skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You missed the part about the F1 test track?

This obviate the need for deeper GPS depenendence.

You have a 3D track designed with graduated radius turn transitions, smooth topological surfac transitions, and predictable fiction levels. All in a general layout that is suited to safety at speed.

Try running this car at 150mph on glendora mountain road, at night, during a bout of santa-ana cross winds.
I would have been blown away if the article made that connection. Heck, I'm blown away that you made the connection.

Just to expand a bit on your apropos points: Michael Flynn is the originator of SISD/SIMD/MISD/MIMD computer architecture classifications. He also originated the notion Directly Executable Languages:

A Directly Executed Language (DEL) is the interface between the
output of a higher level computer language translator and the input
to the interpretive process of a computer. New developments in
computer technology (especially fast read-write control storage)
allow 'soft' computer architectures in which a range of flexible
'machine' or DEL's can be introduced. These DEL's are in many
respects unlike conventional instruction sets, especially in format
flexibility and specified operations.

Ref: http://books.google.com/books/about/Directly_Executed_Langua...

(As an undergrad I was fascinated by the work, which was introduced to me by Bob Wedig and Gus Uht at CMU ECE, as well as their extensions for automated concurrency detection and the unit which kept track of which instructions had and had not executed: the Advanced Execution Matrix.)
Venetian Snares' also had something similar in his "Songs About My Cats" album: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlpakpa8zIA
The light bulb was also an iteration, and no Edison was not the inventor. Humphrey Davy (1802) was (or Warren de la Rue (1840) if you count the inclusion of a bulb as a necessary distinguishing feature), and at least 22 people contributed to iterations on the idea before Edison and Swan commercialized it.

Edison contributed a lot to the iterations that made incandescent light, phonographs and video production possible, but he certainly was not the sole inventor that people make him out to be. He was basically the first Steve Jobs. Shrewd business person, yes. Iterator, yes. Sole inventor, no.

IMHO the myth of the sole inventor is one of the most destructive/unproductive notions I've encountered since it gives some very smart people the false impression that not only do they not need to work cooperatively with others, but that they might even be hindered by working with anyone not equally as brilliant as themselves. It's a myth that produces a toxic attitude that squanders the talents of some of the most talented.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#History
This is a perfect example of the sort of thing which should have very stringent oversight.

Team is completely unqualified to do biology research?
Product is sold as an ancient miracle cure which big pharma doesn't want you to know about?
No technical details?
Marketing based on juvenile poop jokes?

I hope this never gets off the ground, because it will actively damage the reputation of actual gut microbe therapies.
There is also 'Atom' which is an embedded DSL in Haskell for writing real-time embedded systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_(programming_language)
They're both probably profitable, but which would you rather be associated with?

What Patrick said comes at just the right time for me as it's becoming more obvious that I like teaching and explaining things. I even have a potential subject in mind, however the market is one that's likely difficult to sell into since the end users (readers) are not the likely purchasers.
Modern CPU's do this on very limited level by basically looking at the instructions and executing those in parallel which have no dependencies with eachother.

The thing I'm wondering the most is that how on earth can they get so many instructions per clock with short pipeline? Without knowing the details on how they compiled the SPEC benchmark it's really hard to say. Who knows, maybe they cheated and ran parts of the benchmark parallel on their cpu and not on others, with "It's the natural way for this chip!" as an excuse.
I wonder how many cores were used for ECDSA verification.
Fair point about apps but websites are becoming more and more javascript centric.
WiiHack
Blackwater Verdict End of Private Military Contracts?
From adhoc script to object-oriented program
CVS Stores Reportedly Disabling NFC to Shut Down Apple Pay and Google Wallet
The article links to paywalled studies. Psychology studies are often hard to do. Has anyone read the studies to see if they're reasonable or awful?
> That's why Google killed Google Reader, for example. Subscribing to an RSS feed and having an RSS reader deliver 100% of what the user signed up for in an orderly, linear and predictable and reliable fashion is a pointless business for Google.

If you understand this - you start to understand most of Google's decisions (even if you might not like them).
Cool! I'll add it to my growing list :) Thanks!
Grep even explicitly supports it with the -a (--text) option that forces it to treat a binary file as text.
I haven't ever heard the term 'dumb pipe' before, but I think I'll have some difficulty getting it out of my head now. This is a really interesting take and it seems to make a lot of sense. Is there validity in it? Is gmail a much less lucrative business than Google+ per minute spent there? Will Inbox bombard us with things Google thinks we want to see that will ultimately be paid advertisements? Only time will tell.
I'm always fascinated by the 'correctness' [1] of medicinal treatments in ancient times. Here, the paper explains that the ash tonic effectively served as a mineral supplement to promote bone healing. Is it just coincidence that they medicated in this manner, and it ended up being beneficial? Did they somehow know that the tonic was effective for these means? If so, how? Or is this just me weighting the 'correct' choice of remedies higher than the likely multitude of faulty choices that were made in those times?

[1] Poor choice of word, but can't think of a better one
That's because Starbucks is giving customers additional value (free drinks, etc.) for using their app instead of a bare credit card. This is the "carrot" form of incentive, as opposed to the "stick" that the other retailers are resorting to. Give customers enough incentive and they'll inconvenience themselves a bit.
Compile times are important though and using low level language such as C can make a big difference.
Exploring Minitest Concurrency
More likely they'll differentiate between friend email & promotional email (or emails from services you actually signed up for) and then charge those same services you signed up premiums in order to show up in your inbox (think facebook, but instead of fan reach, it happens in your inbox).
interesting I'm on Python because I'm very productive with it and I'm coming from Node.js.
The Curious Case of Human Hibernation
fork join framework takes care of that.
Just a counter point, whenever anybody wants to solve really hard problems, the think tank, lab, whatever that's setup to do the solving is very rarely near a city.
I feel like the problem isn't really with intrinsics. Rather, the problem is that compilers just aren't very good at optimizing for the last 30-50% of performance. One notices this when using intrinsics because if you are using them you probably are concentrating on performance. But if you were to look closely at the non-intrinsic code, I think you'd see a lot of the same problems: bad register allocation leading to unnecessary moves and spills, failure to take advantage of flags already set by arithmetic and logic operations, and awkward code layout leading to unnecessary jumps and branches.

Obviously, this isn't because compiler writers are stupid or ignorant. Instead, it's just a really difficult problem to optimize for one target in a way that doesn't hurt performance on another. Still, I think there's a lot of room for improvement, if only because comparing the output from GCC, CLang, and ICC often shows that one compiler does a much better job than the others[1]. But even once you know (definitively) that the code could be faster, it's often really tough to convince a given compiler to generate the code that you want. And coming up with a single construct that works well for multiple compilers and remains readable is often impossible.

I'd love it if there was a good way to "lock down" the output for a given function, without needing to depend on the whims of individual compilers. Other than distributing only pre-compiled binaries, there doesn't seem to be a great way to do this. Looking at Dan's example code, he has a solution that's twice as fast as the non-inline-ASM alternatives. But it's still depending on the compiler to do register allocation, and adding a global variable somewhere else in the program might well cause the whole thing to blow up, spilling to stack and triggering the popcnt false dependency that he's working hard to avoid.

What's the best way to do this --- to keep optimized code optimized across the mix of compilers in the current ecosystem?

[1] I'm Linux based, but I probably should start adding MSVC to the mix. I'm sure there are cases where it does something better than the others. Is there a good way to do this? Perhaps an equivalent to http://gcc.godbolt.org/ for MSVC?
Maybe, but my fear would be that the act of rewriting it to use array notation will introduce yet more bugs. Some of the comments point out that the problem exists because nobody cared enough to fix it for several years. Having seen that nobody cared enough to fix it, it's not clear that anyone will care enough to fix it properly.
Turkey UFO Incident – Aliens on Board, Ufology Case File, Unsolved
> If you are just starting out and would like to work in general web development, committing yourself to JS only would be stupid beyond belief.

You're suggesting they focus on SQL instead? Ha.

In my opinion, java script is probably your safest bet if you want to focus on one thing related to general web development that will remain valuable for a long period of time. The trend I've seen with out clients (top 500 eccommerce sites) is more and more use of javascript. I would say learn jQuery and understand how Angular works.
I disagree. At the end of the day, Google's business is selling ads to the highest bidder. Gmail is an ad conduit, but Google Reader was not.

Gmail isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Essentially, a free catch-all for any domain with forwarding to your Gmail (Gmail only for now) inbox. Not quite Google Apps but covers a decent chunk of what I used free Google Apps for.

Speaking of which, maybe someone here will know if/how you can set up catch-all with Yandex Mail for domains[1]? The only thing I couldn't figure out.

[1] https://pdd.yandex.ru/domains_add/
I've been collecting a list and trying to put something like this myself .... maybe worth collaborating.
1. People should try to understand what Wave actually was. It was an experiment to test new features. Nothing more, nothing less. Many of those features are found in Google Drive and Docs now.

2. I don't think Google wants to "replace" Gmail but change how we use email. (If the end product will be called Inbox, Gmail or something completely different is not important.) I see Inbox in the same way I saw Wave. As an experiment. The features which work will be merged in one way or another into Gmail. The others don't.

3. Google already changes Gmail. The smart label were just the first step. The aim is, that you don't create filters yourself but that the algorithm does it for you. Inbox is a second step in this direction.

4. One loser in all this are open protocols. Those were never meant for this. So either someone develops a new IMAP or open protocols will disappear. Like with Hangouts and XMPP.
Efficacy
You misunderstood the point of the article. Gmail is an ad conduit - but it's a glorified contextual display ad conduit. There's only so much upside there.

However - selling email advertisers prime position for their precious emails and conveniently "bouncing", "hiding", or marking any non-paid emails as "spam" is much, much more lucrative.

He's not arguing that gmail isn't an ad conduit - he's arguing that they're not efficiently monetizing the email sector as best they can (and Inbox is another attempt to improve that).
VLIW in reality was actually worse (see Itanium as an example) than the currently favored superscalar out of order execution with register renaming. Both of these techniques try to take advantage of instruction level parallelism inherent in pretty much all code.

The reason for failure is that VLIW is basically stuck with whatever the compiler decides can be done. OoO does it dynamically. In the end the only real drawback with OoO vs VLIW is the chip area and increased power consumption required for the logic.
I love the dumb pipe -- I'm finding it more and more as a product developer, that you have to mix helpers with the dumb pipe.

For example give user 100% control, while supplying actions that shortcut what would typically be a long human activity.

As soon as you begin relying on the automagical world without a good set of controls for the user, your users begin to have more questions and concerns about how the sausage is made.
How to bypass iCloud on all Apple iPads (2, 3, 4, Air, mini) with 3G
The penultimate sentences at the bottom of the article should be at the top. (But then again, if they were at the top, people might skip reading the rest of the article.):

>It’s important to remember, however, that this paper only considered brain anatomy. It doesn’t contradict studies looking at brain function, nor does it relate to microanatomy or neuropathology (i.e. microscope work.)

The less provocative title would have had a more qualified adjective such as "Most Autistic People Have Normal Macro-scale Brain Anatomy"

The article was talking about "gross anatomy" by comparing sizes of MRI scans. There can still be other microscopic brain differences that MRI can't show such as brain wiring. The following TED has some visuals to illustrate it. (I don't think the speaker from MIT did the best job explaining it but his graphics are interesting.)

http://www.ted.com/talks/sebastian_seung
Interesting, so what do you use to avoid nested callback chains? Use a workaround library? This just seems like brute force. I don't think you are required to use asynchronous callbacks in C++ to do anything, while in Node.js you are almost guaranteed to doing this.

Why would you write a CRUD app using Node.js when you can accomplish this in multitude of other well established methods? LAMP, Java, Python etc.

Nothing wrong with experimenting but for real world needs, there's no clear answer as to why you would need Node.js to redo what you used to do.
Standing desks, motorized standing desks are the new Aeron of this bubble.
It's not really a post-React framework though, it has been designed at the same time as React was starting to take mind share so it's not clear if they have built something that responds to what React + Flux provide.
Agreed with this. The author doesn't distinguish positive thinking (being hopeful, working towards goals you think you can achieve, etc.) and naivety (well everything will work out for the best!).

Frustrating to read articles like this
The customer end up paying for it anyway you look at it but at least the credit card insurance comes with it.
Tesla's Musk: AI is like summoning the demon
On the other hand, customers will leave in droves if Google starts obscuring the visibility of legitimate emails. This would diminish the value of its ads, so I think they're unlikely to do that in the name of ad revenue optimization.
I'd really love to know what those might be. Unfortunately Soft Machines don't tell any details.

EDIT:
Jackpot! Google patent search to the rescue. Based on their patents in the last few year (latest one was published March 2014) one can get an understanding what the fuss is all about. Have to read those trough today.
Internet connected guns for police officers
I wonder if it's already the time to put to rest the myth that the human-coded assembly for a modern CPU is slower than what a compiler generates?

As far as I know it's been semi-true around Pentium time. On that asymetrical dual pipeline architecture with many parring exceptions and some microcoded instructions in the mix the typical hand-optimized code for the previous generation CPUs would likely under-utilize the second pipe and hit some microcode for a good measure. However, even the Pentium Pro already had a very robust front end that did not require non-intuitive op rearrangement to utilize multiple exec units.

Saying that you cannot hand code better than the compiler for a non-Pentium CPU nowadays sounds similar to saying that if you use too many set bits in your data then the punch cards will warp and tear apart from too many holes.
I don't think it has anything to do with the speed of the internet, rather you won't see large companies who paid millions for infrastructure built on Oracle or SAP come off it anytime soon. The people that spend this much on money won't be sold on the wonders of Javascript, that's not how they make their purchase decisions.
Sure, but peopke often fall into the trap of only considering short term productivity. Choosing something that won't be maintained in a few years will be a big lose in productivity.
Ask HN: Folks,know any good design courses/moocs/lectures for non designers?
Aphex Twin has made some softer songs as well, a popular one being this: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iiZEto2j2GQ

His newest album Syro also has less aggressive tracks, but it seems to not be on YouTube.
This is a bit dramatic, but the sentiment that we (America) should be doing better in a number of areas is certainly appropriate.

There will always be people who fear change and want to protect the status quo, especially when lots of money is involved.

Dealerships lobbying to protect their interests isn't particularly shocking, nor is the fact that politicians are susceptible to lobbying. That happens in China too I'm pretty sure.
In the tommorrow's news: Government introduces the Sibyl system.
Just because there are no rules against something does not make it acceptable or good.

Just because I review code doesn't meant I accept or use it so your assumption is wrong.

There should be nothing tiresome about calling out for discussion of evolving trends in software or anything else.

If you see nothing negative about this practice then speak out constructively.
Yeah because once again, fueled entirely by assumption, you've come to determine what is the desired use and the appropriately powered laser. Your entire life must be one never ending, unfunny episode of Seinfeld.

Your arrogant schizophrenic replies with fictional quotes from you're own manifestations and irrational conclusions have added no value whatsoever. I provided a name of a company and some cautious advice, nothing more yet you feel the need to go on some crusade - and for what exactly?? Are you a staunch advocate for the use of high powered lasers in uncontrolled, informal circumstances?? Seriously, you ARE the personification of all your overly active insecurities - a know it all who upon reflection knows nearly nothing. Get the chip off your shoulder and realize if you don't like something, then don't engage.

And yes, my handheld spider arctic 3 blue 1W laser is under 2 lbs, can run continuously for 10 minutes and can absolutely BLIND anyone in under a second from miles away.
Sigh. So many fallacies. Let's take one: Google wanted to replace Gmail with G+? Umm, no. It's a complete non-sequitur.

The purpose of Inbox isn't to "mediate" something for the purpose of mediating it. Elgan seems to suggest that first Google decided they had to intrude with meditation, and then came up with the idea of Inbox to justify it. The reality is, mediation falls out of the architecture of email anyway.

Most day to day interpersonal communication has moved away from email and into chat apps. Your email outside of work is largely an incoming federated asynchronous dumping ground for receipts, bills, notifications, and other things. It's become unmanageable for many people, a nuisance.

Inbox is an attempt to improve the experience of email given the reality of how it's used. All email is mediated. The way RFC822 email works is, MTA's transfer messages between services, and MUAs are responsible for the presentation of that email to users. MUAs mediate mail, for example, IMAP4 SEARCH and folders are mediation mechanisms for mail. Mail clients are free to present data from MUAs in any form they want. The fact that people have largely copied the same 'From,Subject,Date' table format that's been with us for the last 30 years isn't part of any spec, it's for lack of trying.

Inbox changes nothing about the unpinnings of mail (SMTP), what it wants to do is change the user interface that presents the mail so that it has superior summarization, sorting, searching, and clustering. That requires some form of mediation unless done completely on the client side, but doing it completely on the client side imposes some performance downsides, especially on mobile.

It's not as if Gmail doesn't "mediate". It spam filters, it has priority inbox, it automatically puts stuff into tabs like "Promotions". Even providing indexing and searching of mail is a form of meditation.

Elgan has penned an opinion piece that tries to impute some reason for Inbox other than what user interface designers and product managers have been aiming for -- usability goals. The implications about wanting to find excuses to mediate and take away control are utter nonsense.
Actually, I'm getting tired of the dystopian future that I see everywhere in popular media. The only one that has even a hint of positivism is The Hunger Games.

Why can't we have movies with the joy of discovery? The thrill of exploration and invention? The future doesn't have to be bleak.
> I'm predicting that Google will end Gmail within the next five years....Of course, Google may offer an antiquated "Gmail view" as a semi-obscure alternative to the default "Inbox"-like mediated experience.

Way to really go out on that limb.

Being an "algorithm business" isn't necessary or sufficient for the argument being made here. I can't tell if this is a "google wants all the eyeballs" argument or a "if all you have is a hammer" argument, but, either way, it doesn't follow.
This is why on the web, google has never been able to shutdown startups from boutiques to trying to clone groupon, they lack true empathy for the consumer. Google had the technical know how to build Nest easily, but it would have never had the empathy Nest had. Just look at the bland google+. Let the google employee downvotes begin!
var prod_dependencies = {
obj0: require('obj0'),
obj1: require('obj1')
};

var test_dependencies = {
obj0: require('mockobj0'),
obj1: require('mockobj1')
};

var dependencies = test_dependencies;

some_func(dependencies.obj0,dependencies.obj1);

Javascript does not need Java-style dependency injection.
Javascript's configuration language JSON is valid Javascript.
>On the other hand, customers will leave in droves if Google starts obscuring the visibility of legitimate emails.

There's no guarantee of that at all.