skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't get it. If you think supreme court judgement is 'one source' then you cannot be argued with. And complaining about 'long paragraph'... hmm... I think you are just angry and without argument.

Regarding second paragraph, the citation is not handy right now, but this is what Indian feminists actually write. You know, the ones actually involved in drafting government policies. There was a similar article by NCW I read around 3 months ago. You can also talk to the head of http://samajsevasamithy.org/ regarding it (I volunteer there).
> Is it possible to learn what user likes and then make suggestions based on likes - is this one of the use cases?

In the Neural Networks for Machine Learning course on Coursera¹ the Netflix Prize² was brought up as an example that does this.

1: https://www.coursera.org/course/neuralnets

2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize
My guess is that he meant "dictatorship" rather than "monarchy". You took umbrage with his mistake rather than forgiving that and recognizing his intent, which is that the PM role in India has way too much power.
You should go contribute patches to the browser of your choice. ;)
Optimizing out inefficiency and waste is part of good programming. So yes.
Good point, however, I'm not sure I can recall a time during which someone intended to collect a URL from me but allowed just "example.com" as a valid input. I'd venture to guess that the validation enforced more often than not actually helps the site owner achieve their intended goal.
To be fair, udev communicates over netlink. :)

Only in the future it may use kdbus for some purposes (eg. uploading firmware blobs), but this will only affect internal interfaces.

On the other hand, systemd does not require the D-Bus daemon when you're launching systemctl it as root, the D-Bus daemon is only needed to route the call when used by unprivileged users. When used as root, systemctl connects to the PID1 socket directly and D-Bus is basically just a serialization protocol (and systemd does not depend on libdbus either).
Redis Sentinel properties and fail scenarios
Hey B-n-c,
You are pretty much spot on with everything you mentioned.

Apparently app.io had some setup w/ VMs running on lightweight hypervisors (https://macstadium.com/casestudies), but we found we didn't have to have all that overhead to run multiple simulators per machine.

And you're exactly right about the small piece of custom code to pass controls and send frames. We're big fans of socket.io - pretty powerful stuff!

Happy to answer follow-ups if we missed something.

Thanks,
weiyin
I went through the whole stack of SMTP RFCs just this week and the takeaway was this.

TCP/25 if you are talking directly to the recipient's mail server,
though it's discouraged if you are not a mail server yourself.

TCP/587 - the same as above, but you are a mail client. In particular,
it's the port for talking to "your" server, which you are tasking with
relaying your email to the destination.

* If you have username/password and want to "login", you want TCP/587.

On the other hand

TCP/465 is a deprecated way of *securing* an SMTP connection.

It's just SMTP over TLS. Deprecated, discouraged, but still widely supported. Functionally it can be either TCP/25 or TCP/587, depending on the setup at the server end.

To secure 25/587, you first speak a bit of SMTP and then initiate the TLS handshake with STARTTLS command. It's all actually really simple. Much simpler than it seems when you are looking at the SMTP configuration UI in a typical mail client :)

--

(Re-edit) Nevermind. Let's keep it on-topic.
Maybe, but then launching multiples and capturing the screen of them to send off through the sockets seems like there must be something in between. I wonder if its able to see where the session windows are on the screen and screenshotting them to send through, or if they somehow hooked directly in to pull the screen?
You might also checkout https://github.com/andsens/homeshick. Similar idea, but tailored for dotfiles.
>Gorillas are the market leaders. They are easy to spot because they promote the efficacy of their approach to grow their market.

Is this in terms of describing how simple or great the product is? I'm struggling to understand an example of this in action.
An example of Apple doing parallax right is the new iMac page:
http://www.apple.com/imac-with-retina/
At least the top image effect is very well done IMO and does a very good job conveying the central premise of the new iMac: looottts of pixels.

Having said that I really dislike what happens lower on the page where the iMac image stays pinned on the left and the descriptions scroll normally on the right. It's totally jarring to me. It seems unnatural that some of the contents would move with the scrollbar (as expected) and other significant elements would not. It immediately pulls me away from the content and leaves me trying to analyze what in the world is going on.

We experience parallax in the real world every day and are completely wired up to find it normal and expected. But real parallax involves objects at different distances. When you force objects that are in the same plane to move as if they were in different planes, you get the "funhouse" effect.

I suspect that like many other cute effects somebody will eventually do some serious AB tests and figure out that this kind of thing reduces conversions.
The Best Beer in the Country
Programmers SHOULD know how to write tests for their code. And how to write clean, well designed code (even if they don't call it SOLID). And they should know how to use regexps as well. These are skills that are transferrable whether you're doing frontend work for a small ad agency or crunching numbers for the NSA.
The most challenging aspect of programming, for me, is the ability to turn something over in my head to look at it mentally. To be honest, I can only do that for any length of time on a good day. Writing stuff down is laggy and sometimes lossy, so I am only at my most productive when I can take a complex problem with a lot of little fiddly bits, ingest it mentally, and keep a holistic model in my head.

Puzzles provide a good first-order estimation of this ability. Not solving puzzles, per se, but at least analyzing them. A good puzzle requires you to use a part of your brain as "scratch space" to hold hypotheses which are applied to other parts of the puzzle. Can I solve it this way? What if I tweak this part over here? Does this assumption simplify the path to a solution, or miss out on an important subtlety? I think the thing I tried previously was more correct; can I remember how to get back to it?

I'm actually not that great at this. Many of my peers are better. Fortunately, I can compensate in other areas (I'm glad to see writing skills called out in the comments, as I like to think I'm a good communicator). I have developed some coping mechanisms (the ability to identify which details in a problem can be succinctly written down and which subset can be stored in my head -- I refer to my notebook as swap space), but I do see the value of puzzle-type questions for evaluating a candidate's ability to do this sort of thing.

Does this mean that if you can't do it, you aren't a programmer? Of course not. I happen to be a kernel developer, so I write a lot of code that communicates with other modules, doesn't have much of a UI, and has a multi-dimensional rather than flat structure. Different types of programming need different sets of skills. Find your niche, and don't fret about how you don't fit into other niches as well as you fit into yours.

(I interviewed at Google seven years ago and was rejected for being weak at algorithm design. A few years ago I had an aha! moment where I found a simple, elegant, and easy solution to the problem I completely bombed in the interview. Apparently my subconscious had been chewing away at it for literally years. I think solving a question in four years or so is sub-optimal from Google's perspective so I'm sure they were right to reject me, and my inability to do it faster speaks to the deficiencies I mention above. But in the ensuing years I have become reasonably successful in my current line of work, which I enjoy completely. My failure at Google does not keep me up at night.)

TL;DR: Puzzles only measure a single axis, so find which axis your greatness lies on and optimize for that.
Encryption avoids a lot of problems, but this has _nothing_ to do with encryption
Ask HN: Is there any psychology behind consistently lightening color choices?
I saw some discussions earlier today surrounding http://flatuicolors.com/ and http://www.flatuicolorpicker.com/. This got me thinking about my color choices and I wanted to get some opinions.

I use several of the colors listed on Flat UI: alizarin, nephritis, and sun flower. I often need a lighter/darker variant of the colors. To do this, I apply LESS' "lighten" and "darken." My colors end up looking like:

@baseBlue: rgb(78,166,234);
@lightBaseBlue: lighten(@baseBlue, 30%);
@darkBaseBlue: darken(@baseBlue, 10%);

// http://flatuicolors.com/
@nephritis: rgb(39,174,96);
@lightNephritis: lighten(@nephritis, 30%);
@alizarin: rgb(231,76,60);
@lightAlizarin: lighten(@alizarin, 30%);
@darkAlizarin: darken(@alizarin, 10%);
@sunFlower: rgb(241, 196, 15);

Is there any psychological benefit associated with lightening/darkening each color by consistent percentages? Sometimes I feel like a color looks 'off' when lightened. For instance, lightNephritis feels like it has a bit too much blue in it, but I'm happy with nephritis. However, I also feel weird about just choosing a new 'lightGreen' color instead of lightening my base color.

Thoughts?
Yea I also think people mistake the tools for the trade. The fact is, two programmers can exist who know nothing of about each other's toolset, and they aren't necessarily better or worse, simply in different domains.

Vagrant is (can be) great if you need heavily spec'd out VMs, but with python I believe virtualenv would suffice. In the end, they are only tools
Maybe if you're lying about your app and policies, it's probably not a good idea to bring a newspaper into your offices! Especially when its blatently obvious you're looking to use your app to either blackmail or leak this information for your own gain.

The Guardian is a newspaper, it acted exactly how it should have.

If I knowingly invite a cop into my house and I've got a pound of cocaine on my coffee table. Is it unethical for the cop to arrest me? No. They're a fucking cop!

If you don't want people knowing shady parts of your business, don't invite people who make a living publishing stories about shady goings on!
I'm not sure what problem this solves but it's technically cool.
> We're all programmers, but we're not all the same

Which is a rebuttal to something I didn't actually say, but OK.

Look, obviously there are all different kinds of programmers. Millions and millions of people program computers today, so there's no end to the ways you can slice them apart. There are kernel programmers and GUI programmers, mainframe programmers and mobile programmers, Lisp programmers and BASIC programmers, elite programmers and n00b programmers.

But they are all programmers, was my point. They all do the work of wrestling with, as one of the people in Tracy Kidder's classic The Soul of a New Machine (http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-A-New-Machine/dp/0316491977) called it, "La Machine."

In this respect, being a programmer is a lot like being a coal miner: you become one by doing the work. Sure, some miners are handier with a pickaxe than others, and some can stand being down in a dark hole for longer. But regardless of that, everyone who puts on a hard hat with a lamp on it and goes into the mountain is a coal miner. The only thing you have to do to earn the designation is show up and do the work.

Now for the part of my comment where I (respectfully) challenge your conclusions.

You want to divide "programmers" further, into (essentially) "programmers," who are lazy 9-to-5 stumblebums, and "REAL programmers," who code with burning fury 23.5 hours a day (the other .5 hours they spend on HN). And then tell the people outside the "REAL programmers" category that, sure, they're "programmers," but they're not programmer programmers.

But that has a value judgment embedded in it, namely that 23.5-hour-a-day Burning Fury programming is Good Programming, and 9-to-5 programming is Bad Programming. But those positions aren't good or bad, they're just embraces of different sets of tradeoffs. You note yourself that the Burning Fury programmer sacrifices her health and relationships to get to that level. The 9-to-5 person is just someone who has decided against making that sacrifice. Maybe that limits their career growth, but it lets them hold on to those things. Maybe you've decided to let those things go in order to accomplish more in your work.

And both those decisions are fine! I'm not here to tell you how to live your life. I'm just saying that your way of being a programmer is not the only way of being a programmer. There are lots of ways to be a programmer. The only thing they all require is that you do the work.
Fun with Yosemite and your iPhone
What Is the Flex-IT Act and Why Should I Care?
Do you know about the hidden cloud in your business?
AMA with Mattan Griffel on Growth Hacking
I can't believe you got downvoted for that.
Whats more, I question the validity of equating smartness with puzzle solving abilities. It's a bit like equating quality work with having academic credential : no obvious link.
Being able to discriminate the worker quality is still a non solved problem - at least not with number. Good judge of character are still way better at that - and well, they're pretty exceptional.
Webinar Performance in the Cloud Managing the Risk in Outsourcing
We Just Thought, 'This Is How You Start a Company in America' AnyPerk (YC W12)
That's true. I think the OP is talking about puzzles in the more general sense (e.g. designing novel algorithms). It seems to me that it takes a specific type of mental state to enjoy theoretical CS and math, since much of your time there is spent banging your head against things until everything clicks into place.
Awesome! But that information needs to be on the TNaCL web page, not in an HN comment.
Interesting thing from reading the paper was that they deliberately didn't purify the olfactory ensheathing cells from the olfactory mucosa (OM) biopsy, as other work has shown it to be less effective if purified. So there may be other cell types or molecular factors at play here as well.

Another group has previously found some mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in the OM - or at least, cells with known MSC markers - so that's also a possibility for aiding repair. Very much looking forward to seeing where this research heads anyway.
The unfortunate reality is that both the CDC and the patient advocacy groups are lying their asses off. On the CDC side, all the recommendations are based around lyme when, as this article points out, there are dozens of tickborne infections including probably many that haven't even been discovered yet. So the 'official' clinical guidelines around treating tickborne illnesses make no sense. And in general many of the recommendations just seem to be deeply epistemologically flawed.

Whereas on the patient advocacy side, if you look at their (ILADS) reports, many of the footnotes go to random people's blogs, and if you follow the footnote trail long enough it just ends up where many of their recommendations basically just originate with random people making up shit.
I know the systemd developers are now planning on making udev depend on systemd in the near future, and that's pretty essential for desktop/server Linux.
Bugatti Veyron Grand Sport Vitesse 1 of 1 – investment or a toy for the rich?
Accelerating Internet of Things Analytics
this is great just ordered
Thank the programming deities for this one. I've been doing a balancing act with VMs lately and I was about to push my dotfiles to github, but it just seemed like a really bad idea
Drip coffee 101: Secrets to brewing the perfect cup
I think some of it comes from our notion of human intelligence being universally applicable to all problems. Puzzles and chess are often used as a proxy for that. The thinking goes is that if you're smart then you'll be good at puzzle solving. If you're smart then you'll be a good programmer. It's not really something that has a lot of evidence for. One of the best career advice I've received is to interview with lots of companies but do it in the order of least wanted job first so by the time you're interviewing for the job you really want, you have had lots of practice. It works pretty well. Puzzle solving and programming are both skills that you get good at with practice.

Someone else already commented that if you program then you're a programmer. I think that's really the only definition you should use. Everything else are just proxies, mostly bad ones, for if you're a good programmer or not.
I am not sure what issues you are talking about. I was talking about how external type of education (western in this case), in general, and specially when conducted over generations, completely changes our moral compass and understanding, by using specific example of dowry.
The one piece that puzzles me is how the frames are being captured from the iOS simulator. Are you launching multiples per user account, where each one is a different session at a different portion of the screen, and essentially screenshotting each? Or did you modify the simulator somehow and are hooking in to grab the screen, so that way its irrelevant of their position on screen?

Thanks!
Why I say yes to Twitter
Who the hell would design a system involving 911 calls with a limit that could be reached in a couple years of calls? I can't imagine how I would go about being stupid enough to not understand the nature of the requirement to not have 911 calls fail. This isn't cobol with a fixed field limit of N digits someone specified in 1964.
The person who wrote this post is the developer of OptiFine, a Minecraft mod that significantly improves and stabilizes performance by optimizing the game at many levels. In order to make it, they absolutely needed to understand the game engine at a level comparable to the Mojang developers.
Deconstructing and restyling D3 visualizations
I had to use port 465 for the Outlook that comes with the Lumia phone.
It took me a while to figure out you could scroll down.

Many of those fancy scroll effect websites have that problem.

If there is text or something else chopped off at the bottom, then it's obvious you can scroll.

But this kind of page looks like it's everything there is, and only if you discover that you can scroll down anyway, you will do so.
Interview questions you don't like/fail shouldn't be viewed as reflective of you, but reflective of your fit at that company.

They asked a puzzle-y question you couldn't solve? Either their problems are puzzle-y, or they have terrible criteria for evaluating people; either way, do you really want to work there?

They asked a hard algorithmic problem, the kind that was someone's PhD thesis 30 years ago, and which you'd only get the optimal result to if you'd seen it before? Either they really do expect you to know stuff like that off the top of your head, or they expect you to behave a certain way when confronted with stuff you don't know; either way, do you really want to work in an environment with those kinds of expectations?

They asked you to code something hard withing a short time limit, and while you can code it, you failed the time limit; do you really want to work somewhere where speed is -the- criteria to optimize, rather than quality/maintainability/whatever (or at least where they're selecting for that rather than those other attributes)?

Etc.

In general, as others have said, if you program, you're a programmer. What specific roles you're a fit for is largely orthogonal to that.

If you don't pass a company's test, view it as having dodged a bullet, not having 'failed'; either they expect you to have something from day one that you don't have, or they are terrible at testing for what they really want, and so their culture, codebase, etc, is likely miserable. In neither case do you want to work for them.

You want to work for a place whose expectations for what you have on day one fits what you actually have (whatever they may be), -and- whose interview process tests for that (even if it's a little flaky), so both you and they can expect, going into the job, that you can handle it.

Remember, too, that there are false positives and false negatives even when they're testing specifically for what they want. Failure to figure out a puzzle doesn't even mean the person isn't good at figuring out puzzles; just that in this case, in this contrived, high stress set of circumstances (an interview), they were unable to come up with an answer in the time limit.
I have the same security keys registered with three completely different google accounts (two completely unrelated domain accounts and one gmail account), so i'm not sure what's going on for you.
The consensus seems to be that the "cinematic reality not augmented reality" message probably refers to the realistic accommodation - virtual objects being in focus at the correct focal depth - which Magic Leap is apparently aiming for and which other 3D display systems don't offer. If that message seems confusing, especially in light of the fact that neither 2D nor (standard) 3D cinema offer realistic accommodation, let's just say that Magic Leap's PR operation has not always been the tightest ship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8J5BWL8oJY .
Hey all, I wrote this thing. And since Svbtle doesn't have a commenting feature, I'll probably be hanging here all day if you have any questions, feedback, or violent disagreements about the post. I could talk about this topic all day, so shoot!
I really like certain types of puzzles - figuring out the causes of bugs, figuring out how to implement something in code cleanly and elegantly, figuring out how to make sure something is designed maintainably and intelligibly to spare future grief, figuring out the mysterious ways of programmers who wrote code I now maintain.

I also like figuring out and implementing the right algorithms for a problem, but it's a pretty small part of what I do at work, and if it's complex, it's something I like to take some time to think through and sometimes read up on to make sure I really understand what I'm getting into, so I really don't like playing the logic puzzle games they use in interviews at some places. Being quick with an algorithmic answer is a nice skill, but being a good programmer is a craft that involves more than cleverness with algorithms.
/etc/systemd/journald.conf

ForwardToSyslog=True

or

systemd.journald.forward_to_syslog=True on the kernel command line.

Is it just cool to not read documentation anymore?
Departed Braintree founder starts $100M venture company
It is well known that the ability to solve mathematical puzzles was used as a screening tool at places like Google to screen new hires. It seems to me that this practice was based on the belief that there was an affinity or correlation between the interest and ability to solve mathematical puzzles and programming. I suspect there is such a correlation, but it is a weak one and is not useful as a screen tool for hiring which is why the practice has been dropped. But, jigsaw puzzles are not mathematical puzzles, so there may be no correlation at all there. I love mathematical puzzles, but I am bored with jigsaw puzzles.

So, since it is not the case that loving jigsaw puzzles implies "ability and desire to be a programmer", then the fact that you hate jigsaw puzzles implies nothing with respect to your status as a programmer.
The Guardian acted perfectly ethically as a news organization.

The Guardian acted completely unethically as a business partner.

Another reason why introducing profit motives into a news organization is a recipe for trouble. Conflicts of interest like this are just too common.