skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What issue could possibly exist for using a GPL editor? It's not being shipped from a company...
This 100x this!

I'm sick and tired of this elitist new feature for new feature sake as well. Some of us have to work for a living and would like to go home after the workday instead of catching up on the new flavor of the week.
The biggest thing i'm looking for now is a replacement for Google's apps suite - mainly Calendar and Docs/Drive. Something that i can use on the web and sync to my (Android) phone. If the Docs replacement just did text documents, that would probably be enough; if it did spreadsheets and text, it would definitely be enough. It would be great if it was free, and fine if it was cheap. Not Apple (no better than Google), not Evernote (poor and declining quality). What's out there?
That tweet seems to be about go, not SPDY
> Go for safety. We do not need yet another unsafe language. We have plenty of those.

Do we? The only ones I hear about people using are C/++. On the other hand, safe systems languages seem to end up being forgotten, as people opt for C/++ instead for systems/performance domains. Presumably in part because they use things like garbage collection, giving up some of the more raw control and probably also speed that C/++ provides.

It really seems that any language that wishes to challenge C/++ on their own turf needs to offer the power of C/++ as far as it is possible. In Rust's case, that is possible as long as you're being explicit about where the safe interfaces end and the unsafe ones begin.
One obvious thing to try is to use Flow's type inference to emit GCC annotations and see whether those optimizations kick in. (Of course, Flow can also try to replicate whatever GCC does, but that will take some time. No reason not to, though.)
It's funny, my first job out of college was at a startup with an ex-Sun CTO, and he insisted on a single monolithic codebase. After he left I tried to organize an (aborted) project to modularize the codebase, since many of the other engineers ran into it as well.

Having worked at Google in the interim, and having a number of acquaintances at Microsoft (which uses the multiple-repository approach) I can see the pros and cons of both. The biggest benefit of the single codebase isn't technical, it's cultural. When you have a number of interdependent modules, then every change request and new feature has to go through that module's owner. If it's not their top priority (and it won't be), then getting your work done suddenly has a hard dependency on a team who is...generally pretty unresponsive, at least from your POV. The result is a lot of finger-pointing and political infighting, where every division thinks that every other division is a bunch of bozos.

The nice thing about Google's system (which, IIUIC, was Sun's as well, and is also Facebook's) is that when you have a hard dependency on another team and their priority list doesn't line up with yours, you can say "Well, can I make the change myself and you review it?" and the answer is usually yes. That means that people's default worldview is to assume busyness, not malice or stupidity, which makes the company as a whole function much better together. Yes, it creates a huge mess that someone will eventually have to clean up. But now you have a lot of options for how to clean it up, not a single point of failure: you can have the feature implementor do it, or the code owner, or it may get replaced entirely if the system is rewritten, or the feature may be unlaunched and no longer necessary, or someone may write an automated Clang or Refaster tool to fix a bunch of instances at once.

I'd compare it a lot to democratic capitalism: it's the worst system that exists, except for all the rest. When I was at Google, we all complained about how everybody else checked in changes that added complexity to our code. But if we couldn't do that, we'd all be complaining about how everybody else prevented us from getting our work done. I know which problem I'd rather have.
It's pretty easy to be "10x" (or infinity) someone who clearly doesn't know what they are doing.

However, assuming some minimum baseline of having a clue, the multiplier is more likely to be due to environment.

Banks hire some very smart people, yet are historically aweful at delivering software.
Startups, especially outside SV often have to survive by hiring "scraps" for peanuts, yet run rings around big corps.

If a company forces people to work with their hands tied behind their backs, they shouldn't be surprised results are lacking.
> Only the ones small enough that they don't worry about getting sued

You got it backwards. Precisely only the big commercial distros with mighty legal teams (Debian, RedHat, Fedora) could afford to get away with violating the GPL, and stealing the name of the original project for the fork symlinks. Try to name your toy project something even remotely similar to redhat or debian and you'll be crushed like a bug.

Here I see powerful entities taking advantage of an individual hacker.

""" During the Debian project activity, the source code distributed by Debian was modified in a way that violates GPL and Copyright and makes it impossible to legally distribute this "fork" called "cdrkit". """

""" The GPL preamble (see also Urheberrecht §14 below) disallows modifications in case they are suitable to affect the original author's reputation. As Debian installs symlinks with the original program names and as many people still believe that the symlinks with the original program names are the original software, Debian does not follow the GPL.

GPL §2a requires to keep track of any author and change date inside all changed files. This is not done in the fork.

[...]

GPL §3 requires the complete source to be distributed if there is a binary distribution. The Debian fork tarball does not include everything needed to compile the cdrtools fork (complete source) and Debian does not give a written offer to deliver the missing parts. """
Thanks for the Fastmail recommendation! I have been using Yahoo for 8 years now, but I've never really felt comfortable using a free service for something as critical as email. And certainly not comfortable leaving it in the hands of one of the biggest companies in the world.
This is really nice work. Good job.

Do you have plans to utilize the data for anything else? That could scare me and excite me at the same time.
It has a subtle physics flaw, which is that the sink, as it fills up, will cause flow through the bottleneck to be greater. Ignoring this, the metaphor is indeed pretty good.
I can't get at the post, so maybe they answer this, but... in this thread, I'm seeing that it's Yahoo! in the U.S., Yandex in Russia, Baidu in China. That seems to leave... a lot of the globe unspoken for. What's the default search for those places?
Yes, so the conclusion one might draw is that if your code is implicitly typed, it will run fast as well as probably do well when run through a static type checker.
I get to see a lot of people giving hate to Javascript for being not a real language. But with TypeScript it really feels like a modern language to build large apps.

I love how coffeescript offers high expression ability for prototyping while typescript offers scaffold so you don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Safari and Firefox were (and are) pretty darn good. Given that Chrome used Safari's rendering engine, I wouldn't expect otherwise.
Replying to ekm2, who is hell-banned:

So,who is Suzanna Musick?

Good question! I'm not going to post details here, but she appears to have plenty of public info easily Google-able, including a Linkedin profile and the name of her current startup. That said, I couldn't find anything about this company at all, and don't want to delve too much deeper as it's starting to make me feel creepy.
Yes, I used Opera back then.

Only Chrome finally made a faster/better/stronger browser.
Git Smart: git bisect
Every JavaScript dev should read this
Yeah, Sync could be improved a lot. The good news is that we are working on it, and I have hopes that the next version will solve all issues (both performance and UX) without sacrificing privacy.

Now, if the question is whether adopting Yahoo & co will be bad for the user experience, Mozilla is betting on the fact that these smaller search providers can deliver not just a comparable experience, but also innovation from many sources.
While a basic knowledge of git (i.e. checkout, add, commit, push, and pull) is fairly common among developers these days, when it comes to advanced topics, you still earn a lot of puzzled faces and blank staring eyes when you start talking about things like git bisect or git rebase. This blog series will shed some light on these topics of advanced gitology.
git bisect, or git can do THAT?
For simple pages Chrome was faster. But the tradeoff was that you didn't get things like MathML- which was important to- maybe- three of us. And iirc, SVG was better on FF (I did physics tutorial and animation stuff- I told people to use FF).

Also, I still prefer video on FF. Chrome is choppier with a lousy connection or hardware. But Chrome is quicker to load a simple site which makes it overall a better experience for passive web browsing. (But to be fair my FF is loaded with add-ons so that may slow it down a bit).
Also let's remember the humble bundle, and the new Mozilla Developer Browser
> Rust cannot remove `unsafe` without being useless for its target, and useless as a language (it wouldn't even have FFI).

I like to think of Haskell as a parallel: It guarantees side effect-free code. But you still need an escape hatch in the form of unsafePerformIO in order to use the FFI. The language's semantics can easily be broken with that functionality, but it seems to be a necessary price to pay if you want to have any kind of FFI. (<- Well, I guess something like Proof Carrying Code could be an alternative..)
Firefox was great, but the performance was sub-par around version 3, and the time between releases was measured in years, not weeks. Chrome definitely gave Mozilla a nice kick in the backside, which I am very thankful for. These days Firefox is now close to, if not faster and less memory hungry than Chrome.
Realistically it's because DDG can't pay the bills
My guesses:

1) To supply the data that the future robot cars will consume, and profit via license fees. The Google cars use data-heavy techniques with very good preexisting metric maps.

2) To speed up the development of technology that will save perhaps 20,000 lives a year in North America alone. Larry Page has enough power and Google enough money that they can do stuff with "because it's great" as a primary reason.

(I'm not affiliated with Google, but have pondered this question and asked around)
> in conjunction with dick waggling is just funny, now that I think about it.

You understand that 'dick waggling' in this sense does not refer to the mechanical motions of a penis, right?

That it's what we call in English a "euphemism"? The gender-neutrality of the subject makes perfect sense when you understand that this euphemism, unlike human genitalia, is not gender specific.

In this case, "dick waggling" is a euphemism to mean "unwarranted bravado" or "unnecessary behavior performed only to prove that it can be accomplished".
I know, I was surprised as well. And if there are legitimate issues, isn't this exactly the dual-licensing opportunity that open source projects dream of?
Will the settings be changed for existing users, or only for new installs?
Show HN: Runway – An Automated Financial Planner
This is a classic example of a slippery slope argument.
The numbers are never disclosed, but they can usually be inferred from Mozilla's public accounting. That'll take a while, though.
Ew. What happens if you use a normal https proxy server based e.g. in Germany?
It's like a null reference in that both increase the distance between the error and the report of failure, and both have a way of working correctly.

The distinction between compile time failure and runtime failure is an important one, but not the only thing going on.
I do agree with the author that a 10x environment is required for a 10x programmer.

I was a 4x-5x programmer at my last position relative to my co-workers. However, I was fired after I tried to take my government legislated vacation entitlement after 3 months notice (and after the employer lost the right to dictate when I could take the vacation). The threat of firing also came with a promotion without additional pay. Bureaucracy, & labour violations in the pursuit of profit has created a <1x environment.

Mine is somewhat of an extreme case, but anyone will lose any motivation to outperform without commensurate pay/recognition.
I don't think that would happen. Plenty of people are already willing to pull the trigger, especially if people are pulling the trigger at them, or they think people are going to pull a trigger at them.

More nuanced training and preparation, sure, possibly. I'm more concerned with targeted desensitization, but this is hugely arm chair philosophical at this point. I don't know if having concern for the future actually does anything. The world is so large, and so complicated. If these were simple problems, they would have been solved.
Agreed. On a small notebook display I tend to work with one or a small few windows at a time, usually taking up most or all of the display area. Aspect ratio is highly relevant to my experience there and actually guides the aspect ratio of my windows.

But on a large desktop display, I end up with lots more windows at any one time, including lots of small windows that stay around and in one place for a long time: things like notes, feeds, things to come back to, etc. And, in that large space, I can size each window as large as I want, so I much more often can use a natural-feeling aspect ratio for its content. In other words, large displays are the only ones for me in which a "desktop metaphor" GUI actually feels and functions like a desktop. So, on a large display (aside from games/movies), I don't care too much about aspect ratio, I'll fill up the edges of whatever space I've got.
ECT can be very therapeutic—yes, it induces brain seizures (which is the point), but it helped me a lot.
Many people, even some lawyers, don't understand the GPL. :/ It elicits this kind of knee-jerk reaction in people.
Yep that's a fair comment, we built it because we were sharing so much stuff that it became difficult to remember who had sent which link, and what exactly was in the article. Plus we're super-lazy and saving that 5-10 seconds 20 times a week seemed worth it. Ultimately I see the value in this being the summarization of articles - there's too much stuff to read, so anything that helps in that area could be cool. But thanks for the feedback, we may need to improve that message :-)
Aaand the menus are gone?!

I'm on Win8.1 x64
Yeah, I did not get that either. I also do not understand why the GPLv3 would necessitate a contributor agreement, but MIT would not. I always thought those agreements were necessary so that one institution has copyright and can change the license without getting approval from every author. That applies to any free license, doesn't it? Anyway, I think they just wanted to change to MIT before new authors commit without an CA, after which they cannot change it so easily.
The easiest way is to not conflate middleware handling with routing. Your routing infrastructure should take a dict mapping URL patterns to callables, and returns a callable (which uses this DFA-based approach to dispatch). Your middleware should be a callable that wraps another callable. If you want to apply middleware to just one path, wrap it before you register it with the routing table. If you want to apply middleware to all (or a subset of) paths, wrap the returned routing table, and optionally stick that in some other routing table.
No, Stonebraker is making many architectural assumptions that do not necessarily hold. Some observations about the design of good disk-based systems:

- Typical inexpensive server and disk systems today are quite a bit different than even five years ago. A database internals design heuristic that would be valid several years ago no longer applies in many cases. An "optimal" design can vary widely due to relatively small changes to the assumed constraints.

- The disk bandwidth typically exceeds network bandwidth by a significant degree. Even if you are saturating the network with inserts and similar, in theory you should be able to drive that through storage if you use the available IOPS efficiently and proactively.

- RAM is RAM. Whether backed by disk or not, the amount of data it can hold is approximately the same. Any significant differences in what you can put in RAM between in-memory and on-disk architectures has more to do with internal implementation and design choices, it is not intrinsic.

- In modern database kernels, no thread is waiting for I/O operations to complete. There is also few or no tree structures, locking, secondary indexing, context switching, and similar which are frequently the source of poor throughput. It tends to be much more linear, pipelined, and parallel.

All of the above aside, regardless of design, a database engine only needs enough throughput to saturate the network interface under load. Once the network is saturated, nothing you do in the database engine will improve the effective throughput of the database.

It turns out that it is pretty straightforward to design a disk-backed database kernel that can saturate 10GbE full-duplex for a wide range of workloads. Consequently, the supposed performance benefits of in-memory are largely moot. It simplifies implementation but does not address a real performance problem on modern hardware relative to a modern database kernel design.
They lay unfertilized eggs. That's why they looked for a male that would fertilize the eggs, but didn't find one.
If you can feed inferred static types to something like Google Closure Compiler, you do get performance benefits.

Also, if you're code is implicitly statically typed (as checked by Flow) you will likely hit all the right optimizations in the underlying JavaScript VM.
Why would anyone need that when there's ghostery and noscript? Furthermore, what benefits does that feature have over ghostery? Seems like ghostery blocks more than that feature does, which makes it seem like that's a waste of effort.

I suppose it might have some use if it's actually on by default, but they haven't stated that it will be, and if it isn't on by default, then anyone who would know to turn it out would be able to install ghostery anyway.
Help us build a beautiful wall
I'm Marius, co-founder of enythings.com and I would like to personally invite you to enythings.com! You can share your favourite websites with the world. Be a part of the community. You can help us to build a wall by adding small bricks to it. Remember small things matter. Help others to discover.

Go to enythings.com and share, browse and discover websites!
In the world of music technology, par for the course would be for protocols like this to be purposefully obfuscated, and constantly reinvented. Good on Korg for seeing the value of releasing this.
Yes and no. Changeable search engines were obviously a prerequisite for this kind of deal, and Yahoo was one of the first ones to offer the needed APIs (and IIRC, over HTTPS which was required by Mozilla).

Changing search engines can be done via Customize->Search->Installed search engines. Click the one you want and you'll get a popup offering to remove it or make it the default.
The problem is that you cannot treat star formation as a set of collisionless particles. In general you can estimate the scale of star formation through the Jeans mass, which is the mass of a gas cloud at which the dynamical time becomes equal to the sound crossing time. This is essentially the scale at which the cloud becomes unstable to perturbations --- pressure is no longer able to support the cloud against gravitational oscillations.

The Jeans mass depends inversely on the square root of the density of the cloud. The main problem in forming very low mass objects is that you need very large densities. For a Jupiter mass object you need a density of ~5 x 10^4 / cm^3. Even in molecular clouds it is difficult to achieve densities that large. There are ways around it --- turbulence can produce small regions of very high density, for instance. But like I said, they're not well understood. In general it's much easier to create a low mass object in the vicinity of something bigger because then it can form by fragmenting out of the disk that surrounds the larger protostar.
So downloading a tarball and unpacking it is not simple enough?
But wouldn't it be better for Google to focus on doing data supply deals with the existing car companies ? Far less money, risk etc.

And Google isn't helping speed up the technology. Companies like Volvo are far ahead already.
The Upcoming Jack and Jill Compilers in Android
Haha, yeah Hacker News didn't treat me well yesterday, so I'm trying to go through questions now and reply to them. :) Thanks for noticing!
…and with a bigger marketing budget than pretty much any other browser (even if you discount all the marketing on Google IP that isn't for sale to start with). If it were just about pushing the browser market forward, it long ago reached a point of having enough marketshare to do that. If they were to target specific countries where, e.g., IE6 remains a major browser, that'd be pushing the market forward. But they aren't.
No shit, I don't distribute the GNU/Linux software either, too big and inconvenient (GB) compared to a patch (bytes).

>> GPL or any other OSS license grants you the the permission

The sysvinit alternatives that I know and use, all use an OSS license, most of them less restrictive (BSD or MIT). I use free (as in freedom) software; that's why systemd is harmful to me, always trying to create incompatibilities with other open source programs lacking a multi-million corporation backer.
Firefox Dumps Google for Yahoo
It does care about prototypes. So it checks for inconsistencies between methods added to a prototype and their uses. The tradeoff is that for dynamically added properties, it doesn't always remember where they are defined and where they remain undefined (it knows they are defined "somewhere").
Looking at that transcript, the redirection from https://www.google.co.uk/... to http://www.google.co.uk/... does appear to be served by Google. It's over HTTPS so it's signed by a key only Google has.
Ask HN: Develop SaaS for pet project?
DHH once said in his speech that there are many Italian restaurants out there and they are doing ok. You don't need to purse the startup lottery, just do something that other companies are already doing, but a bit better.

Any SaaS pet project you can think of, from this point of view?
Firstly, dual-licensing requires that all contributors sign a CA, which is enough of a annoyance that many minor fixes just don't get contributed at all.

Secondly, Mike Innes (http://junolab.org/) is one of the big contributors to Light Table and has told us that many of the commercial users of Julia are uncomfortable with GPL code and that changing to MIT would help adoption.
Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence to support this claim?
The source also has an emacs plugin, named flow-types.el
I suppose that's fine legally unless you're a monopoly. Windows is (or was?). iOS, arguably, not really.
This is set up at the carrier's level whereby they disable HTTP for Google search. To re-enable it, you can define your search to: https://encrypted.google.com/#q=search
Actually the Ed 60 costs even more than the Monochrom. You're not going to get a red dot on anything for less than a grand, though some of the ones that are rebadged Panasonics can be got cheap (though they're never worth the money).

It's pretty much out of the question, alas....
Firefox will now default to Yahoo in the US
As long as the horse is in the house, has Mozilla ever given any thought to creating its own search service?