skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Freactive, a new Clojurescript/React library
> I was responding to the assertion that the GPL isn't about freedome because it imposes limitations.

People make the example about killing because there are the conflicting freedoms of two people involved: the killer and the victim. And people make that example as if the GPLs restrictions always involved such a conflict. This is not true. The GPLs limit my freedom to do things that are not an attack on others' freedoms. For example, the freedom to combine and redistribute GPLv2 and GPLv3 licensed code. Or the freedom to share a binary with someone who needs it, without forcefully bloating the distribution with a copy of the entire source code (which that someone likely didn't ask for, doesn't need, and doesn't want to have). The alternative of providing a written offer for the source code (valid for years) can be unacceptable for me because I cannot promise to meet such a requirement -- it makes helping people out potentially very expensive and painful. Therefore my options are to 1) violate the license and lose my freedoms as per the GPLv2 death clause, or 2) not share with the person in need.

I don't see how I would be violating anyone's freedom in case 1 -- but I lose mine (if I had freedom to begin with, I think that is questionable). In case 2, the GPL is definitely not helping towards ensuring freedom for either me or the person who needed my help. No, the license is just restricting both of us.

> Please stop using hyperbola, ad hominems, and baseless (nay useless) analogies and please write a coherent rebuttal if you choose to debate this subject.

It's useless to make a coherent rebuttal because GPL fanatics will just make some incoherent arguments about users versus developers' freedoms. Oh yeah, my freedom to help a friend is a developer freedom, and therefore does not matter. Me wanting to help a friend is like wanting to kill somebody. The society is better off without letting me do such evil.

If you think this is freedom, you have such a twisted and distorted understanding of the word that you're as good as a cultist.
You build things the public is ever allowed to see? Lucky. :(
Great article! As a programmer yet to have tried Haskell, this was actually one of the first articles I've read about Haskell which made sense to me. I tend to have a lot easier to learn from practical examples than the more academic approach normally seen in Haskell learning material and blog posts.
Introducing Snapcash
Not to dismiss the noble courts of sillysaurus, but I'd like to see Ross convicted in the court of law. With due process and all that jazz.
Cisco’s New Project Squared Collaboration Tool
It can vary very widely. I recall somewhere in the work of Capers Jones there was a chart where they tracked lines of debugged code per staff month, and it varied from less than 100 to 5.000 depending on the industry. Which is to say that in some industries moving fast and breaking things is ok, and in some it's not.
The other key difference from the entertainment industry is that in-demand artists can potentially derive a large percentage of their income from royalties and "image rights", so it's a good thing for them to retain an agent who's incentivised to find that unpaid TV slot in New York that'll help them "break America" but advise of the pitfalls of an apparently lucrative advertising gig they've been offered. Agents for successful entertainers, in other words, are supposed to boost a wide variety of income streams related to entertainer's image, including pre-existing ones.

Contract programmers on the other hand, generally receive their compensation for a project in cold, hard cash, without any lucrative sidelines in selling T-shirts with pictures of their face to manage, or concerns over whether taking on a project for Yahoo will dilute their brand equity or boost their autobiography sales. It's difficult to see where 10X adds the value in cases where they're not finding the work. Interview coaching and advice on upping your rate is not hard to find; any recruiter that does have a position will offer it without wanting a piece of your existing income.
It's hard to tell much in detail about their reasons from the article. I read it as just a change in tactics in how they move large blocks of stock. They seem to feel that, currently, moving a large amount of money using their previous algorithmic strategies has become too easy for other traders to read (perhaps also algorithmically), and then interfere with in ways that are detrimental to their trades. And they believe that negotiating large outright block trades is a better strategy in the current market, given their current goals. Maybe true, maybe not; it seems like a very fact-specific decision, hard for someone without the data to evaluate just from general principles of markets.
EuroBSDCon 2014 videos available
And I do. I donate regularly to several charities that are focused on poverty (both at a local and global level) and volunteer time at some of those. What my comment was meant to communicate is that if I had a substantially higher income/net worth, I'd be able to put a much higher portion of it to work doing that than I can right now, where more of my income has to go to a mortgage, car payments, and diapers.
Oh, was there a trail and a guilty verdict I didn't hear about?
Wrong. Front running has a very specific definition and requires a broker to be acting on behalf of a client.

1. Broker takes client order.

2. broker trades his own account first (with knowledge of client order)

3. Broker executes client order.

If you don't have clients you can't be front running. It is black and white and as simple as that.
I don't use the MSVC toolchain or Windows for that matter, so I don't have a good compass for this, but the impression from the newsletter, dev meetings etc is that clang-cl is constantly being improved. Is the situation still that poor?
This is incoherent for a single order. When the first order hits the books, a subsequent order has no opportunity to execute before the first except at a price disadvantage. Front-running typically involves an agent (i.e. a broker) executing on behalf of the principal, where the agent makes his own trade first, moving the market against the principal, and only then executing the principal's trade. Notice: two orders.

This is not a problem when the principal has an exchange seat and may execute directly. Where firms are performing multiple-exchange arbitrage, and the principal splits a large order into several for execution across multiple exchanges, there is now an opportunity for something like front-running: the arbitrage firm can detect the principal's intent from the first order to hit the first exchange, and then try to move the market profitably (against the principal) on the other exchanges before the correlated orders can execute. While somewhat analagous, this activity should not be referred to as front-running.
"You are going to see a brutal, brutal consolidation of the IT industry where out of the top five players, only two or three of us will be meaningful in as quick as five years." - John Chambers, CEO of Cisco

http://www.businessinsider.com/cisco-ceo-brutal-times-for-it...
Snapchat to Let You Send Money to Friends, Thanks to Square
Since probability is between 0 and 1, more likely is that the odds of a leak scale exponentially.
I love this because it looks just as simple as Venmo, but I don't need to convince people to download the app.
Going off the comments here, "pretentious, over-priced twat" is quite real and worth being.
Seattle Police can now do more to help when victims ‘Find My Stolen Phone’
Others are downvoting you, possibly bc they think you're exaggerating, but I just find your claims to be curious and would be really interested in meeting you. That is, if you ever have time to meet other people. Let me know, contact info is in my profile.
One farmer’s free invention could produce India’s alories using 1L of water
I'm not sure anyone grows up with computers wanting to make enterprise software. For me it was always games. Lots of games, lots of different mechanics. Maybe I wished for more hours in the day, but I never sat down wishing I could just write more lines of code. But the ball could always bounce more convincingly, the TIE-fighters could always explode in bigger fireballs. Programming was experimenting, exploring.

I didn't end up making games. For the longest time it was billable hours, deadlines, sprints, features, CRUD, lines of code. Always moving faster, always choosing better tools, better methodologies. Arguing about those tools, those methodologies.

Getting older, I've loved the transition from the bums-in-seats, maximum-throughput kind of programming to "oh shit, how can we possibly make it do that?" day-long whiteboard sessions. We always want to move faster, we still argue about how, but we're back to experimenting, exploring.

1000 lines of code a week is bullshit for us, and I don't think this is just about 'senior' developers. My advice to everyone is to find a place where the lines of code don't matter. Go make computers do cool stuff, then think long and hard about how to make it cooler and go do that.
Back in high school a bunch of us ran an ISP. One day it came to pass that our main Cisco router and the access switch which housed all the dial-up modems (made by a company called Shiva iirc) stopped playing nicely together, resulting in all of our dial-up users (i.e. almost every paying customer we had) not being able to log in. Needless to say, this was a problem. Fortunately for us our ISP was technically owned by the very large metropolitan school district of which we were a part, which allowed us to use their platinum-clad service contract with Cisco tech support in order to diagnose the problem. We got the Cisco guy and the Shiva guy on the phone all at once. To cut a long story short, a) the problem was with the Shiva box, b) the Cisco guy knew more about the inner workings of that box than did their (Shiva's) own tech support, and c) the Cisco guy fixed it over the phone in 5 minutes. As an impressionable 17-year old, this display of competence left quite an impression on me :)
I agree with you, and I think the author, like most people who are writing against the "flash boys," fundamentally misunderstands what's going on.

I think the "black and white" rule that the large firms who feel they are being hurt by HFT want is the ability to execute a full trade before it impacts the market (since otherwise it's impossible to describe the exact moment they feel their trade is a signal to be traded off of). I think that's highly unreasonable, but if you do believe that I think IEX is probably relatively successful at it. It's totally possible that a block could be fully sold off on IEX before the 350ms latency allows that information to escape to the outside world and be traded against, no? Market impact is ultimately about the same, just delayed enough to allow the seller to escape.

I would happily be correct on any of this, since I don't work in finance.
What's interesting is the 'decentralization' here is actually a centralization of compute for a single company, in a single location. Data gravity sucks.
You appear to be complaining that curl shows you exactly what's at a URL ('cat url'), and that wget is better for fetching an object served by that location. To me, those are the use cases. They're both fire-and-forget cli tools; it's not like you have to mentally invest in one over the other like vim and emacs. Just use both as required.
How does this relate to the previous auction of approx. 30,000 seized bitcoins back in June?

http://www.coindesk.com/us-marshals-one-auction-bidder-claim...
For scale, this is not even a day's worth of normal transactions. Yesterday about 177000 BTC was sent across the network, and that wasn't a big day.
fn is a often used as a variable name
Facebook + Paypal vs. Snapchat + Square.

That's a pretty fair fight.
Kademlia: Distributed Hashtable (2002)
I'm glad you referenced that article with your concerns, I'm actually quoted it in, but I think it was a bit of a shallow examination of a very deep topic.

I have my sole passion on the line when it comes to the decline of purely mechanical locks. My heart is brass and pumps grease. I love locks. That said - folks who can't imagine a time when the majority of door locks are electromechanical might wind up on the wrong side of history.

One of the constant refrains when I first found locks was that electronic locks could never be used in remote places where access to power might be a problem. Then I learned about the Kaba Mas X-series of user-powered safe locks. To the drop-it-in-water concern, many people are already using phones that are fully submersible and all of those people can use their phones to open several of the locks in this article. Not to mention waterproof electronic fobs.

There are a ton of pitfalls, the worst of which I touch on in the section on Yale's Real Living lock. The electronic lock manufacturers need to look to the history of mechanical security engineering before they reintroduce long-since-solved flaws. However, these systems are becoming robust and consumer ready. There are amazing electromechanical locks meant to be used exclusively on shipping containers, holding up to some of the worst weather conditions you can subject your hardware to. The market may not be mature just yet, but it is deep into puberty and whatever comes next will convince many more skeptics.

In the meanwhile, you can find me in a library, reading 19th century engineering texts, pretending the world I love isn't changing just as I learned to love it...
All too often we'll receive a "specification" document which just lists a bunch of URL fragments with the word GET or POST next to them. If we're lucky, we'll get a sample of the request and response body.

What we're left with are the two problems you described. We have no idea how to actually _do_ anything with the API. And when things don't appear to work, we're left guessing.

Some of the best API "guides" are the ones that break things down by use case and describe how to achieve it. For example, I'm a fan of GitHub documentation: https://developer.github.com/v3/issues/#create-an-issue.
How does he claim to have acquired them, or has he not made any statement on that yet?
What do you do for fun? I always just go to some meetups related to either my work or my hobbies. I think any sports (hiking, mountain climbing) or artistic endeavors (woodworking, photography) type of hobbies make it really easy to make friends.
Me too, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. I would be worried that caches, firewalls, and servers would mishandle requests due to the exotic verbs.
Go Birthday Bash: Going Fast at Startups
I'm not proud of the way I put it, but I guess that just shows how tired I am of this argument. The same hypocritical claims about GPL being free despite very obviously denying very important freedoms are repeated all over the place, and then I'm a killer and a developer (how evil of me to patch that code for someone!) and all that, because that's the most coherent arguments people can make. Ignoring the actually relevant freedoms at hand and going into meta-discussion about the meaning of freedom and making analogies concerning completely unrelated things (such as killing or otherwise harming) is how they argue when they can't address the problem -- if they don't just flat out say that I don't need that freedom to share or mix code... Yes I'm very tired of it.

Life goes on, and I continue not to share a large body of GPLv2 licensed code with anybody because it would be illegal for me to do so. I keep telling them it's because the license is not free, but it just doesn't seem to work.
It seems like he's already been convicted in the court of public opinion.
Look, all this guy is saying is that he is paying someone else to take on the risk of executing his large orders. Block crossing networks and sell-side traders have existed for a long time. Hell, that's what Brad (IEX CEO and Flash Boys protagonist) did prior to starting IEX. This guy is saying: rather than use an order execution algo to get my trade done, I'm just doing a cross upstairs with some sell-side guy, paying them a known amount, and letting them deal w/ how to handle it on their side.

They aren't outsmarting anyone. They're simply transferring execution risk, and they pay handsomely for it, trust me.
A forced sale of an asset is NOT the same as putting it into escrow.
Bilinguals have stronger, faster brains than the rest of us
About the OS X Yosemite v10.10.1 Update
OK, great. It's terribly, terribly disappointing that he changed his mind, or maybe couldn't get rid of warrantless/dragnet surveillance. He broke a campaign promise, and made himself into Just Another Politician.

But what can we decide from this info? Do elements of the Deep State actually dictate policy to the elected leader? Is the temptation of an all-seeing spy agency just too great? There was clearly some political currency to be had from the issue, but what made him drop it once in office?
That sounds nice... Know of any places like that?
@kordless:

It says they agree. Doesn't sound forced.
Well, this is merely a hobby interest to me, and it's a been a while since I read 'Dark Pools' but: it's less "using information" to front-run, and more "taking advantage of computational glitches" to jump the queue and get higher priority in the order book.

I have no idea if this is still an issue (doubt it), but it was in the early days of HFT. Anyway, I'm out of my element...'Dark Pools' is a decent read if you're into this stuff.
IEX only delays the order entry side of the system. Market data (they are dark atm so no quotes/book feed of course) and trade reporting is not delayed. The magic shoe box is there to stop a very specific situation from occuring: IEX pricing pegged orders against stale market data.
I would be concerned that a lot of people feel like they're a lot more capable of tripsitting someone with an anxiety disorder than they really are.
stack space is always precomputed and static. You cannot reallocate after it overflows.

On the other hand, the default stack size on linux is 8k, 1M is excessive and way more than you need in a sane program that doesn't have huge buffers on the stack.

Stack is not meant to use 64GB of memory, it's meant to be small to pass arguments and allocate small buffers on it. The rest of the 64GB is used for heap allocations.
Capybara for Go
Of course. But that isn't what I said.

What I said was that if you are heating the iron in order to speed up evaporation to avoid rust, you are being counter productive. You will avoid more rust (if any would be formed in the fist place), by just letting it air dry.
Well, they would not be the first company to competently churn out well-engineered products year after year and fail to become the darling of the stock market. Also, I really fail to see how dialing on the social media revolution would have magically caused they stock price to rise. Start calling them "routr"s, perhaps?
You move from calculations using little-g to calculations using big-G (i.e. the acceleration due to gravity varies significantly since the distance between centers of mass is varying significantly), but this is still a straight-forward problem of one body moving in a gravitational field.
Haha, thanks Thomas.

I'm half in agreement with you about CALEA, but think the thread missed the larger point. Forests and trees and all of that.

If one were to take my point as a specific claim about only CALEA and as a specific claim only about key (and not data) escrow under a strong letter of the law reading, then yes most certainly I was wrong.

However this interpretation of the thesis is/was an injudicious one. There are laws requiring plaintext access to communications records and computing services records upon lawful request. CALEA does have a section on this (focused on telecommunications, which have been expanded to include digital transport such as VOIP technologies), as does 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f) (which do apply to digital services such as cloud technologies), as do others.

The thread fixated on CALEA - yet from the beginning my thesis was about a constellation of laws and the interpretation of these laws under EO 12333 and the Third Party Doctrine, current political climate and the real world pragmatic implementation of policies in tandem with the private sector (e.g. telecoms in America today do not provide strong escrow-less crypto).

From what I can ascertain for large providers the Department of Commerce streamlines the process. Telecommunications have been streamlined since the late 90s. Internet services are still in the process of being streamlined - PRISM was one of said programs. For smaller providers requests/demands are run when the value of ends supersedes the cost of means. Lavabit is an extreme example of how leverage has been applied to acquire plaintext access to communications.
I like _Dark Pools_ ('kasey_junk recommended it as an antidote to _Flash Boys_) too. For a slightly older but more authoritative nuts-and-bolts explanation, and surprisingly well-written, Larry Harris _Trading and Exchanges_ is basically the _TCP/IP Illustrated_ of money.
I think I'd agree that automated clients have a ways to go before that works. But sometimes you don't even want anything automated: sometimes the API just needs to change because e.g. the world around it has changed, requirements have changed. A version string in the API seems like a reasonable way to do that.
> in hot desert climates

You still need water.
Hmm...this seems like a very interesting venture. I remember websites like this (there was one where you could bet on practically any event, but the name escapes me). I read the paper and found many of the concepts very interesting. The question is, capitalism (as we know it) is built upon trust; it is the essential value needed in capitalism, so how will a "trustless" prediction market work? I'm very interested to see how this works out.
On the use of the word "drone"

I agree it's awful that the news has contorted a word to mean such evil things in the eyes of the public. I have come to the realization that the word is here to stay. We can't stop using it just because the meaning has been colored somehow. It is still the correct noun. There is no other word to use in its place. I have given in to using the word and correcting any one that starts in on their MSM provided 'drones are scary' narrative.
Sell side traders or block crossing networks (where the other side is taken by another block trader).

Sell siders are compensated because they will build into the price the expected impact. The pension fund gets a known price impact with essentially 0 variance and the sell sider takes on the risk of execution to offset the trade, and essentially earn a spread between what the pension fund paid them for the risk transfer and their 'skill' in getting the trade done in the market.

It obviously can and will be more complicated than that with varying benchmarks and compensation schemes, but that is the jist of it.
Welcome to crypto raises.
I've had very similar problems building in-house Openstack RPMs for CentOS 6 (now using Juno.)

You might have better luck in the future just grabbing the el7 stuff (or Fedora 20) and build them using the CentOS spec file:

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/pandoc.git/tree/?h=epel7