skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I do not believe that it's the case that there's a "most specific wins" in statutory interpretation. A broad exemption in a later bill overrides all the previous statutes it implicates.

In fact: if that's the case, and I think it is, then bills like this are deceptive: they make people like you believe you can grep the Congressional Record for references to Wyden's bill and tell if there's new statutory authority for backdoors.

One of the HN legals (DannyBee! Rayiner! Tzs! Pdabbadabba!) can probably clear this up.
Thanks for this. Also, nice design on your lyric demo.. What gave you the idea to write this?
> Google’s Go is structured to simplify the work of making
> code run “concurrently,” smoothing the way for
> programmers to create and juggle portions of a program
> that execute simultaneously — and thus take full
> advantage of today’s multicore chips and multiprocessor
> machines.

It's a while since I last checked out Go but I thought Goroutines were coroutines and therefore confined to a single core. Does Go provide means for true concurrency nowadays?
We are using Docker to package an on-prem product.

As the ecosystem is recent and evolving quickly, we are looking at ways to handle multiple containers and deploy them at scale. And often, there are several solutions.

Having docker provide the set of components (and it's great to have multiple components for that) helps in defining a standard direction.

And as long as all the components are open source and can be deployed on our end, we are glad to use them. We would consider switching if somehow the docker tools become tied to a proprietary service or tool, which is unacceptable for our customers.
> The argument that 2^1024 is a very large number, but that the number of possible movies is larger than this strikes me as fairly compelling.

It is compelling, because it is probably true. I think Sloot did not manage to create a device that could play movies to be released in the future, without requiring an update to the device.

> But I don't why this would have us believe in the infinite movie device.

The infinite movie device was a ruse. A misinterpretation of the claims by media and investors, which the company did nothing to stop. Jan Sloot never claimed higher compression ratio's than 8x (you can compress the entire series of Lost better with a single code-book than each single episode with its own code-book). He talked more about encoding, not compression.

> Are the patent examiners greater authorities than the experts?

I think the information theory experts are railing against a claim that was never made. A device that holds every movie ever made, or to be made in the future, unlock-able by a tiny keycode, can not possibly exist. I think Pieper, Perkins and the Oracle DB experts knew this. Apparently there was more to this invention than this ridiculous claim of near infinite compression.

> human psychology and greed

I think this was a different pre-bubble time, where people thought they could invest and hype up companies, and have the technology build later. Speech recognition companies were worth millions before their tech was even proven to practically work. I suspect that such a force worked behind the scenes in this company too. Just see the corny time-capsule that is their flash site (warning, plays sound): http://www.davoc.com/indexnow.html

> my first presumption was that you were trolling, which I'd define as pretending to believe an untenable position to see if you can get a rise out of others

I am sorry for not making my ideas about this case more clear. For the record: I do not think that endless or recursive compression is possible. I am just trying to apply Occam's razor to this intriguing case: Was Jan Sloot the biggest conman of the 90s? Fooling the biggest venture capital companies in the world? Did he really romantically invent something special as an outsider? Or was his set-top box idea really worth something? I don't believe Pieper could be fooled by such a con. Maybe he knew?

> Without trying to be too offensive, who are you, and why did you write this comment?

I am anonymous. Not trying to rile you up, but prefer to keep it that way. I have, not too recently, abandoned an old HN account and starting over. I wrote this comment, because this case is intriguing, and for me, responsible for my attraction to compression and information theory. I first heard about the Pigeonhole principle in relation to this case.
That's pretty fascinating.

Isn't that useful beyond photography? If this detector can detect just a single bit of information every 10^-11 second, that's 100 Gbit/s.
http://jsfiddle.net/955x2w5a/embedded/result/
Thanks for the interesting link. If I am reading it correctly, they are planning to do the thing that Mike Pall tells people not to do: target LuaJIT bytecode [1]. I'm very curious to see how that will work out.

[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/badl2/luajit_2_...
Many many solutions have been meeting that need just fine and many new ones are still in the works. Adding a new solution will not help things.
Bitrig 1.0 released
WSJ: ‘Apple Deleted Rivals’ Songs from Users’ iPods’
Thanks. Any idea as to the footprint of these instances?
Ask HN: Who is making the most awesome dumb phones?
A lot of people will inevitably comment on the flimsiness of this bill - that it can be easily circumvented. This might be true, but its a step forward because it acknowledges that government backdoors are a bad thing.

I wish I could remember where I read about this, but its similar to how activists changed the classification of LGBT literature to a non-stigmatizing category in libraries. This was the start of a lot of progress for LGBT rights. It was a minor victory among lots of major defeats at the time it happened.

Instead of complaining about the weaknesses in the bill, we should view this as a facet of a multi-pronged effort to maintain privacy.
I wrote my app before Dropbox had published any branding guidelines for developers (3+ years ago), so I was essentially grandfathered in. Perhaps my phrasing of "special exemption" was a bit strong. I apologize for that. I dug up this email exchange: http://i.ralph.io/95cc7ww3.png
Go has supported "true" concurrency (distributing goroutines across cores) since at least version 1.0, and probably earlier.
I think Swift is a great language, and that creating something new that incorporates some very good ideas into a package that works well with their existing and extensive runtime made a lot of sense, but that tying it to their platform is a damn shame (though not unsurprising).

I don't think the languages you list would have been a great fit, but D would have been a really good and interesting choice. Were it more mature, Rust could have also been a good fit.
Orion is pretty unsuited for a mission as long as a Mars trip. So I doubt the spacecraft used for that would have anything to do with what they are currently calling Orion.
what is the point of this? there are already laws that forbid it, and there are already laws that ignore those laws in case of national security or other bs.

this new law would just add to the first lot. total waste of time.

the only sane thing to do is to better regulate and try to add consequences to misuses of the second lot.
'"If we want to have a driverless car or if you have specific, applications for telemedicine, then they have to have reliable and always secure connections," Merkel said.'

So long as this is government-specified, industry-wide preferential treatment (IE, ALL driverless cars, not just Toyota's because they paid), this seems somewhat reasonable. It also seems abusable, and adding the capability for preferential treatment seems like a potentially dangerous step, but it's much more nuanced than simply "speaks out against net neutrality".
Uber Raises $1.2B, Valuing the Company at $40B
If you want to find out if a candidate knows "a lick of" statistics, try asking about something generic, like confidence intervals. But he didn't do that; instead he grilled them on the default partition scheme for algorithm X.

Which (unless the candidate advertises themselves as having significant experience in algorithm X) is about as useful as asking them if they know the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow.
> the code is fast (written in C, which _almost_ makes it fast by default).

I hate to be that guy, but [Citation Needed].

Most language implementations are written in C and most language implementations are quite slow, once you include the giant slew of hobby, toy, and less successful languages. Remember, Ruby, Python, and early versions of JS interpreters were all written in C too and are or were dog slow!

Duktape does have a section on performance[1], but it's basically just a guide to things you have to do to not make it extra slow. I didn't see any reported benchmarks.

This doesn't mean Duktape is bad. Simple+slow is a perfectly good trade-off for many real-world uses. Embedded scripting languages tend to spend most of their time in the FFI, not executing code, so perf doesn't matter as much as maintainability.

But it's really dubious to just say, "well, it's written in C so it's probably great." It's using ref-counting and linear scanning or hash table lookup for property look-up. Perf is likely not great.

Just as a point of comparison, my little hobby language[2] is also written in very simple C, but it's carefully designed to be fast too. Property look-up and method calls are just pointer + known offset. GC is tracing. Because of this (and other stuff), perf actually is good[3], typically better than Python and Lua and on par with Ruby. (With the usual caveat that all benchmarks are bad. :) )

[1]: http://duktape.org/guide.html#performance

[2]: https://github.com/munificent/wren

[3]: https://github.com/munificent/wren/blob/master/doc/site/perf...
Show HN: Mistype.co – let your users tell you about mistakes
AWS started as an open-source community project boasting contributions from over 650 contributors?

Recent post by Docker CEO Golub:

There are over 650 contributors (95% of whom do not work for Docker, Inc.).

http://blog.docker.com/2014/11/docker-governance-advisory-bo...
Your parent explicitly stated that he's talking about JS implementations and not about the language. All you've said may be true, but it's completely off-topic and has no relation to the parent post at all.

EDIT: typos.
You can reconfigure this via ui-router https://github.com/angular-ui/ui-router/issues/148
Silicon Valley homeless no longer welcome in 'the Jungle'
You're not dumb, the problem is that Docker is (currently) a Unix technology and trying to have one foot in Unix and one foot in Windows is always awkward. Maybe wait for the native Windows version of Docker.
If the bill even has a shot of passing, it will be quietly amended to include gaping exceptions, to the extent that nothing will actually change other than a brief pulling off the wool over the public eyes.
Really nice library and really modular, Awesome job
I didn't downvote but you may want to read HN's Guidelines[1], particularly: Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Of course that's the point of it, and in that sense it is indeed useful.

It's a bill intended to send a message and establish values, and it does that nicely.

You can tell it's intended to send a message because, well, that's what the Senator says in the press release.

“This bill sends a message to leaders of those agencies to stop recklessly pushing for new ways to vacuum up Americans’ private information, and instead put that effort into rebuilding public trust.”
2015 Security Predictions
I don't think the bill needs to be changed at all to be deceptive to the public, because Congress doesn't work the way this bill suggests it does.
None of the languages you listed have Objective-C interoperability, which is pretty crucial for their purposes.
Benevolent dictator can work. But here Docker has said they want to make it possible for the project to be community led and run over time. Actions on the ground speak otherwise. Hard to restore trust once lost.
Statepoints vs. gcroot for representing call safepoints
Nothing against "trying it", but your comment implied that you've seen cases where shocking money started pouring in. I take that you are actually not aware of such cases. On the other hand Cobian is just one high-profile account of donationware not working. The whole model is just wishful thinking.
Read through the article and found myself nodding in agreement with a lot of the points. Read the first comment. The commentor mentions adding 512MB of RAM to his.. wait WHAT? 512MB? Oh the comment is from 11 years ago... the post was written in 2003...

If the internet of '03 could be described as 'rapid-fire content,' what can possibly describe the internet of today?
This will never work.
Bitrig 1.0 Released – OpenBSD fork
This never made sense. It may have been interesting if Microsoft had leveraged the B&N physical real estate to let users play with their new hardware, eg Surfaces, but that never happened. Nook continued to be the oft forgotten Android based ecosystem it always was.
I finally made some fixes and it seems to work.

Source code is available at https://github.com/marinintim/mistype
The Question Mark
There are. But by and far you won't find them in the startup circles. I've personally found them in universities and art schools (if you're surprised by the latter, take a peak at creativeapplications.net).
Depending on where you're located and where your audience is located, you could use Dwolla[1]. They have no fees for under $10, which would mean more money in your pocket and claim only a 25 cent transaction fee for any other transaction.

[1]https://www.dwolla.com/
So, what you're saying is, it's cosmetic.
Grep is clearly not enough, but sometimes cases are decided by extreme edge case interpretations as there is no clear intent. In which case a very specific law generally beats a vague interpretation if you squint really hard, but not clear if sweeping language.

So, agency X can do anything wins. Agency X can make reasonable precautions does not because a prior law defines such behavior as unreasonable.

Edit: My point being a law that says agency X can do anything raises plenty of red flags where 'make reasonable precautions' does not.

PS: Though, that's just my understanding I would love to hear a better analysis.
So how does one write the (square x) macro in Common Lisp? Presumably, one would like to avoid evaluating the argument twice as well as accidental variable capture.
Been a while since I've posted anything on here, but this one was really personal to write and I wanted to share it with the HN community where I largely lurk but still count myself among.
Really? Not sure what makes you think that.

The Apple II is one of a number of machines at the time that had the system-unit-plus-keyboard as a base on which a matching monitor was put. The HP 9845A and PET 2001 for example.

Later CP/M systems often had the system unit built into the monitor - and sometime the keyboard as well in systems like the Intertec Superbrain.
At work we're in the midst of rolling out a sharded Postgres platform based on http://www.craigkerstiens.com/2012/11/30/sharding-your-datab..., with the sharding implemented at the application level. The biggest piece of complexity in that post is around designing the sharding in such a way that you can gracefully add more shards later.

Having read the pg_shard readme, it's not clear to me how it addresses that issue. I'd need to have a really clear idea how to handle scaling my cluster before committing to a sharding solution.
We use Duktape at AllSeen Alliance (disclaimer: I work there) to put JavaScript bindings on small devices.

https://git.allseenalliance.org/cgit/core/alljoyn-js.git/sum...
I get this argument for any other company.

But at this point Apple has gone to great lengths to control the entire toolchain from the OS to the compiler to the chips that run the instructions the compiler produces.

It’d seem odd if they didn’t go with something home-grown as their language of choice.
I fail to see how this is HN related. Flagged for linkspam.
If the article is a paid Google advert (which might be), then "Someone1234" can also be a newly created anonymous HN account used by an Amazon employee.
Computers can recognize a cat and describe the scene around it.

http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-picture-is-wort...
Wait, you're not supposed to? Why not (with lead free solder)? As a self taught electronics tinkerer I've never heard this, and I do it all the time when I work and no one's ever told me anything :/
Continuous integration (CI) of Rails Docker images using fig, make, and CircleCI
The ending of the video is quite sweet.

The Apple 2 is considered a beautiful and marvellous piece of engineering, and at least somewhat responsible for getting the fledgling personal computer business off the group. Here's the guy with his creation, fiddling about trying to get it to boot...

And what's he want his wondrous device to do?

10 PRINT "HELLO MY NAME IS STEVE."
Couldn't play it on my system (flash, html video issues), but one can manage :

# segments
$ for url in $(curl -sL http://b5vod-vh.akamaihd.net/i/m/NjIzMjk0Ng/xVc_Rg1fNn9bndgr_M6.GD7_Lk.3w3FeiCzVWzGcJJY1MDBh/3c45758f-6a07-47a2-8cbc-70d98b3e0bbc_,44,15,24,70,120,180,240,0.mp4.csmil/index_0_av.m3u8 | egrep '^http') ; do wget ${url} ; done

# reassembly
$ for segment in $(ls -1rt) ; do cat ${segment} >> complete.ts ; done

# joy
$ mpv complete.ts
I don't know, what does a low-skill developer who doesn't know better cost compared to someone actually qualified for the job?
The lead vapors from having your unshielded mouth that close would be much worse than any direct contact with your tooth enamel, from what I know.
No, SipHash is acceptable cryptographic PRF; it's just not acceptable as a standalone general-purpose cryptographic hash.

A PRF is secure as long as attackers don't get to know exactly how it works, which, with SipHash, they don't if they don't know the key used for it.

A cryptographic hash function is secure --- it's Hard to find two inputs that produce the same output, it's (even) Hard(er) to find a specific input that generates a given output --- even when it's not keyed.

SipHash is a cryptographic building block that is performant in part because it takes advantage of relaxing the constraint of being a good cryptographic hash function, and only tries to be a good cryptographic PRF.
Parallelism is determined by an environment variable called GOMAXPROCS (or, set at runtime), which is the number of threads executing user-level Go code simultaneously. This includes goroutines. By default, GOMAXPROCS=1.
As a (full-time) driver for both: I am biased towards lyft - I make more money on their platform weekly, they take less commission, I have a good friend who works for lyft.

There is certainly a difference between the two, but the two corporate cultures are converging. The cutthroat competition, and possibly growth demands put on them by VC has forced lyft to 'play catch up' against uber in many ways.

It shows up in superficial ways: For example, especially hilarious was the week that uber's and lyft's driver-side UI for accepting and completing rides swapped (uber went from tap and confirm to swipe in/swipe out; lyft went the opposite way).

Lyft communication with drivers, while always upbeat, is often very very slow and occasionally they are borderline negligent in dealing with pay issues.

And as is always the case, it's very difficult to measure the supply and demand, and so in my market at least there is a gross oversupply of drivers; as the drivers tail off and stop driving because they aren't making money, lyft finds itself needing to go on a hiring drive before major events (halloween, etc)... And then everyone shows up on the road for the few weeks after that and takehome goes sharply down.

I have doubts lyft will ever get caught in a major dustup like Uber did with its executive-level idiocy, but it's not a perfect company, and there are certainly more points of similarity (in bad ways) between the two companies than this review points out.

Still having said that, I do like contracting with lyft. It's (and to a less extent uber) given me runway for setting up my nonprofit and I'll be launching a for-profit after I move up to the bay area next week.... While we're seeking capital for it, I'll be lyfting around, if you use lyft you might see me.
You are seriously underestimating the importance of deep statistical knowledge in some of these jobs.

In the example, the candidate wasn't grilled on the default partition scheme; he or she was grilled on the partition scheme that was used. If someone thinks that's an unimportant implementation detail, why would you ever want to hire them?
So, you are saying that you work for Google, and this is your view of Google Cloud Platform?
Pretty strange to "bash" the company you work for - even if, in my humble view, this is honorable and PR should never give you a hard time for being honest like this (for me, Google just won points by having someone like you be so honest about his view).
Darn. I thought this said "a Quaint Job in France" and I clicked on it. I was disappointed.
I've been looking at a variety of R packages, mostly for the purposes of rewriting them in C++ for greater speed, and my assessment is that most of them are of very low code quality. I don't mean that they don't work (they usually do), or that they are too slow (they usually are, but this is explained by selection bias given the reasons I'm looking at them), but that there is little standardization even with a given package, and the 'foundations' seem weak.

Variable names are a hodgepodge of unhelpful single letter abbreviations theSecondArgumentToTheFunction; functions alternate between camelCase, dots, and underscores; and any form of architecture seems at best an afterthought. It seems like the base language encourages this, or at least does nothing to prevent it. It's commonplace to pick on Perl, but the overall quality of popular packages seems considerably lower on CRAN than CPAN. Perhaps this is because Perl is so conscious of its reputation at this point that the remaining programmers take great pain to write clear code?

I feel like R is currently in the stage where Perl and PHP were as the internet was just when the internet started to explode. The first-to-market CGI scripts and libraries, often written by domain expert non-programmers, became the default choices which the rest of the infrastructure was built on. At some point, the weight became too great for the shoddy[1] construction, and most people moved on to languages with better attention to maintainability and foundational detail (Python, Ruby).

Those who remained with the language evolved it in similar directions, by replacing the earlier libraries with better designed ones and by setting a higher standard for community norms. I'm not sure about PHP, but contrary to reputation, modern Perl is often a really clean and consistent language.
Julia seems to be playing a parallel role for R, although the new-found strength of Python in the data analysis space complicates the analogy.

But I wonder: is R undergoing (or about to undergo) a similar renaissance? Are there already examples of "Modern R" out there to serve as templates for the future direction of the language? Or is R happy where it is?

[1] Did you know that 'shoddy' was originally a legitimate but low grade of wool, and wasn't necessarily pejorative?