skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That is a childish sentiment; those people will still exist in the world and still vote, even if you pretend they don't.

Only sustained, long-term communication and engagement creates lasting cultural change. That means talking to the people you know who disagree with you. In fact if you know them, you're the best person to change their mind.

If you don't believe this can work, compare the political status of gay marriage in 2004 vs 2014.
You are one of few concerned with Python3 targets.
Pyston, PyPy are all mostly Python(2) projects. PyPy3 does exist, but it's considered beta and not recommended for production use as PyPy is.

Python(2) code/libraries will mainly survive on PyPy/Pyston going forward.
With stuff like Nim and Rusthon, I think something like those will carry the torch forward after Python(2), rather than Python3.
Technically speaking, that's correct, one cannot begin something that is already ongoing.
If DC's Members of Congress are likely to vote with the Democrats (which I think they are) and Congress has just enough Democrats to allow DC to become a state, but a couple of offices are shaky and they are likely to loose power, then bringing in DC as a new state would help keep the Democrats in power.

That sounds like a decent reason. Not compelling, but decent. It only needs to be enough to counter the anti-dilution argument, after all.

Puerto Rico's statehood is more likely though. In the 2012 election both Obama and Romney indicated support for statehood should that be what the people of PR decide. That's complicated because apparently the Republican Party of PR is the statehood party, even though PR is likely to vote for the Democratic Party. (See http://www.caribbeanbusinesspr.com/news/dc-lobbyist-warning-... )

So, D's control the House and Senate, DC and PR become states, and the D's pick up about 10 seats and hold power even longer. That's more compelling than DC alone.
I hope you're joking. Mainly because this line of thinking is easily shown to be slippery. Sure, let's say interrogating terrorists is always good. But what defines a terrorist? All of a sudden black and white becomes a murk, once again.
Seems more likely that companies will own the fleets, and robo jitney won't be a thing.
Silly fool, this hobbiest! How dare he publish his homegrown, COTS work on the internet, lest we pedantic assholes compare him to well-funded, full-time engineering efforts.
I imagine most of the complaining is by people that haven't even spent much time in the language, let alone this new tool.

I'm would wager that generics were a driving force behind this. They don't want to add them to the language (fair), but are willing to offer a way for us to add them at precompile time.
Except it is a self managing fleet. Autos would not just stay in central locations, they will use current parking infrastructure to distribute themselves. People will have drive ways for a hundred years even if everyone gets rid of the cars - and you'll get 5% off your subscription to let them park autos in your drive way.

And the majority is just maximal utilization. Even then, it is drastically less than the total number of vehicles in the system, and the reuse of those vehicles every other hour of the day besides peak hour is only a utilization gain.

It will be much cheaper to subscribe to an auto service than own one. In the best case one auto could possibly represent the vehicle usage of a dozen or more people if their driving times align properly. And the worst case is that it is still two or three times the utilization.
We in the US deliberately imported
an, call it, identifiable laboring
underclass, and we're still paying the
price 100+ years later.

Now, now that no doubt we have thoroughly
learned our lesson, certainly we'd never
try or even want to do that again, gee,
never, would we. I mean, we learned our
lesson the first time, right? An
identifiable laboring underclass, who
would want that one again, right?
We've been trying for 100+ years to
get this pot to "melt", and we're
still stirring, and stirring, and stirring.

Yes, this observation is not
totally accurate and has several
loose ends, and maybe we can get
by with it this time, and hopefully
with the orientals we got for the railroads and
otherwise since
we have, but, while I believe I see
the intention, I can't be sure
I can see the situation in another
50, oh, heck, 100, years.

However it comes out, and if we are
going to do it, then I hope it does
work out, I have to suspect that
in some places the intentions are not good.

Or the joke goes, "The Republicans
want the immigrants to work [laboring class] and
not vote, and the Democrats want
the immigrants to vote [underclass
needing welfare] but not work
[take jobs from the existing
underclass].", not that I hear a lot of laughing.
Ah, no one would think
this way, right? And anyone who
suggests such, call it, manipulative
intentions can get some pejorative
labels.

There's a cute Disney movie for children
that has a song "Why Can't We Be Friends";
guess that song is a bit too advanced
for much of the US power elite.
The core significance "rational interests" is that they are consistent. For example, if you like A more than B and B more than C, you should like A more than C. The important part is the internal consistency, not the actual preferences. You could aim at nothing more than helping your fellow man and behave perfectly rationally, as long as you're consistent about it.

It's not a perfect model because people's preferences are not necessarily totally ordered, and people are not always consistent, and preferences change in interesting but sometimes inconsistent (and often predictable) ways. But it's pretty good.

I think it's a great way to think about things because it makes no judgements about what your actual goals are. After all, people have different preferences and interests, and that's fine. More importantly, this also means you could reuse the same ideas perfectly happily for corporations, organizations, societies or event AIs and still draw interesting conclusions. It also lets us create systems that can successfully cater to agents with wildly different interests and get them all to cooperate willingly—that's one of the most important features of our market system and capitalism.
Oops.

Not going to go even more to war, then.
That's a great topic to have a conversation around.

My initial thoughts are that you'd have a blacklist for servers as well as individuals. So if people mistakenly approve senders at around the same rate they mistakenly open spam emails then you'd only get through one time in ten thousand. If your local messaging provider realizes that 9999 out of ten thousand friend requests from a particular domain are denied, then they'd block the entire domain.

Since a friend request conveys little to no information beyond the fact that someone wants to communicate, they'd be unable to get their message out effectively. If one in ten thousand spam friend requests gets through by mistake and after the initial spam message one in ten thousand isn't immediately blocked, then the spammers would need to set up ten thousand domains, each sending out ten thousand messages to get through to one schmuck who might fall for it, and then they'd need 9999 new domains since all but one have been blacklisted. It would likely be enough of a deterrent to prevent most spammers from continuing, although there will always be some amount of spam.

At least I don't think most people would be likely to accept a friend request from IncreaseYourDickSize6969@nigeriamail.com -- but there may be more effective strategies for handling burner identities. How would you do it?
My one little gripe with it is that payments is just one part of the very large fintech world (trade capture, blotters, risk management system, analytics, statistical software etc.), title should say payments/payment processing : )
For Keurig the front of the box literally says "Works only with Keurig brand packs". http://familyfoodandtravel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Ke...
Entry Point of JPMorgan Data Breach Is Identified
They can't deliver their spam message to begin with. You'd need to approve the contact then you could still block them if they spam you.

There's still friend-request spam on facebook, but not nearly as much as email because you can just ignore the people you don't know and block people you do know if they begin to spam you.
Uber vs. Lyft: A Slightly Technocratic Shakedown
Don't forget there's a 60 day free trial. How's that for a push :)
Under what compiler? On GCC 4.9 they're neck-and-neck::

qsort: 6727 ms
std::sort: 6718 ms

(CPU is Core i7-950)
#3 Dictates consequences for sure, http://www.NorthKoreaOffline.com
Startup Founders Leverage Hot Market for Early Paydays
#NorthKoreaOffline #TangoDown #ChristmasParty
From a literary perspective, Tolstoy's War and Peace has volumes of text dedicated to examining Napoleon and the impact of "great men" on history. He also doesn't create a very flattering portrayal, it's a great read. Of course there's more to that book than just war. Dumas, who named a chapter "The Corsican Ogre" after Napoleon in The Count of Monte Cristo is also not very kind to his legacy. Napoleon's lasting impact beyond just the destruction and desecration of monarchies across Europe probably includes the Napoleonic Code[1] which has probably influenced laws everywhere.

Another great read is Rifleman Dodd, also known as Death to the French, the story of a single British rifleman causing havoc to french forces in Spain[2]. It gives you an interesting perspective how much the french were hated outside of France.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_the_French
What Bjarne doesn't mention is the enormous difference in code size between qsort and std::sort. The flexibility of having the compiler generate a sorting routine from std::sort is convenient but enormously redundant in many cases. In LLVM, we have array_pod_sort which is just a thin wrapper around qsort in order to avoid the code bloat of std::sort: http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/namespacellvm.html#ae5788f...

For example, the following generates about 2KB of instructions (and will for basically every new type you want to sort):

#include <algorithm>

struct SomeStruct {
int X;
};

void foo(SomeStruct *SS, int NSS) {
std::sort(SS, SS + NSS, [](SomeStruct LHS, SomeStruct RHS) {
return LHS.X > RHS.X;
});
}

A qsort equivalent will only emit code for the comparator which is just a handful of instructions.

C++ templates may be type safe and all, but at the end of the day they spew duplicated code just as much as those header-only macro-based C containers and algorithms; really more because it's less painful to write templates (vs. macros) and so you do it more, and there is more stuff in the templates. So even though in general the specialized generated code might be faster in most cases (as Bjarne likes to tout), the overall hit on your code size (and i-cache) can be dreadful. Currently, avoiding this issue in C++ just requires diligence on the part of the coder (some optimizations like LLVM's mergefunc can help, but in general it is a pretty hard problem and compilers are not Sufficiently Smart (TM) yet).
No, adhering to the oath excludes torture or other violence that isn't the best choice to prevent greater violence. I haven't yet seen a 9/11 related case where the details justified torture. Clearly our "employed and elected torturers" flouted their oaths.

My ethics are rock solid and will never break the oath.
And if you don't have the dependencies this requires ? Given this design, why would the library author even specify/include the tool required ?

Or worse: what if there's a tool called "stringer" on your device that isn't what is on the developer's machine ?

Even worse : what if it's subtly different ?
Network Manager 1.0 Released after 10 years of development
Almost any business expense which is "ordinary, necessary, and reasonable" counts as a deduction against business income. Hiring expenses are part of that, and paying for completion of a pre-hiring assessment would be considered ordinary, necessary, and reasonable.

Depending on how far you go with this 'assessment' you may cross into 1099 territory where it's taxable income to the candidate (versus expense reimbursement or per diem). It would still be a tax deduction for the business, but more hassle for the candidate at tax time.

I think if you took it past the point of a hiring evaluation, and for example, tried to make it into long term open source coding project, then they would probably be at least 1099 contractors and need be paying income tax on those dollars.
Vladimir Putin Just Invited Kim Jong Un to Visit Russia
That's hilarious, small world. I'm the author of Sidekiq, a major user of Redis, and I got my start in CS hacking on a Tcl extension:

http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/Projects/zeno/Tcl-DP/dp97/
Steam is incredibly intrusive as soon as you actually want to own your games. For example, Rage runs perfectly on Linux through Wine because the engine is OpenGL. Too bad you cannot actually download it on the Linux steam client because its not platform native and supported in client. And because the game has the Steam DRM, you could not run it on Linux anyway without running it through Steam in Wine.

So Rage has a festering tumor of the Windows Steam attached to it for no reason but to force down my throat how I don't actually own this game.

Same applies to every game on Steam that runs fine in Wine but that you cannot download, and often cannot run, without running Steam through Wine as well.
Found a relevant HBR article written by Matt Mullenweg Founder of Automattic (Wordpress); Hire By Auditions, not Resumes

https://hbr.org/2014/01/hire-by-auditions-not-resumes/
Hobby 3D printers are basically only good enough to print their own replacement parts before they break again.
Memory safety is a huge problem: every large C++ has vulnerabilities caused by memory safety problems. E.g. web-browsers get pwned because of memory unsafety. Apparently, all (or close to all) critical security bugs in Firefox were problems that Rust compilers will catch. I believe pcwalton went through Mozilla's bugzilla to check this.

In any case, bounds checking is a tiny side street in how Rust ensures memory safety: ownership and lifetimes are the important novel things (lifetimes especially are novel, only research languages have had anything similar until this point, and I don't know if any have had exactly the same system).

In Rust the story is totally settled: in order from most to least preferred/recommended: use references, no pointers, owning pointers and then start thinking about reference counting/other shared ownership.

Rust doesn't solve race conditions: it solves data races, which are also problematic (they cause memory unsafety). It is impossible/very hard to avoid arbitrary race conditions, but data races are the only ones that can cause memory unsafety directly.
Running your code, I get:

qsort: 6112 ms
std::sort: 4925 ms

Compiled on x86_64 with gcc 4.7.2 at -O3. I'm sure there are many possible reasons for the difference in performance.
>The fact that large groups of people are grossly under-represented in SV categorically proves that it's not a meritocracy

No it does not. I can only select from the candidates who apply. I am the only woman here. I do the hiring. I have had ZERO applications from women. How exactly do you want me to meet your woman quota?
I'm using Freedompop, which is a Sprint MVNO, besides the upfront costs being pretty on par with aftermarket devices sales (I have their Galaxy S4, cost $350) their monthly rates go from free, which I'm currently on, to $20 a month for unlimited talk / text / 3g data, which my mother uses. In any case that beats major carriers in a matter of months.

The same could be said of a lot of the Sprint MVNOs - Ting and Republic Wireless are also hyper aggressive price wise and always come out ahead of the major carriers in a matter of months (except T-Mobile, especially if you need a lot of data).
qsort wins by 2x with clang++ on OS X, 10x with g++-4.9 on OS X, and by about 14% with gcc 4.8 on Linux.

This may be a pathological case for either implementation, since the array is already sorted. Still the point about std::sort requiring up to twice as many comparisons is valid.
Neat! That said, std::sort is a template function, so you can pull the source (e.g., take the one from libc++) and change the comparator to return an int. You will still get all the benefits of inlining and optimizations from lack of type erasure, while performing only one comparison :)

Edit: Actually quicksort only needs a stable boolean comparator (e.g., < or >) to determine order. So the number of invocations to the comparator is the same for both qsort and std::sort. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksort
You'd need to have enough local oil to pick up the slack. For what I know, US has been a net importer for decades...

Or maybe there are enough reserves, but they are in the long game and want to buy the foreign oil first... while the taking is good.
Thanks you.. What more you expected in this?
In the US there is a TV show called the Shark Tank and this product was featured on an episode.

http://www.citikitty.com/How-CitiKitty-Works-s/12.htm
Using an OpenPGP Smartcard with GnuPG
This is one thing I wish C++ advocates would stop bringing up. While it's technically true that the page count of the C++ spec is comparable to that of C# and Java, not all pages are created equal. The C++ spec is incredibly dense, it's written in a very terse style and often packs as much information into a single sentence as other specs spend an entire paragraph on. Also, the Java spec in particular is typeset with much larger margins, a larger font, and generally more vertical white space than the C++ spec making it seem relatively bigger than it really is.
Add some description on the front page, however the articles are really nice.
Where did you get the two machine instructions number?

A swap could easily be a exchange of e.g. 16 (the size of a slices &[T]/&str on a 64-bit computer) or 24 bytes (Vec<...>/String) (or larger), and there's no way to use single SIMD instructions for these in general.

Also, "per operation" is vague, since the swaps would have to happen repeatedly in a loop, so a single .insert call is likely to result in multiple swaps.
No, I'm not assuming anything and didn't even say anything like that.

My point is that using SSL on its own as the only line of defense should not be an excuse not to have anything else.

It's like saying my apartment doesn't have a spec for a security system nor a safe because the lock on the door does enough of a job to secure it.

Also, a widely studied protocol spec means nothing. The bugs are from the humans coding the implementations, it doesn't matter what level it is, they will have some bugs. Nobody can code a perfect secure implementation but we can have some kind of redundancies in the system, where if one security level fails, the rest can still have some reasonable security left.

Relying on SSL alone is not enough. But I don't think JMAP is the right place to do this, we may need something else in addition to JMAP.

At least JMAP is extendable, so that's one good thing it has.
Uber Advises Drivers to Buy Insurance That Leaves Them Uncovered
Rate-limiting is important, and almost universally practiced, but it doesn't have anything to do with the problem with short passwords. When the password database inevitably gets hacked and uploaded to Pastebin, it's too late for rate limiting.
You realize there is a close correspondence between the DOM and the layout in most cases, right?

Google read the CSS as well, and uses the visual features as signal what humans will see as important on the screen.

That's impossible with APIs.

There are specialised cases where Google does use APIs: public transport and airline times. They are very special cases though, and for broad web search it seems unlikely Google will follow that model.
I understand your point, but I strongly disagree. First, you're saying that the author of this piece -- a military general and historian -- used hard-to-read passive voice throughout because of his extreme demonstrated mastery of the art of writing. He truly considered and wrestled with each sentence.

I don't believe that one bit.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that artisans should avoid learning the fundamentals of their craft, or that doing so somehow robs the work of its "voice".

It reminds me of a fourteen-year-old guitarist who doesn't see the need to learn scales or music theory. "I'm not going to be some cookie-cutter musician, man. My music is going to be original and unique!"

This article would be much better if it had gone through an editing phase or two.
Inculcating risk could be risky... I'd rather sensitize boys/men to risk than make girls/women risk tolerant.

Risk tolerance leads boys and some girls to take stupid risks from adolescence to? Well, for boys, over-representation in correctional institutions.

If one could just get all to avoid stupid risks but take other more acceptable risks, I suppose but can they be decoupled?

This is not to say that oppotunities should not be there for all to consider and take, if they so desire... just making risk in general more acceptable can have unintended consequences --unless there is a way to direct the risk energy into productive avenues (i.e more job risk tolerance but less risk of engaging in dangerous activities..
I thought that it'd be lowercase "j" that signifies Java, not a capital "J"...
This precisely describes the feeling I got when watching the video. He consistently provides explanations/examples that make complete sense in hindsight but are pretty hard to come up with in the first place. I feel like this video kinda deserves a "spoiler alert" of sorts because he just exposes many of the things and it ends up looking so obvious afterwards. Not obvious in a "yeah the brain certainly works like that" way, because we don't know that yet, but obvious in a "I really wouldn't be surprised if it worked like that" way.
So I’m fine with AI, because I don’t believe in it
very reasonable point. On the surface. But MV=PQ
Worse yet, a shell script would work whereas go generate does not.

Go generate is probably the most half-assed thing the go team has done yet.

Now, I know the above line is harsh, but I don't say that without proof. Run the following and bear witness to its terrible implementation.

curl http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=fhu14iwk > main.go
cat main.go
go run main.go
go generate -v main.go
go generate -help
go generate -x -v -run ".*(echo|one).*"

Yeah...

If you don't feel like looking at the above, the implementation of go generate is a hack of substring matching, not language parsing, and it also doesn't implement, in its production release, the "-run" flag documented in "-help".