snapchat Effect: How LA Startups Are Snatching Silicon Valley's Tech Talent
One indicator of this progression is the commoditization of many core ML algorithms. You can now pull a decision tree (or SVM, or GP) off the shelf and just use it.

GIGO still applies, as it always has in engineering problem-solving. But if you take care to do the basics, like clean your data and find good features, you can use some ML methods as components with somewhat known characteristics (performance, flexibility, runtime).

It used to be that you needed a skilled person to guide you to a decent FFT or matrix library, and then core numerical software was commoditized. Same for data structures. It's fun to observe that some of this is happening to ML as well.
Exactly what I thought when I saw xSharper then Intellix. First thing I did was look to see if JetBrains had anything to do with it since that would have +1'd my interest. Quickly realizing they didn't -1'd it :/
IIRC, Trader Joe's doesn't want to operate in Canada because of our more stringent liquor laws-- they wouldn't be able to sell alcohol here the way they do in the states, which would significantly affect their bottom line.
Nothing in the article says otherwise.

The legal complications are in importing all the stuff, making sure you're not perceived as confusing/diluting someone else's brand name, complying with a different country's labeling requirements, and most of all obtaining the goods since Trader Joe's has the right to refuse to sell to "Pirate Joe's" shoppers.
It would be more fun to see Oracle run on it.
But the other problems have been with us for a while. Stacking Ebola on top of them is really bad news.

We've already underestimated Ebola in a number of ways. The assumption was that it's not easily transmissible, but it's spreading, so perhaps that assumption is not as true as we thought. The fact that doctors are getting infected is certainly a bad sign. Perhaps this strain is more easily transmissible, or will be soon due to a larger infected population within which it can evolve.

Also, none of those other problems require drastic measures like a 3-week quarantine, which is costly, disruptive, and doesn't scale well.
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” - John Donne, Meditation XVII, Devotions upon Emergent Occasions (1624)

It's important that we realize that theses people being affected by viral spread of Ebola are people just like you, me, our families and friends.
They're not gangsters they're squaters. They seem to have been out squated by another domain squater. Should have had his insight.
> Even companies like Apple allow other channels to sell their products.

Not really. Well, Only channels that Apple allows will are allowed to resell their products. Apple does not take too kindly to the 'gray market' products and unauthorised resellers.
University networks generally implement 802.1x, WPA2/EAP, MAC registration, and similar authentication schemes so that every device is tied to an authorized user and malicious activity can be traced to a real person.

When a network device is attached that doesn't pass this authentication requirement onto its users (i.e. by NATing, or offering a public or common-key WiFi network) the university loses its ability to see who is doing what, and to deny access to people it doesn't want on its network. IT departments don't like that.

The security risk is not so much that you can now route certain internal IPs, but that IT has no way of determining who you are, or even your real MAC address, if it has questions about or objections to your traffic (whether

Hopefully no one is placing sensitive services on the same network as dorm rooms with no security, but being on the LAN is often used as a front line. For one thing, sitting on the right part of the campus network gets you access to most scientific journals based on IP whitelisting. The University is contractually not allowed to provide this access to people who aren't students/faculty/staff, so it has to control who can come from those IPs. We operate separate SSIDs for guests that route to the internet through IPs not in the whitelist. We also have certain intranet-only services like Facilities work orders, printing, etc. that could be on the public internet, but don't need to be, so better to those aging, likely vulnerable applications behind a layer than not.
Why, I could write such stuff too ;)

http://karma-engineering.com/lab/wiki/Monads
While I didn't know that streaming music was more than twice the average music consumer spending, I have always believed that streaming does have the potential to raise consumers spending on music, but maybe not by a factor of 2-3
Maybe someone was told to get rid of the polio virus, and poured it down the drain.
Knack - http://knackhq.com - REMOTE

Knack makes it easy for anyone to build online database apps.

We're growing rapidly and looking for a lead developer, AWS systems engineers, and front end designer/developer:

http://knackhq.com/jobs

We're focused on building a profitable long-term business with a product our customers love.

We can’t compete with Google on start-up perks, but we can more than compete if you’re looking to sink you teeth in and have a major impact:

* Impact: we’re expecting anyone that joins to come in and have a major impact. We’re small enough that every customer interaction, every marketing spend, every line of code has an over-sized impact.

* Equity: we don’t need hired-guns, we need team members. We want to share our long-term vision and success, and make sure you have equity in that journey.

* Autonomy: we don’t look for specific roles, we look for good fits. You’ll be able to contribute with your strengths and determine the projects you want to drive forward.

* Flexibility: supporting our chosen lifestyles is major part of our success equation. Join a remote team and create your own hours. Work how and where you want to.

* Culture: we work hard, but also don’t take ourselves too seriously and make sure we have a great time along the way.
Kafka can be compared to HedWig, which uses BookKeeper internally to store data.

HedWig is closer to the traditional message broker model where the broker (Hub in case of HedWig) keeps track of the subscriptions and what's been consumed so far. Kafka, on the other hand, uses a stateless broker model where the consumers maintain the subscription state about what has been consumed.

HedWig Hubs keep track of all subscriptions and once all consumers "consume" a given message Hubs delete the message. Kafka doesn't do that. It allows its consumers to start all over again even if the messages have been consumed (as long as the message is not too old).

HedWig is also slower because of its focus on high durability. Earlier versions of Kafka didn't care about durability as much, so Kafka was much faster.

HedWig is also design to work with a large number of topics and a few consumers for those topics. Kafka can do a better job supporting a large number of consumers (given its stateless broker design).
I read the first three sentences, and came back here to comment. Each is a fabulous joke, and I had 3 lol moments, and I wonder if anybody else laughed like I did?

I am a big fan of DFW on the basis of reading "The Pale King" alone, and haven't read this before.

1. "... the nerve stem of Maine's lobster industry." I full expect him to exploit this imagery later :-)

2. "... runs from Owl’s Head" Oh, God, already.

3. "... whose summer traffic is, as you can imagine, unimaginable."

4. "... Harbor Park, right along the water." Redundancy from an author concerned with economy of expression... oh, this is deliberate! He's making fun of the absurdity of town called Rockland. It's by the sea. Some sense of absurdity is subtle.

5. "... Camden by the sea, Rockland by the smell.” Economic status of Rockland explained.

That's in the first 3 sentences... I hate to "spell it out" but hopefully I can encourage people to read other stuff by DFW in so doing. The themes in the Pale King could certainly help some people in technical communities make sense of what it is they are doing.

OK, enough proselytizing, and literary-criticism-ism-ing back to reading now... I won't be back.
Your college is mitigating what it considers an abuse of its network.

Mariott is, in effect, preventing people from using the cellular service they pay (a carrier) for. Except, instead of attacking the cellular part, they're attacking the WiFi part. But, in effect, it's very close to jamming cell phone calls.
The interesting thing to me is that the "n00b approach" is basically what Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and friends did at Paypal.

1. build product in secret

2. exclusive press launch

3. wait for users

4. buy users

5. give up

They built the product in secret and raised money. They did a huge press launch "beaming" money from PDA to PDA. They waited for users, expecting Palm Pilots to be huge only to see they weren't. They decided to focus on eBay sellers and literally bought users for $20 each. The difference is they didn't give up.

Palantir and Space X also started by building products in secret, press launches and then lengthy sales cycles to get users. Ditto for Apple's "restart" in the late 90s and early 2000s. Maybe a relentless n00b approach is the way to build more transformative products and companies.
The only reason I can think of is DRM. Sometimes you are allowed to distribute physcial media, where keys are scrambled outside the regular filesystem, and perhaps there that allows for image distribution as well. But I'm guessing here.
Haskell performance is very good when written by people who know how the compiler works, and know the bytecode they want generated. I.e., if you rewrite a recursive function in a slightly unintuitive way and apply the right strictness annotations, it will compile down to the same bytecode as a for-loop in C.

Idiomatic Haskell is not generally as fast as mutable C/Java/etc. Creating/evaluating thunks is not fast and immutable data structures often result in excess object creation. When you need them, there is no real substitute for unboxed mutable arrays, something Haskell does NOT make easy.

Haskell is one of my favorite languages, the performance story just isn't quite what I want it to be. I do, however, think that there is plenty of room for improvement, i.e. there is no principled reason Haskell can't compete.
And that's...good. Shops are only good to have in your town insofar as they let you buy stuff more easily and cheaply. As soon as they no longer served that purpose, the labor and real estate was being wasted. Now that those businesses have shut down, the real estate is available for more productive uses and the workers are free to do something that is more useful to society. Your locality is that much better off for it, especially the poorest people, since they can obtain goods and services more cheaply.
Obama just like Reagan at cutting unemployment
over the next 100 years was my posit
It is true that Canada is not the same country as the USA. If you do business in any country that has brick and mortar plus employees, you will need to register with the government in that country.

The US has exactly the same law.
It's mentioned in the video on the non-mobile view:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-02/jpmorgan-says-data-...
What do you actually care about? Consumer apps aren't the only game in town; it sounds like you have an opportunity to make a real impact on whatever it is that's important to you.
This license makes it impossible to create non open source software without paying the company, which makes it practically useless for commercial development. Liberal license are licenses like BSD, Apache, etc, which allows people to create commercial derivative works without disclosing source code.
Mans first computer technology found in ancient greek shipwreck
I think you're violently agreeing: my point was that "dozens" or "hundreds" of times that it goes wrong, across the entire US, even if they're all from the same year is a statistical fluke we likely can do nothing about, and does not reflect any underlying problem with the emergency services. This is in direct reply to the person above me essentially making the argument "Well, yes, but I can show you exceptions!" Naturally, the first thing we should do is look at the rate of exceptions and see if that is reasonable for the process that we're talking about.

I was pointing out that even low balling the number of calls (a good way to get an estimate on the scale of a situation to reason about it), the number of cases the person was offering to present was such a small fraction, we could never get below that threshold of times things went weird. The reason for low balling the numbers in my estimate is that it made the resulting figures biased towards favoring the argument being made by the other person. If when the number start biased in their favor and still don't support their argument, it's reasonable to use an estimate to reject their claim.

The main thrust of my argument was essentially: the number of cases the person above my post offered to present was so small relative to the number of cases happening that they're mere anecdote, not data representing any underlying problem.

I would encourage you to understand what estimates are and how they're being used in arguments before making comments about numbers being nonsense or simply referring to them as made up. It simply makes you come across as mathematically ignorant.