skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I elided Windows because it required too much exposition. As a platform, it also entails a bunch of strategic liabilities, and I'm not sure how everything cancels. At least Office/Excel, Exchange, Sharepoint, SQL Server, et. al. can be ported to other platforms.

XBox is not a big money maker, but neither was Amazon for a long time. Investors also care about potential.

Bing will probably turn out to be a strategic advantage: If Google creates or dominates new markets, it's going to have competitors who will not want to use its search engine and other online services, case in point: Apple.
This story is no better or worse than most of the stories on Hacker News. Take your concern trolling elsewhere.
I tried taping over the camera in my Glass, because I don't use that feature at all, and I don't want anyone to think I'm using it. It turns out that there's also an ambient light sensor in there that adjusts the brightness, so you can't see anything if you do that.

So my Glass goes unused, because I don't feel comfortable wearing it anywhere.
Your analogy fails.

Javascript is designed to be an addon to HTML / CSS. An alternator is not designed to be an addon to a car. (Well, to be pedantic an alternator is an addon, but some means of electrical generation isn't - some means of electrical generation is integral to a (non-diesel) motor)

A better analogy might be your car refusing to start because your OnStar subscription expired - and things like that are actually starting to happen. And no, I don't like it there either.

Here's the thing with JS: I fail to see what it adds. And yet at the same time I can see rather drastic examples of what it loses. Namely security.

I will start enabling JS by default when JS-based exploits stop being a routine thing. However, I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Because, oddly enough, when you have a complex language, and everyone demands every last drop of performance, security suffers. At least assuming dev time is constant. Oh, and enabling JS also enables an absurd amount of tracking. And performance problems. Oh, and website bloat. So those are the downsides.

As such, what are the upsides? Give me a justification for why I should enable JS globally. I have yet to see a good reason. And no, badly reimplementing parts of HTML / CSS is not an answer. AJAX? There are some things that are better with AJAX, for certain definitions of better. In which case I enable it for the page / website and go from there. Still not a justification for globally enabling JS. And most of the time I'd prefer proper pages anyways. AJAX tends to break things - URLs actually being uniform resource locators and opening links in new tabs in particular. About the only thing I actually find myself wanting AJAX for is webmail clients, and it's iffy even then. Most other things are, again, bad reimplementations of HTML / CSS. (Case in point: infinite scrolling)

And as for your comment about CSS - yes, in fact. Or rather, there are a number of websites that I override the CSS on. And if/when there starts to be a steady stream of exploits for features in CSS, I'll consider blocking those by default. But currently there doesn't seem to be. Largely, I suspect, because CSS parsing isn't Turing-complete (as far as I know at least). (I know that CSS + repeated "dumb" input is Turing-complete, but that's not the same thing.)

In parting: I don't mind when disabling JS disables JS-only features. What I mind is when disabling JS means that the things that HTML / CSS are designed for no longer work because devs tried too hard to reinvent the wheel. Case in point: those websites that require JS just to display a static page because they're parsing markdown on the client or some such absurdity, and they don't even display the raw pre-markdowned text if you load it without JS because instead of doing the (relatively) sane thing of putting the text into the HTML and parsing it and replacing it, they store the entire thing as a JS string. I mean, really, if your solution is "make every client that ever visits your static website duplicate the same work (and load in massive libraries to do so, to boot) that you could do easily server-side once", you're asking the wrong question.
You might have missed the part where the sole premise of Interstellar was that they were leaving Earth to explore other planets because of how bad Earth had become. I.e. a dystopian future.
One of the Greatest Mathematicians of the Twentieth Century Has Died
> 1. Performance improvement plans are not for performance improvement. They are for firing employees. Management already formed an irreversible negative view. It is too late.

As just about any manager on here will tell you, this is complete bunk. Being on a performance improvement plan obviously isn't good, but I've had many people complete their plan successfully, and not only that, but go on to long & successful careers.
I don't care if they never lay down another foot of fiber; that's how important net neutrality is. Without it, their fiber is essentially useless anyway. In fact, if they stop laying fiber, someone else who doesn't hate net neutrality undoubtedly will. Hopefully the FCC doesn't buy this bullshit.
Hopefully we don't shoot down any more passenger jets with it. :/
We were able to use this against Comcast once. After years of promising that residential broadband was coming "within 6 months" as they again and again, re-upped their awful franchise agreements with the local politicos, we decided to build a limited WISP to serve certain local customers. We formed a 501(c)3, rented some roof space and hooked up about 15 households.

It hit the fan when we put up the flyers. They had cable internet to the houses in that neighborhood less than 6 weeks later. We quietly took down our wisp, sold our Ubiquiti Wireless units on ebay, and basked in the new cheap cable modem goodness.

I think all we really needed were the flyers.
That works until they write viruses specifically designed to fool this software (maybe they could also test against it to check if it works).
Software quality assurance state of the art and best practices?
On HN we often see articles about the state of the art and best practices in software engineering. Out of curiosity, what resources are available for learning about the same for software quality assurance?

Most of us don't think about it, but despite our best efforts there will probably be some bugs, so what is the best way of finding them, documenting them, etc. all the way from manual testing to automated testing?

What are the most popular tools? (For example, I have heard of TestLodge and FogBugz, but do these cover all the bases?)

Where are there resources about how SQA should be done? Is there an equivalent in SQA for all the newsletters, video courses, etc. that exist for software engineering?

Here's another angle on the question: is it possible to do SQA incorrectly or badly, assuming you do it at all?
I don't think it's trivially true in a technical sense at all. It certainly didn't have to be the case that all quantum systems exhibit entanglement. Physics could have been different, such that entanglement is a property only some systems can have. And that would lead to drastically different conclusions. In fact, treating entanglement as something special is, at least for me personally, the highly misleading concept.

When I was learning quantum mechanics, there were many concepts that confused and bothered me because people explained things in a loose and inaccurate way. Other incorrect statements that confused me for a long time include:

"Fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state. Bosons can."

"It's not possible to measure the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously."

And while not QM: "Mass can be converted to energy."

Essentially, schools teach the approximations first, which leads you to believe that reality works a certain way, and then you think of all sorts of situations where these rules lead to paradoxes and contradictions, and then you have to relearn everything the more accurate way, while trying to expunge the old, wrong stuff from your brain that likes to stick there.

In my undergrad, I thought of plenty of ways that "entanglement", based upon the way it was explained in class could be used to transfer information faster than the speed of light. The professor didn't have a rebuke against my argument (granted this was a chemistry professor, not a physics professor), and essentially it was because everyone was repeating wrong, catchy phrases to each other. I don't think "Entanglement is the fact that a multiparticle wavefunction cannot be decomposed" is a particularly complex idea to understand. Everything else kind of falls out of that statement.

In my opinion, the most accurate theory should be taught first, and then the less accurate approximations can be derived as limiting cases of the more accurate formulation. And if the math is too complex for the more accurate version, then clearly specify what fallacies or assumptions are being taken. One of my statistical mechanics books does this really, really well (the one by McQuarrie). Disclaimers are all throughout his book about how the equations apply to limiting cases and approximations, what those approximations are, and how using those approximations causes the result to differ from a more accurate theory.
This: Share 1 link per day
Just curious. How many wireless mics and made by whom?
20+ batteries a day seems like quite a lot even for wireless mics
I have a good analogy for entanglement, which will hopefully help you see the difference between classical (anti)correlations and quantum (anti)correlations.

Suppose you want to construct a pair of yes-no-question-answering boxes. The goal is that, however one box answers, the other box will answer the opposite way. The answers produced must be anti-correlated, but I'll just write correlated because it's 4 chars less!

Classical correlations are like a pair of boxes that consistently succeed for some specific question. (e.g. repeatedly asking the same question of any one box, will produce 50% yes and 50% no answers, with the other box answering exactly oppositely)

Quantum correlations are like a pair of boxes that consistently answer anticorrelatedly for any question. For example, if you ask the boxes the question left-or-right? one will answer left, the other right. If you ask up-or-down? one will say up the other down, front-or-back? --- anticorrelated. And so on for any question. Whether that's spooky, I don't know...

To throws some math into this, let's denote |x>, the state of a quantum system, and denote |xy> the joint state of a pair of quantum systems, one in state x, the other in y.

Consider the difference between a statistical mixture:

50% of time produce |01> and 50% of time produce [10>

and the |Psi-> state which is a 50-50 superposition of |01> and |10>:

1/√2*|01> - 1/√2*|10> a.k.a |Psi->

In both cases if you ask the 0 or 1 question, the answers will be anti-correlated, but you can ask the |Psi-> state any other anti-podal question (e.g. are you |0>+|1> or |0>-|1>?) and the answers will always be anti-correlated.

But who has seen this quantum stuff? Isn't |Psi-> just some math scribble on a piece of paper? In fact, |Psi-> is quite real---it is the spin state of the electrons in the unexcited Helium atom. We know there are 2 electrons, and we know they have opposite spins, but we don't know anything else about them. Hence if a He atom were to explode and the electons fly to distant sides of the universe, we still won't know what direction the individual spins are in, the only thing we know is their total spin is 0 -- hence they have opposite spin directions. This is how we get the for any question" aspect of q-entanglement.

It really makes sense if you think about these things as information, and q-measurements as answering well posed questions. From the point of view of information, a system is entangled whenever you know more about the system as a whole than about its parts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_quantum_entropy#Propertie...
Prediksi Vietnam vs. Malaysia 16 November 2014 Persahabatan
It is amazing just how much Israel spies on America, and how nobody knows about it. If you dare to say it publicly then your reputation and career are destroyed, and you are an antisemitic terrorist sympathizer, if not also a terrorist.
I understand his point to be that in California, the tech industry is very influential whereas in places predominantly Republican and shunning of science/tech like this area of Texas, the people don't seem interested at all in promoting science/tech as the way of the future and maybe even embrase the bleak and dystopian frontier that may lie ahead.

Again, this is what I assume he means and I could be way off so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Evolution doesn't design, clearly. But its solutions are not determined by chance alone, either. The shapes of the solutions are partly determined by the contours of the available solution space. It's sort of like pressing soft material into a mold, I think. The trajectories of the individual bits of material are governed by chance; but after applying and releasing pressure, the macroscopic object invariably forms itself in the image of the mold.
Amazon's unwanted Fire phones to be shipped to Africa with Ebola medical app
I guess that makes you a very brave person for speaking out publicly.
My Simple Mosaic of Pictures (HTML/CSS/JS)
Obviously not everything of this sort is the same everywhere in all cases, but the parent statement is largely true. It's also exceptionally true in high turnoff corporations like Amzn.

Even in the corner cases where the manager/HR was acting in good faith, the employee will be under the thumb of his superiors; even if someone manages to survive intact the PIP will be a mark on someone's record they can do without. It's something that will come with every promotion discussion, transfer, etc.

It's quite rare for anything good to come of doubling down, for the employee at least.
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=fcc+at%26t#!/story/sort_by_date/0/...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
Hope it does come back was some golden posts there.
Huh and yet here, as per your links, we have mainstream media reporting on it.

Have those journalists been subjected to 'extreme retaliation'?

Perhaps we don't hear about it frequently not because there is a conspiracy among 'Israeli supporters' (we all know what you mean bro!) but because the issue is not so pressing or widespread as you would have us believe?
5 Things Keeping You from Getting Job Interviews
I think this is a wonderful idea. Is there a place one can go to see volunteer opportunities?
The code is base32 I just choose to never use one of the possible base32 digits. The way the Damm algorithm works this is fine to do.
You didn't read the article.

David Kaiser isn't even really a "tech reporter", he's one of the physicists behind the experiment described in the article, which addresses exactly what you're complaining about.
Since so much of the discussion on this was about me using 31 characters in my encoding scheme rather than 32 (this is fine to do with the Damm algorithm) I have updated my code to make this clearer. I have also changed the code to make easier for someone to change the encoding if they don't like my scheme.
The parser does not extensively use std::string. to parse json keys, It uses an internal stringview class mirroring the json string (string_view is candidate to get into the next C++ standard). When I said malloc free, I meant that no intermediate memory is allocated: actually, If your json object only contains int or floats, the parser will not use malloc: it will just traverse the string and fill the scalars of your destination object (thanks to static introspection), a big difference with state of the art json parsers returning an intermediate dynamically allocated tree that you have to interpret after the parsing. Of course, if the destination object stores instances of std::string of std::vector, the iod library will allocated them and fill them with the json values.
Why Bitcoin Arbitrage Is Not Very Profitable
Executive Management Dashboard Built for Mobile Using FusionCharts
> IIRC there was a fantastic server product that was caught up in the demise of Netscape or AOL or some such

I believe you're referring to the ArsDigita Community System, which was written in Tcl, and which ran on top of AOLServer, a web server that supported Tcl as a scripting language.

(ArsDigita's rise and fall was a classic dotcom bubble story, complete with Aeron chairs, fancy cars, greedy VCs, founders with big egos, lawsuits, etc.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArsDigita_Community_System

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOLserver
What about years without the Earth?
The day I lost a sh*t ton of money, part II
This kind of snarkiness is one of the most damaging things there are. Its way more common in reddit and imgur. The only break there is in such communities for funny/cat pics are things like bansky paints but usually the most voted comment says something along the lines: "so edgy", "I think there is a metaphor here guys", or a snowden pic with comments like " you are such revolutionary, can I be your friend " and stupidities of the sort. The NSA has to do nothing, the public will render spying as serious as jaywalking by itself.
A test makes that attitude materially more likely.

Encouraging kids to be smart and do smart things? Go for it.

Labeling them as smart? Sure, as long as you don't forget to teach them a healthy dose of humility.

Constantly labeling them as smarter? Uh oh... did I mention humility yet?

Making them pass tests to validate that they're smart? Kids don't need or want that; the parents do. It's a recipe to set their kid's life ablaze until young adulthood -- or later.
Man you should've seen the stuff the Israeli's pulled back in the 1980s.

> Speculation about Milchan's involvement in arms dealing and intelligence activities was sparked after the indictment in 1985 of Dr. Richard Kelly Smyth, an aerospace executive and scientist who had made illegal shipments of Krytrons (nuclear triggers) through one of Milchan's companies.

...

> "at least through the mid-1980s [Milchan] was a full-fledged operative for Israel’s top-secret intelligence agency, Lakam. His activities included "buying components to build and maintain Israel’s nuclear arsenal" and supervising "government-backed accounts and front companies that financed the special needs of the entirety of Israel’s intelligence operations outside the country.". Interviewed regarding Milchan's intelligence activities, Israeli President Shimon Peres stated: "Arnon is a special man. It was I who recruited him.... When I was at the Ministry of Defense, Arnon was involved in numerous defense-related procurement activities and intelligence operations. His strength is in making connections at the highest levels.... His activities gave us a huge advantage, strategically, diplomatically and technologically."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnon_Milchan

He's a multi-billionaire Hollywood producer nowadays (Argo, Fight Club, etc.)

Ah the windfalls of state backing.
What about using those entangled states to coordinate actions? You could plan ahead and say if you use heads or tails as binary, flip enough to get digits to use as (hopefully hospitable) coordinates and a time to meet. When the two parties meet successfully that location was coordinated using communication faster than light, no?

Maybe you could that same mechanism for superfast decision making communication in automated equipment. Drone dispersal, late stage missile targeting. Think shooting a bunch of missiles into the sky with a map of possible locations and then entanglement used to have each missile pick its target, no missile would hit the same target and no one would know which missile was going where at launch. Stuff like that works?

You could use it for frequency hopping on radios making tracing communication pretty difficult.
Not hard, if we did it like Israel. The company that lays cable is a utility, a natural monopoly, that sends a bill each month. Then there are a slew of ISPs that compete to terminate you and provide internet access. Some are cheap, some are fast, some have good customer service or are hacker friendly. By law the infrastructure company cannot be an ISP or favor one ISP over another. By firewalling off the natural monopoly part, competition is maximized and ISPs are forced to reduce costs and innovate. If Teddy Roosevelt was president today, the Time Warners and Comcasts would be broken up for leveraging the natural monopoly on the cable laying-side of the house to also be the only ISP provider in my city.
> I've definitely bought bad (really cheap..) store-brand batteries that lasted inconveniently short. If it's Duracell I know it's good.

If you bought the cheapest battery on the shelf, then it probably wasn't an alkaline battery. A heavy-duty battery (carbon-zinc) has half the capacity of an alkaline.

If you buy Duracell, you know you will get at least an alkaline battery. Duracell simply does not sell heavy-duty batteries, hence the brand name: the durable cell. It's mostly a matter of brand positioning, rather than technology.

Rayovac uses one brand for both alkaline and heavy-duty batteries, which cheapens their brand when a consumer buys the wrong type and all the batteries die a quick death. Energizer addresses this problem by selling heavy-duty batteries under the Everready brand.
I don't know for sure, but I had a few guesses.

1. Juvenile, so immature? Softer/more vulnerable scales?

2. The scales may be optimized for speeding along quickly through water and the net basically tore the scales apart?

3. The scales may not be durable since the tuna's primary mode of defense is probably speeding away.

4. The end of the article does say that "only one in tens of millions becomes an adult," so it could just be a weakness that was never changed in the course of evolution because it's not detrimental or common enough to force selection.
They're only scenes degrading and objectifying women as sexual objects if women feel degraded and objectified as sexual objects about the scenes. As a woman made the shirt and gave it to him then it seems to be the case that at least 1 woman does not feel degraded and objectified as a sexual object about it which makes your blanket assertion disingenuous and patently false.
The introspection comes from the SIO's of the iod library, they are novel types of object offering introspection at compile time. The iod library makes iterating on the members of an sio object trivial with the foreach primitive (see https://github.com/matt-42/iod/blob/master/iod/json.hh#L417) so generating a serializer / deserializer like this one is not so complicated since you have access to the type and the name of each members. For more info, check the readme of https://github.com/matt-42/iod I did my best to explain the concepts of the library. But I'm still lacking of time to polish the documentation....
Ah sorry! I didn't think you meant literally "10 seconds", was assuming you just meant quickly (a few minutes).

I can't really think of a use case though where someone would need more capacity in sub 10 seconds. Maybe if you only intend to scale horizontally with a bunch of 500Mb instances and had little to no room to set an appropriate scaling threshold? What would be a couple examples? With the apps I've seen the past several years generally they have scaling thresholds at 'X' resource and 3 minutes is more than enough to provision extra capacity for their needs.
You can:

export DOCKER_TLS_VERIFY=1

to avoid having to use --tls everywhere, makes it a little less tedious. I have also found that not all tools are quite ready, or at least grumpy with TLS. I have had no luck using fig, for example.