skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well indeed, Google versus SEO is continuing fight.

But point is that Google has ante'd up to maintain search as something that works easily, that finds what you want, etc., even while against countervailing factors.

And bringing it back to the parent, the monopoly Google maintains is a dynamic process - they aren't always fighting against other search engines. Sometimes they are doing that and sometimes they are fighting against SEO and spam, sometimes they are competing with walled gardens and whatever forces would turn the Internet into an appliance, sometimes they are fighting to make search more compelling. But they don't fit the profile of a company just sitting on a monopoly even if they maintain is what mostly brings them revenue.
The overloading of (), [], and the like is used but it's not necessary. They could have been other named overloaded functions.
Does this offer any benefits over burning multiple copies of the data? With media being as inexpensive as it is today, it seems more effective to simply burn multiple copies and distribute them geographically as opposed to replying on yet another software layer which needs to be maintained. I have CDs burned from a decade ago with Parchive parity files included, but now Parchive is pretty much abandoned. Therefore any system such as this is more akin to a short-to medium-term integrity protection system than a long term solution.
Howlers: Flatscreen monitor (fondleslab) and laptop speakers alienated. Render disturbingly fast and lightweight, awesome producer Jacob O'Neal. Nothing selectable but entire canvas/Naked URL citation missing colophon. Signal from eardrum, not cochlear hair cells (...maybe whiskers too.) Air (N2) as elastic. No transfer functions; dancing expected to mirror Taylor.teaTimePerceptionChunk{17000, 13, 35000, (watts30 x float42stream.noflanging(in('68000Hz','4ch.voivod.mono'))}
Should be pOut<= MassiveDriverEmulation{'fineweather','speccyraised800Wbox','5M','4ch.voivod.mono'} x vSpeakerModelCrossing{'NFlanger1400.a','OneTrueSong_flac','20uf'} Crossing magnetic lines...tell me on machines with spare cores it rendered convolved lines?

http://www.analog.com/library/analogdialogue/ are lovely, though Linear and Maxim have made nice utilitarian reads on their own, and it doesn't seem complete without some Dolby n.n exegesis from TI.com and other notes. ObReactiveDesign would I suppose cover indirect sound emission off ear canal apertures...or say, cavitation in airborne particles.
XML is [...]* designed for editing text documents.*

Was this ever a stated design goal? SGML, sure, probably; but I've never seen any evidence that XML had "document markup" as its sole intended application.
Not if you give them more descriptive names
Conversely, neither Valve nor Google are digging their graves, like much of the rest of the industry does over time. See the prior post about Dell. Look at Microsoft.

Focus helps, but good people make a bigger difference. The overhead, be that 20% time or whatever else, is peanuts in comparison.
I wonder where he got that FPGA from. I can't find it nearly that cheap, and just looking at the FPGA chip itself, without the board, it costs $15. Am I missing something?

https://octopart.com/partsearch#!?q=EP2C5&start=0&limit=10
Which has nothing to do with its validity. (And I don't necessarily agree with its conclusions myself.)
Left-leaning red-black trees are hard to implement (2008)
Where in the spec does it say that? http://json.org/ I see number, which can be an int, which can be digit1-9 digits, and digits is digit digits. No size limitation there.

In fact numbers have no semantic meaning applied to them in JSON. Probably the only reason to include them is to standardize their representation as a debugging aid.
Do you have a specific reference to the fringe racist science at UISR? I am not familiar with the organization.

I do find associations with the Flynn Effect and via the Southern Poverty Law Center (a group focused on black rights and equality in the US) a biography on Richard Lynn:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/pro...

“I am deeply pessimistic about the future of the European peoples because mass immigration of third world peoples will lead to these becoming majorities in the United States and westernmost Europe during the present century. I think this will mean the destruction of European civilization in these countries.”
—Interview with neo-Nazi Alex Kurtagic, 2011

More via Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn

The source who tipped me off to this particular article is a UK psychologist who posts some interesting and occasionally provocative material on his blog.
Shirts are fairly standard in size, I buy those online. Jeans have to be tried on (bad online experience). /r/mfa has okay guidelines. I stick hard to certain brands, to avoid sizing uncertainty.

I wouldn't go full Steve Jobs and only wear black turtlenecks and dorky sneakers, but a closet full of OBDs & polos seems reasonable. I would definitely try someone's recommendations, but only up to a fixed dollar limit (like $200~300). I would be prepared to bag it all up and donate it if I didn't like it.
That is one part of it, but it has a lot of other benefits too. I recently switched to using use-package to do all my package installation and configuration, and my emacs-init-time improved dramatically because use-package can set up smart deferring of loading based on commands or bindings. It's worth having a read through the repo readme: https://github.com/jwiegley/use-package

As an example here's my package init using use-package: https://github.com/stafu/.emacs.d/blob/master/init/init-pack...
This article is aggressively awful. His entire premise:

"According to the company’s 2013 financial filings, 83 percent of Google’s revenue came from ads, about 7 percent from Motorola (which is now gone), and 10 percent from everything else. In other words, when you add up all the revenue from Google Apps (Gmail, Docs, Drive, Maps, etc.) together with the Android and other mobile businesses, and then add Chromebooks, Chromecast, Chromeboxes, and everything hardware and everything Chrome, Google Developers Network, Google+, Google cars, Google robots and drones, Google Glass and other wearables, Google Cloud, and everything else in the Google world, you get $5 billion or 10 percent of Google’s revenue."

is completely wrong because Google's ad revenue cannot be separated from its products outside of Search. Google+, Gmail, Docs, Drive, Maps, Android and Chrome are all designed to add to their ad revenue. Saying that Google's ad revenue is the vast majority of their non-Motorola revenue, therefore Google's non-Search products must not be adding much to the bottom line is to conflate Google's advertising businesss with their Search product, when Search is one of their many products that lead to their advertising revenue.

Once you destroy this premise, this whole notion that Search is the only thing Google does well (or makes a lot of money from) becomes obviously absurd. Gmail, Google Maps, Android, Youtube and Chrome are all market leaders in absolutely gigantic markets.

Edit: The synergy between many of Google's products and advertising should be obvious. They all capture information about the user, which improves their ability to display "relevant" ads or at least ads that advertisers will pay more money for. They also prevent other dominant players in that space from getting a foothold in advertising. Chrome and Android ensure that Google's various services are not a disadvantage on the web and in mobile computing respectively and may gradually be used to advantage their services over competitors'.

Edit2: jjoonathan, your point regarding Amazon and competitive threats they face is correct, but it has very little to do with the article, which is taking Google's successful position for granted and asking how they got there. And the idea that Gmail, Maps, Android and Chrome haven't helped and won't help in the future is fairly absurd.

Edit3: Multiple downvotes seem a little fishy, as does this article getting voted to the top of Hacker News.

Edit4: Another thing the article is ignoring is that Google's continued dominance in search and web advertising is a massive accomplishment that was not at all guaranteed from its initial success. And its massive investment in engineering that the author sees as excess I'm sure has a lot to do with how it was able to sustain that dominance.
> I don't think waterfall is actually used in other disciplines

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model:

"The waterfall development model originates in the manufacturing and construction industries; highly structured physical environments in which after-the-fact changes are prohibitively costly, if not impossible. Since no formal software development methodologies existed at the time, this hardware-oriented model was simply adapted for software development."

> It sounds like there must be a general field of project management out there

Yes, project management is a discipline in itself. Why the article is calling its project management framework for software development "software engineering" is not clear. Probably because it sounds more promising; it promises to be the silver bullet:

http://worrydream.com/refs/Brooks-NoSilverBullet.pdf
>the only proven risk factor for bugs is number of lines of code.

I'm sure you can cite that, but it feels wrong in this context.

That is, given the same language, or equally verbose languages, it may be true and applicable. But, if comparing a more verbose language to one that is less so, then the former will naturally yield a higher LOC count. But, does this mean it's more bug prone? There aren't any more logical constructs, flow control mechanisms, etc. The language simply requires more lines to express the same intentionality.

In fact, I wonder how a more verbose language would compare with a less verbose one if we normalized for some verbosity factor. So, let's say language A is twice as verbose as language B, such that when the LOC count of A is twice that of B, we consider them equal (call it the same "Effective LOC").

I actually wonder if, in this case, language B would have a higher bug count per effective LOC, owed to its terseness and/or reduced readability.
When I was living in France, I thought it was a great idea.

As a white collar (so not being bound to the 9 to 5 and sometimes pulling in 36h shifts...), the system worked as such:

I would work 5 days a week, and get an extra day off of my choice every fortnight.

The results were really great for me and people I knew:

I no longer needed to take days off to deal with paperwork, and other administrative tasks, I could finally get an appointment with my banker.
I could afford to go to the day market to buy fresh produce.

I knew of married couples that would alternate theirs to be on days where the kids didn't have school (traditionally wednesdays) so they didn't have to source someone to watch over the kids on a traditionally very busy day for childcare.

Obviously the system is not perfect, but surely as work gets "easier" the way forward would be to reduce hours worked, not increase them...
He will be here: http://www.erlang-factory.com/sfbay2015 . Hopefully he will share his thoughts.
But at this point, it's kind of like coming to a discussion of a perpetual motion machine "with an open mind".
Edit: On further research, it appears you're pretty much precisely right. This is part of a White Nationalist group with strong ties to eugenics, fascist, neo-Nazi, and other racist organizations.

________________________________

(Earlier)

The notion of a weakening of intelligence or other traits is one that's been kicked around a lot over the years. You'll find it in movies like Idiocracy as well. It's definitely present in a lot of racist / white superiority writings over the years, and some comments below link the Ulster Institute for Social Research with racist fringe elements. I didn't know that when I posted this item.

Turns out that the Ulster Institute for Social Research is the creation of white nationalist Richard Lynn, and has some decidedly racist associations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn

Given that, I'd really be interested in seeing what those with actual backgrounds in genetics and intelligence have to say about the research and methods here.
You're not just living in a dream world, you're using the phrase to excuse a snide strawman. The Linux kernel is 12-20 million lines of code depending on how you count it (and how far up the top end has gone recently). It is not possible for humans to know and comprehend the entire codebase, much less avoid all lockup bugs by reasoning about the code. In fact I'm pretty sure all extant methods of creating a correctness proof fail at that scale (even if you can ignore drivers). Much of the kernel requires specialized skills and experience the majority of kernel developers don't have.

Beyond that the kernel developers value both correctness and performance. Most of these bugs involve multiprocessing and a huge amount of effort has gone into getting rid of them global locks, but even they aren't easy to reason about at that scale - I think you're missing the common thread in "deadlock" and "Global Interpreter Lock". Pretending that a world could exist where we can simply reason about something like the Linux kernel and then using it to state that devs can simplify or improve the logic is taking a completely unsupported cheap shot and the disclaimer about the real world doesn't change that. I'm not even sure what your motivation for the equivalent of "if you pretend that friction & drag don't exist it's really easy to figure out aerodynamics, so plane designers need to do better" (hint, it's not) is, but it certainly isn't to inform, contribute, or facilitate the debate.
Confirming we also saw a lot of lockup issues since 3.12 (with both ext4 and btrfs).
There are numerous other possibl explanations to the Fermi Paradox. I lean toward the Olduvai Theory myself: that high-energy technological societies are very frequently short-lived periods in a planet's evolution.

It's also quite possible that many worlds are far more prone to catastrophes than Earth. Which has had a few hard knocks of its own -- asteroid bombardment, toxic atmosphere, snowball Earth, hothouse Earth, supervolcano eruptions, climate change, more asteroid impacts, etc.

On a world where the system kept getting reset every few million years or so, it might be hard for advanced life, let alone civilization, to get off the ground.
Being dominant is not the same as being a monopolist. I wish people would quit bringing that term up anytime a company is at the top of a market because it has legal and social implications. I have even heard people say that they have a natural monopoly which is just silly if you understand how natural monopolies work.

In fact Google isn't a monopolist on any terms, but they do currently dominate search. My guess is they could be knocked off their perch fairly swiftly if someone came along with an amazing recommendation service (not like what we see now) that was more advisory than search as it would necessarily absorb search.
Numerous factors. I work in the midwest, where the cost of living is dramatically lower (in fact, in terms of salary/cost of living, it may actually be better). You also trade in some potential returns for a large reduction in potential risk - I know that the company I work for will be around 10 years from now, probably even 100 years from now. Other benefits are better - paid time off, retirement benefits, etc. Many of the companies in the field are also somewhat prestigious - similar to landing a job at google or apple - so they have their pick of newgrads (which in itself doesn't account for the pay difference).

Really, I think it all comes down to location. You can get a ~1500-2000sf house on 10 acres here within 30 minutes of work for $200-$300k. Crazy cheap compared to the west coast.
I haven't tried react and don't know much about it. You can see the packages used at https://github.com/dan335/dominus/blob/master/.meteor/packag... I've stayed away from using too many additional libraries.

I really like Meteor and would definitely use it again. Performance can be an issue but I think it's manageable. There are a few things lacking because it's new but it sounds like most are coming soon.
The recent discussion about the word 'lifetime' in rust interests me, because it is something I found confusing at first... but I still don't see any of the alternatives ('scope', 'lifespan', 'borrow bound') as being any meaningful improvement.

I think the lifetime guides should be more explicit about how memory management occurs.

Something like this:

When the instance X of type T is freed in rust and its destructor (if any)
is invoked, we refer to this as 'dropping' X.

X will be dropped if:

- It goes out of a scope
- It's immediate parent is dropped

*T in rust is a 'raw' pointer, like a C pointer.

*T can result in a segmentation fault like in C, if the memory it points
to has already been dropped (Use after free).

&T is a special type in rust that prevents use after free errors by
applying compile time guards enforcing safe usage.

Typically the compile time guards are automatically determined using
static analysis, but sometimes ambiguities require explicit hints when
writing an API. In these cases it is necessary to hint to static type
checker what the the appropriate lifetime for a &T is.

The existing lifetime definition:

A lifetime is a static approximation of the span of
execution during which the pointer is valid

Doesn't really cut it for me.

It needs to be explicit 1) that lifetimes are for the static type checker, and 2) that they are
more than just for borrowed pointers.

For example, for a trait or closure, the lifetime is not the duration during which the pointer is valid. It's a lower bound on the possible lifetimes of other types that can go into either that closure or trait.

For example, to pass a closure to a thread it must be 'static, which means that the lower bound for any lifetime used in the closure is static. This for example:

let foo = 0u;
let bar = |:| { let y = foo + 1; ... }

The closure in this example has a lifetime which is <= the lifetime of foo, which it uses. This is < 'static, so bar cannot be 'static.

The same is true of structures and traits. A boxed trait Box<Foo + 'a> means the struct implementing Foo contained in the box must have an lifetime of at least 'a.

It's almost like we have two completely separate ideas:

1) Lifetime <--- The lifetime of a borrowed pointer

2) Lifetime bound <---- The lifetime on a closure, struct, trait, etc.
> And it probably can, eventually, indirectly, maybe eventually manage to achieve some of a company's goals.

The odd thing about this claim is that it depends fiercely on the question, "What are the company's goals?" I recently heard about a company whose primary priority was, "Maintain jobs," which I find quite reasonable.

Google's claim is about "organizing the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful"; Valve used to be about "making great games", but it doesn't look like they have a mission statement posted anywhere on their webpage or employee handbook. By both of these measures, I do not think that their employees' freedom is doing any kind of disservice to achieving company goals.
> You can complain all day about public static void main, but have fun setting up 500 servers. The downsides of dynamic languages are real, expensive, and permanent.

Love this quote. This is a thought-provoking article, even if you don't agree with everything as stated.
Google has some very impressive moats, but the real question is how much protection they actually provide. Business-idea-space is super high dimensional. You can't just walk the perimeter and say "yep, the moat protects us from all viable routes of assault." Specifically, if all the valuable searches start going through Amazon how quickly can Gmail, Google Maps, Android, and Chrome make up the missing revenue?

Of the products you listed, Youtube is the only one that I think is really orthogonal in the sense that it could bring in significant revenue if google's core product were disrupted. Perhaps maps and docs as well, to a much lesser extent. Gmail and chrome exist in competitive enough market spaces that I don't see them being able to stand on their own at all.

It's the familiar old adage about backup systems: interdependencies lead to concerted failures. A nuclear reactor with 500 backup systems that all depend on having a stable electrical supply isn't safe at all.
“Affordable, functional standing desks” – ships
I actually think the algorithmic search engine era is coming to a close, and that Google could quite easily lose its market dominance. Google search is 10-year-old technology that doesn't give good answers to the most popular searches. I wrote a longish post about it a few days ago, if you are interested. http://newslines.org/blog/googles-black-hole/
From the article:

In many ways, it feels like the Firefox team is mostly fighting a battle of perceptions. Ask anybody why they don’t use Firefox and they’ll say: “It’s too slow.” That’s not actually the case anymore.

I'm sorry, but this is just not true. Firefox's UI often goes (Not Responding) for me, while Chrome's UI is always responsive.
Just a warning on point two. Decreasing the temperature of a water heater too low can result in bacteria growing in the tank.
If the system you are building makes sense, there is probably a reasonable type system that shows it to be well typed.
Neither ... it's a subcontractor. Also your mention of ARINC brings to mind another thing - the business environment is way different than most of tech. Patent lawsuits are basically unheard of. Many of the companies within the field are not only competitors, but typically also partners in one or more ventures. The reason ARINC jogged that memory loose is that Rockwell Collins bought ARINC a while back, and then spun off the standards making division so as not to damage their credibility as the standards-creator for aviation. When I think of, say, mobile ... I just don't see those companies behaving that way.
MCStacker, Minecraft /summon command generator gets community update
> a certain number of extra days/weeks of vacation per year, above the standard 5.

No doubt you mean "standard 5 [weeks]" and not "days", but note that won't be obvious to many of us in less enlightened countries like US and Japan.
It's a great idea to make java run like a script...
Mega Carta
I always thought it was a better example of deciding if you should optimize code or just throw faster hardware at a system.
Google's goal of "organizing the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" seems static to me, by which I mean that it's all about organizing existing data. I think that will lead to a company that is increasingly focused on defense.
And yet there is a benchmark in that particular set you linked in which Python runs in 3/4 the time.

Also, I don't like the CLBG - it removed PyPy and a bunch of other implementations of various languages. I would be intrigued to see the speed of PyPy on that particular set of benchmarks, for instance.
I think Malbolge is the winner in the field of crazy programming languages. It has no entry on that page, presumably because nobody has managed to write FizzBuzz in it yet. There is at least a Hello World:

http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Hello_world/Text#Malbolge

A choice quote from Wikipedia: "Weaknesses in the design have been found that make it possible (though still very difficult) to write useful Malbolge programs."

Many languages are deliberately made to be difficult to use, but in the end they're always made to be used. Malbolge is the only one I'm aware of where the ability to write programs at all is a "weakness."
Does anyone know why they chose Xapian over elasticsearch?