skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Unfortunately there are probably people on HN stupid enough to actually send him money.
"Replace all that C++ crap with Swift" - for this scenario they need apps that will be actually swift not "Swift".
I respect your opinion but I can't agree with it.

What if you make two mistakes that cancel each other out? You get the correct answer but should you get full points? In my opinion: no.

> First of all, should we ask such long calculations in an exam situation without access to a computer? That's not real anyway.

First of all, students have pretty fancy calculators these days. And one sheet full of equations is not that much for a practical, applied problem. Testing only mundane math skills (simplify, differentiate, solve, etc) doesn't test the ability to apply the skills to any real world problems. There are short problems too, it's not all long problems.

If it was only about the correct answer, the grading might as well be 0 to 1 points. Now there are questions worth 1, 2, or 6 points. The first being "simplify this equation" and the last being an applied problem.

And learning how to do math without the aid of a computer is a very valuable skill. In practice you have the aid of computers, books and collections of formulae but in my experience, there's no substitute for pen and paper practice. Learning to solve math problems is a skill, not a piece of knowledge.

If you don't know some things by heart, and know how to attack a problem, a computer will not help you.

> Second of all, If we are asking the long calculation with the expectation that students won't be able to complete it, why are we asking that question? Why don't we ask shorter questions that match the expectations we have?

The expectation, of course, is that a student will be able to complete the whole thing. But the longer the calculation, the higher the chance of making a simple stupid mistake. The reviewer will evaluate whether or not the student showed that he understands the problem and the solution. If there's obviously no idea what is going on, it's going to be zero points. Even one point requires a partial solution.

> It really shows they were better (or better trained) at gaming the exam - knowing exactly what to write to satisfy the examiner and gain partial credit. This training is very well paid, by the way.

No, that's not the case at all. Getting partial credit is completely worthless, you need to have at least 50% of the score to pass. Trying to "game" the exercises won't take you far.

For a point of reference, when I did my finals more than a decade ago, you needed 57/60 points (ie 10 problems) to get the highest grade. That means making at most three trivial mistakes during 6 hours.
It just doesn't look worth cracking...
Probably someone wrote down what he thought would be super secret information, that nowadays seems laughable...
VR is not sexy. At all.
I don't work in the field so I won't argue it but this sounds like the root of our disagreement. A lot of people believe exams should in fact prioritize these more abstract skills over raw stuffage-of-data-into-brain.

You say exams are not about that and it may be so, but I'm not convinced it's not possible to make them about that. A giant list of multiple choice questions won't achieve it though, not any better than the briggs-myers anyway.
That's just sad.
'evolve' means - they seize to assist and just become convenience stores. There is no 'evolving' here. There's no difference in pretty much shutting down the store and having the same owners open another different kind of store in the same location.
No, just no.

You can run versions of go side by side. Plus, go is really backwards compatible, so unless you need to recreate an old binary exactly, you can always just compile with a newer version. You can vendor dependencies with godep to insulate conflicting dependencies. If you really really want to, you can have different gopaths. You don't need this.
Dockerising a Rails App
...working with Mozilla to make AMO more secure for everyone by default seems like a pretty straightforward and desirable option for EFF. it's unclear why that hasn't happened here.

The bug report [1] was closed as WONTFIX. Essentially, AMO is more worried about malicious updates by extension authors than hijacking of legitimate extensions:

The "hijacking" we worry about is from the addon authors themselves: we review and OK a benign add-on and then it self-updates into malware or adware. This is not a hypothetical worry. The EFF isn't going to do that, obviously, but the number of entities we trust to that extent who cannot simply host on AMO is so small that we can't spare the coding resources to create an exception mechanism.

[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=999014
Shared Client/Server validation using Clojure(script)
Indeed, the toxicity of the metal powders is one of the major issues with laser sintering metal, and real care must be taken not to ingest it. The reason we can deal with it on earth is that the metal falls down very quickly, not lingering in the air to be breathed in. Cleaning laser sintering machines typically requires protective gear, though.
A Soft Approach to Security. Point Listens to Your Home
Yeah, when I posted it, I realized the title wasn't ideal - but figured the safe bet was to adhere to the "post with the author's published title" rule.
Kim Dotcom declares he is 'broke'
Given the nature of the crime (accepting kickbacks from IT vendors per sergers elsewhere in this subtread), there's every reason to wonder if he's continued doing this in his Yahoo CIO position.

If Yahoo has a clue you can be sure they'll be going over his actions at the company with a fine toothed comb.
This is roughly equivalent to the SAT subject area tests (or the GRE subject tests for graduate school admissions). It's not that these don't exist in the US, it's just that if you're teaching rote memorization, the best proof of success is quizzing on rote memorization. For better or for worse, it does demonstrate instantaneous knowledge, which indicates students' correlative ability to learn, which in turn indicates worthiness for admission to elective higher education.

It's certainly not perfect, but it's not the worst thing in the world. It does favor higher socioeconomic classes, though, for a variety of reasons. The good news for Americans, though, is that we have enough colleges and universities to accommodate anyone who wants to learn, no matter what their high school record may be.
And, also, of the well known variety.
I mentioned it partly because it's addressed in the actual article, and the specific instance I referenced is such a flagrant abuse of the guideline:

"Comments are good, but there is also a danger of over-commenting. NEVER try to explain HOW your code works in a comment: it's much better to write the code so that the _working_ is obvious, and it's a waste of time to explain badly written code."

It's almost as bad as:

// Increment i
i++;

I think we should be aiming for code that is so beautiful and simple that it doesn't require commenting; comments should be left for exceptional circumstances in which something really can't be clearly expressed in the code. But that's definitely separate from documentation which should be separate, and at a much higher level.
All in all because we are "hypocrites".
"I don't like thing" is the essence how one defines himself.
Of course, you need others who does not like something else. And the wheel goes on and on and on and on.

It is perfectly fine for someone not to like how something works and other person to like how it works.

It is dilemma of humanity, how does we cope with it(should we?).
Glazier's fallacy blah blah blah more statism blah blah blah remove choice blah blah.
It looks like their attention has turned to LLVM.

http://www.philipreames.com/Blog/2014/06/04/code-for-late-sa...

http://www.azulsystems.com/about_us/careers/llvm-compiler-en...
In the cases you cite, the way to deal with problem behavior usually involves medication, treatment, care, etc, but they still get to be participatory members of society.

The solution you're proposing would just lock them up in a high tower where the public could remain blissfully unaware that the mentally ill even exist, and never have to deal with them. I'd rather have to deal with somebody shitting on a bus once in a while than ostracize them and force them into a minimum security prison.

Standards are a guideline for how something should normally be. If someone is, by no fault of their own, radically outside this standard, they may require a separate standard to determine how they can be 'normal', and then find and receive treatment in order to live as close to normal as possible. Using the same standard for everyone would result in people being thrown into insane asylums for everything from anxiety to stress-induced nervous breakdown, bipolar disorder, OCD, schizophrenia, etc.

In 2012, there were an estimated 9.6 million adults aged 18 or older in the U.S. with a serious mental illness in the past year. This represented 4.1 percent of all U.S. adults. There were an estimated 43.7 million adults with any mental illness ; 18.6 percent of all U.S. adults. So yeah, I still don't think everyone should be held to the same standard, and I think treatment options should exist other than "hiding or banning from society".
I wrote a little piece on my thoughts on 3d printing in space last year: http://jimkeener.com/posts/fpga-spaceflight

I really do believe that 3d printing and malleable computing will enable long-term space exploration.

It's extremely exciting to see the start of this!
strparse makes sense if you read the code linearly, since they also have csiparse, and deal with STREscape and CSIEscape, respectively. If you did need to add an escape sequence, it would take less than a minute to find where to add it.

While I wouldn't call it a paragon of clarity, it basically follows the same style and organization as older Unix tools. In such cases, I find starting from main() and jumping around with ctags a useful strategy (after reading the globals and type definitions).

Oh, and I strongly agree about tests. Especially escape sequence parsing could benefit from fuzzing or other property-based testing approaches.
I think that's a bit hard to do when your business model is built around user profiling, even if it is only for purely legal business ends.
Did you even read the article? We shouldn't demand it because of privacy concerns. Same reason we don't have phone companies screen all of our phonecalls. Because we're not guilty until proven innocent.

Besides, then things like encryption become questionable. If the ISP can't screen your data, what's to stop them from kicking you off their network? Who knows what illegal things you're doing if they can't validate it themselves.

Not to mention that end-user companies don't have all of the keys either. If a screenplay writer googles "how to murder wife" and "how to get away with murder" and "disposal of body", what is google to do? Notify authorities? This is surely the wrong course of action.
As a recreational C programmer I have the same impression. I've always used typedefs for structs and enums in my code and I think it makes it more readable and easier to work on. My reaction to reading the kernel style guidelines was a surprise and I am happy I am not the only one disagreeing.
I don't think 7-bit ASCII behaves the way you think. It's typically the same 8-bit bytes but with the most significant bit clear. So, there's no saving to be had, it doesn't "contract" the bits across neighboring bytes.
I am not sure that would work either. If I understand correctly, the root cause of delayed responses is because more requests were sent on that link due to hash collisions, which delays connections on that link. So, wouldn't "most recent request sent" correlate well with "most recent response received"?

EDIT: Also, this seems like a classic load balancing problem: Simply picking the least loaded connection would have been sufficient. The response time on each connection could be computed either explicitly (a running average/standard deviation of RPC finish times) or implicitly by checking the queue backlog at any time (the queue backlong being a first-order statistic).
New Version of dhtmlxSuite, JavaScript UI library, now supports touch devices
Because it's not clear that was done to affect aluminium prices, as a judge recently agreed. Rather it's more likely they delayed aluminium deliveries because they were in stupid contracts that meant they got more money the longer they took to deliver.
Uber doesn't know who does the ride of shame based on pickups and drop offs, they just monitor the phones of their customers!
I wonder whether this is just a speculative suit based on past performance with the LIBOR scandal, or whether they actually have some sort of smoking gun. The article doesn't really mention either way.
Using RedHat OpenShift to Host PencilBlue
Given that value won't be created in the same way as traditional business do now, what plausible business models do you foresee for software companies operating in this landscape?
"enhanced interrogation" was my favourite but it has been recently superseded by "incorrect evidence"[0]

[0]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30175983
Don't you think it's fair to say that there are enough potential ideas there that are ledger based?

We can always discuss the specifics all of these can be centralized but they benefit from being decentralized.
>>I expect most us agree that banks _should_ be held accountable for the legitimacy of their customers behaviour.

I don't think most people have this expectation.

Banks to be accountable for customers breaking law? What's an example of this? If I open a bank account in a different country, under an LLC, to illegally avoid paying taxes or to receive kickbacks it's up to the bank to figure that out? I do not expect banks to be responsible for their customers unless something outrageous happens, like a non-corp account suddenly reaching a billion USD balance. And this is ___much___ easier to automate for banks too and will produce almost no false alarms. If Joe-The-Plumber's account is suddenly more than Donald Trump's net worth... something is going on.

Conversely, with Facebook/Apple/Google you'd just get this[1] happening all the time. And have you ever had the joy of XboxLive's in-game audio and messaging? False alarms galore. Blowing up planes and burning down / shooting up schools was a common joke even when I was a kid in the '80s, not even to talk of today's youngsters. <--- And now if HN had terrorism-dection built in, will this comment of mine get flagged?

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/long-island-high-school-student-...
We've been doing this for years, though less so since we've had our own children and it's become easier to convince extended family to visit us. Friendsgiving parties are waaaaaaaaay better than family Thanksgivings!
stack implies LIFO and queue implies FIFO. Otherwise they wouldn't have different names. :)
+ insider trading isn't illegal in commodities -- is that the issue here?
Just curious, what purpose does this serve/in what applications is this useful?
You can do that on OS X with iTerm2 e.g.: http://www.railsonmaui.com/blog/2014/03/11/rocking-with-tmux...
This is almost the answer to the next question too.
Ah, I see. No, nothing quite so deep.

Like a lot people, I do ponder the quality of reality, and I also find it interesting that I will never know reality as you or any other person actually perceives or experiences it. I can only know that there are "overlapping points of agreement", based on our senses, mental processing, communication, etc.

But, there is certainly an agreed-upon reality on which our society is built.
It's also impossible. "I'm going to kill some soldiers when I get back" might refer to my super secret terror plot, or my PlayStation-related plans for the evening.
A couple differences that I believe are relevant:

a) Bank balances are a more controlled system from the beginning. They 'know' how much is in your account and when you transfer it they 'know' how much and to whom. Meanwhile, Google, Facebook and so on are not keeping active track of the nature of your conversations within chat and email in such a tightly controlled way. When I say "Hey, what's up" to a friend in Facebook Messenger it's not treated by FB as a bank would treat my sending the friend $200. (I realize this gets a bit ambiguous because the message is still recorded in a database and parsed for advertising...)

b) The activities we engage in on Facebook, Gmail, WhatsApp and the like overlap with speech and social relationships which are usually given more protection and consideration in society than specific transfers of items or materials (like cash, physical items, and so forth.) Imagine your local police tracking everyone's movement, conversations and social relationships in the neighborhood "just in case"—that'd raise concerns! Meanwhile a store owner keeping inventory of every sale is just seen as expected behavior.
C is not a strongly typed language and it does not allow function overloading. C projects should allow for some flexibility in naming notations to make up for those language design decisions.

Also, any project that uses int return codes shouldn't be leaning too heavily on type safety.
but you never know at which point the coins came into the current owners posession. You could go back 1 step or 100 steps and trace the coins linegae from their creation until today but without knowing who owns all the intermediary addresses youy dont really know anything other than how much was sent when.
Police in Utah have killed more people than gang members, drug dealers
They explicitly mention in the article that this may not apply to their new data center.
As a "professional" C/C++ programmer (day job), I don't have strong feelings either way. It is frustrating not knowing what the type of a variable is. Am I being passed a pointer, or an integer, or a floating point value, or a whole struct, or what? This really matters! Digging up the definition isn't difficult, but isn't easy, either. I would lean against using typedefs liberally, but I don't feel strongly about it.

Personally I use typedefs as a shortcut. Rather than type boost::shared_ptr<const MyFavoriteClass> over and over, typedef it to ConstMyFavoriteClassPtr for convenience. Then be consistent with that paradigm through the whole project, so you only have to learn it once to know any given Ptr type.
Sadly, running Lindent on almost any existing source file in the tree will produce dozens of spurious diff hunks due to most other people manually formatting their code, so Lindent is quite useless in practice.

It really does bother me how much of the coders' and code reviewers' bandwidth in the kernel community is wasted due to these silly formatting issues. In most IDE-using communities these problems were solved a long time ago, by the IDE autoreformatting your code on commit, with no exceptions.
Most of that section is concerned with hiding structs or pointers as typedefs: "In general, a pointer, or a struct that has elements that can reasonably be directly accessed should _never_ be a typedef."

Say you are reading a function, and see a local variable declared: "something_t variable_name;". Is it a struct, a pointer, or a basic type? Now compare with "struct something * variable_name;", which is clearly a pointer. If on the other hand it is "struct something variable_name;", you know that it's a struct allocated on the very small kernel stack (less than 8KiB per thread) - something which wouldn't be as clear if the fact that it's a struct were hidden by a typedef.

There are three main reasons to use typedefs: to allow for changes to the underlying type; to add new information to the underlying type (which is item (c) in that section); and to hide information. Since the Linux kernel runs in a constrained environment (as I mentioned, the kernel stack is severely limited, among other things), hiding information without a good reason is frowned upon. It's the same reason they use C instead of C++; the C++ language idioms hide more information.

> Both humans and static analyzers could tell the difference if you used typedefs, and avoid quite a few bugs as a result.

The Linux kernel does that! As I mentioned, it's item (c): "when you use sparse to literally create a _new_ type for type-checking." See for instance the declaration of gfp_t:

typedef unsigned __bitwise__ gfp_t;

The __bitwise__ is for the Sparse static checker. There are other similar typedefs, like __le32 which holds a little-endian value; the Sparse checker will warn you if used incorrectly (without converting to "native" endian).
I see this problem often with headlines on HN. Title case has one benefit – it reveals that a sentence is a title – but in doing so it makes proper nouns (like Apple's “Jobs”) indistinguishable from other words (like Apple's “jobs”).

On HN, it's obvious that the titles are titles simply because of their location, so title case has no benefit.

But we lose a lot by using title case, because we can't distinguish between “slack” and “Slack,” “flow” and ”Flow,” “wave” and “Wave,” and “medium” and “Medium.”

New words are constantly being added to the list. Every day, many dictionary words are appropriated as new proper nouns, (today, I see that “Lobster” is now a proper noun), so when HN visitors read a headline in title case, they have to consider the possibility that every one of the capitalized words is a proper noun.
In 2010, “Frontline” returned to the schools where they had filmed children
laughing on the merry-go-rounds, splashing each other with water. They
discovered pumps rusting, billboards unsold, women stooping to turn the wheel
in pairs. Many of the villages hadn’t even been asked if they wanted a
PlayPump, they just got one, sometimes replacing the handpumps they already
had. In one community, adults were paying children to operate the pump.

Let’s not pretend to be surprised by any of this. The PlayPump story is a sort
of Mad Libs version of a narrative we’re all familiar with by now: Exciting new
development idea, huge impact in one location, influx of donor dollars, quick
expansion, failure.

Frontline Video from 2005 "The Play Pump" :

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/watch/player.html?pkg=entr...

Frontline Video from 2010 "Troubled Water" :

http://video.pbs.org/video/1533347949/
Or perhaps what we should be discussing is whether we have right to make payments through the standard financial system (without the need to recur to bitcoin et al) with some privacy. Should the bank have access to whatever comment I put on a payment to a friend? If my friend writes "Iran" on the comment, should a random Compliance officer have access to that communication between him and me?
I had a job programming Java when it was still in beta and I remember having a conversation circa 1996 through the stall door in a public bathroom with two guys who thought Java was a fad and I told them no, Java was everything they said it would be.
Probably because 1) the alleged actions were completely different and 2) that didn't actually happen.

(To be clear: It was not alleged that Goldman delayed aluminum deliveries to raise the price of aluminum. The allegation was that Goldman paid people to store metal in warranted warehouses that had slow withdrawals, which had the side effect of raising the premium which metals in non-warranted warehouses command over metal in warranted warehouses. Not only is it not clear that this happened, it's also not illegal—the lawsuit was thrown out. Plus, the actual price of aluminum was actually falling over this period, and nobody thinks Goldman's actions influenced this price.)

If you'd like to read a lot more about aluminum markets than you probably want, this article is pretty good: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-03/the-goldman...