skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thanks for clearing that up for me, I was reading it as "spellcheck" the whole time!
Pile of Spy Data about Mumbai Islamic Terror Attacks
Functional Programming in Scala (Book)
It's not ridiculous to say at all. But I think that even slow computerization is orders of magnitude better than without. And by slow, I mean like kiloflops. In all seriousness, people used to use punchcard machines and were damn glad for it, as the computers before that were even slower and more expensive. And a few generations of machines before that computers were people who computed.

We'd definitely still be using mechanical computers. But I could easily see lots of eye candy being stripped out to conserve cycles (after all, having a 3D desktop on a Pi isn't all that useful :)
Sheryl Sandberg earned $16M in cash and stock in 2013. More in prior years, but less than $38M.
I believe these were 2013 numbers? (not sure might be 2014) Sheryl Sandberg made about 16M in salary and stock in 2013 however.

http://qz.com/194054/mark-zuckerberg-and-sheryl-sandberg-too...

Note according to this list:

http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2013-08-19/the-15-highest...

Safra Catz from Oracle was the highest paid in 2013 so maybe this is a 2014 list.
The transistors used today are very different from the transistors used back then, not just in size but also in structure and materials. The silicon die is pretty much the only part of the system that has stayed the same -- everything else has been changed, one part at a time.
Also, the rate counts marriages not people, so serial offenders like this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glynn_Wolfe skew the average and require 28 marriages that don't end up in divorce just to even out.
The better to obsolete you with, my dear.

The challenge of every "knowledge management" system ever invented, including Google Answers, which paid (!) for answers.
Yeah. I think we've hit the point where we need to start discouraging the proliferation of C and C++ (in my opinion). It seems silly that we cling to languages from the 80's and earlier when modern languages have advanced so far.
is there anything in the world that is non-nonsense? so it is better to study pure-nonsense, just because it is pure
Url changed from http://singularityhub.com/2014/12/20/one-small-experiment-in..., which points to this.
Fred Wilson posted better adoption metrics which are a more accurate (and more impressive) record of how Bitcoin is doing: http://avc.com/2014/10/bitcoin-adoption-metrics/ It is smarter to look at these than at merely the number of transactions.
Not sure how the magnetized needle analogy applies here. The point of the hypothetical is to avoid developing your own extra layers of code for future reuse. Avoiding those that others have developed for you already would not make sense.

As to the rest of your point, yes. Anything in service of pure development speed would be desirable. If you could abstract and reuse something faster than you could implement it in some other way (eg copy/paste), then it would make sense to do so.
You realize that the most vociferous of those decrying this language choice come from the proponents of a language that has 3 different types of pointers, right?

You should check out Rust and Go. Their users are most definitely among those who fail to understand C pointers.
so simple. thanks
In the first paragraph you characterize C++ as "MIT School", and in the last paragraph you characterize it as "New Jersey School".
Double-Typed Relations for Partial Data Representation
I've heard of NQP but haven't dug into it. I suppose you could, but I'd estimate the effort as higher than for say Rubinius which has been tracking a Smalltalk model since its inception.

Really, an image is just a heap snapshot with roundtrip serialization possibilities. You want to be able to serialize all the operational data structures, so the model of data has to sort of respect a certain abstraction layer. One consideration is whether the image has to be portable; word-size of 32 or 64 bits, or under endianness. This has strong implications about what kind of code you can keep in the image.

You also would want hooks for startup and shutdown if you expect to be able to snapshot a heap and then restart it under a debugger, say, and get the runtime circumstances that are relevant, like open sockets and files, dynamic-linked libraries, and so on.
I continue to underestimate the power of reddit
16 Productivity Tools Useful for Every Entrepreneur
any valuable starting tutorial for c/c++ programmers ?
I quite like forums for recommendations. There are specific threads made for genres. One massive resource is http://www.head-fi.org/f/9/music.
I don't see Python vs. Ruby specifically as worse-is-better versus better-is-better though. If anything, Ruby is a worse-is-better Smalltalk, while Python gained a lot of its initial community from its perception as a better-is-better Perl (based on popular articles by ESR, etc. at the time). Dynamic features like automatic pluralization of tables in Rails isn't "better is better"—it's just highly dynamic (or "magic"), and many people think of magic as a worse-is-better thing to do (for example, many functional programmers would consider any sort of reflection to be a worse-is-better feature, since it breaks parametricity and so forth).

I also don't think it's right to think of Rust as a better-is-better language in philosophy. Many folks coming from languages like Haskell find Rust full of design choices that seem at odds with its "functional programming" reputation: lack of higher-kinded type parameters, for example, lack of an IO monad (or the use of the term "monad" at all), a willingness to have subtyping in the language, heavy use of macros, etc. etc. The reason is that we actually have a heavy bias toward pragmatism and simplicity wherever possible.

It's our constraints that required the language to have the concepts that it does (performance-competitive with C++; no global garbage collection; data-race free; runtimeless/embeddable). We simply couldn't have copied another language and said "here's our language, now let's write a browser engine in it". It would not have the performance characteristics or the safety characteristics we need. It's not a difference in philosophy so much as in requirements.
I don't have that documentation.

I started this conversation, a couple messages back, in response to this quote from sytelus:

>4. Make friends/Surround yourself with smart people.: Not extremely practical unless you are a famous VC but even then not trivial.

Which I read as someone claiming that it is difficult to become friends with high-G individuals, unless you are a high-status individual.

My argument was that G, in and of itself, does not confer status, and thus high-G individuals who aren't high-status aren't going to have any more people competing to be their friends than people of similar status who are more average.

If you want smart friends, go find them. There isn't much competition. That was my point.

I don't think you took issue with any of that. I think the problem was that I said:

>unless by smart, you mean "Smart, tall and well-spoken" or "Smart, tall, and able to hold the right kind of conflicting ideas in your head without emotional distress" - which is often what VC seem to mean by smart.

And you taking offense to this, really, is pretty reasonable. I'd take it as an insult if someone claimed people like me hired on irrelevant personal biases, too.

One way to make this seem less insulting is to say that I lump in the "tall and well spoken and able to hold the right kind of conflicting ideas in your head" with "social and business skills" - because in the work world, this has been my experience.

It's possible that things are different in the VC world.
Note to startups: you really don't want to pick a battle with newspaper reporters.
Porn is one of many causes, but not a clinching cause. It is all economy.

1. In 1970's highschool graduated were able to raise families on a single salary, could afford a home, a couple of cars.

2. The above situation does not exist anymore. Have you seen graduates from places like UC Irvine, working at Enterprise car rental?

3. Yes, there are jobs for students graduated from top schools like HYP, Stanford, MIT. For others, it is either a tech job or a job like that.

4. Wherever there are jobs, there the cost of living, raising a family is a darn expensive. Imagine Silicon valley for instance: if you are just a software engineer, you can't afford raising a family here, unless you and your spouse slave away at work and in commutes. Then add day care costs, mortgages, etc. It is a stressful situation.

5. For many in the middle income bracket, the future is bleak: you can't guarantee that your kids gonna have same economic opportunity as you have.
I found it interesting that they aren't allowed to change the user experience at all. What a constraint! I understand Stephen doesn't want to lose something that works great for him, but surely he could take a new design for a trial run for a few days? One word per minute must be excruciating to him.
New Subtext screencast: Two-Way Dataflow
Yes, but if you're building an app for the future, then what excuse is there for not using Rust, which is both very low latency and very close to a 1.0 release?

I get that sometimes you just want to hack in a language that's familiar to you, but then call your project a fun side project and not the "NTPD replacement" (and yes, I know who phk is).
why on earth didn't they title this article "The Trouble With Tribler"????
If it helps, I find that analysis helps stave off depression. Having a focus for something to intellectually chew on helps me a lot. So while I've been accused of over-analysis, sometimes it's simply me printing what I had been mulling over while idling; if I ever stopped doing that, I'd drown in my own mind.
"Nineteen Eighty-Four was written in 1949"

Strictly, it was written in '47 and '48, sent to the publisher in '48, and published in '49. This is only really interesting because of the choice of the title year, and certainly doesn't undermine your point.
Definitely one of the things that frustrates me about Rust, is that I feel like I can't write "pretty" code. Multiple times it was even the reason I gave up learning Rust. Clarification: I think my definition of pretty has come from a certain feel/comfort you have when reading Ruby code (which I have written/read for only a couple months).

Meanwhile, to continue learning Rust, I've done myself a favor. I just told myself: "Rust is worth writing but it isn't for pretty code. Sorry!".

The other, related, mental block I haven't been able to overcome yet: In Java/Python/Ruby/(even C++), the runtime "seems so heavy" I don't care when I "waste" allocations or memory. However, the fact that it says on Rust's home page "featuring zero cost abstractions" makes me feel guilty/incompetent every time I introduce a cost-full abstraction. Again a reason I stopped learning Rust a few times.

Sadly this feeling of inadequacy/guilt extends even to applications. Which is ridiculous since if your application isn't doing expensive things, you probably have a very simple application. This definitely plays a part in why I can't write code as elegant as Rust will allow it.

For the record, sorry, I don't usually like critiquing something I don't have a solution for. However, I thought this was worth bringing up. Mostly I needed to vent, but does anyone else feel similarly? Am I really the only one?

If other people are feeling the same way, I hope it doesn't become a habit for us to feel the only way to write good Rust is to allow it to be inelegant. It would be disheartening if the next systems programming language was memory safe but still noone enjoyed reading it. I'm curious what peoples thoughts are?

Mostly joking, but maybe just a line on the website or guide saying: "We take care of the performance so you can write expensive applications"?
Ontological Designing (2006)
so, the very thing that are fakeable and changeable via these hacks.

try agian
Abiti da sera estivi economici,Abiti da sera estivi online
> Not long ago one high school educated American working a factory shift could support a wife and four kids.

Wasn't much of that advantage predicated on what's now regarded as gender/race discrimination?
Every damn time. Could we please stop equating dangerous behavior with cycling being dangerous?

If both cyclists and other traffic behave normally wearing a helmet whilst cycling is as idiotic as wearing a bullet proof vest while walking.

Not everyone lives in the US where the cycling culture is a mix between cyclists racing through traffic where the drivers can legally get away with murder.
What HKT would let you do is to write a generic "try" function that works for all "error-like things", instead of having to have a separate try! macro for every error type. Except that that isn't the case any longer, because we now have the FromError [1] trait, which means that in practice try! works for custom error types as well.

Instead, what HKTs would actually be useful for is something else entirely: generic algorithms that need to (for example) work with different kinds of collections' iterators and can be specialized for them at runtime, without paying the price of allocating the iterators on the heap. For example, consider a graph algorithm that's parameterized over the type of graph. (Note that I've never actually needed to write one of these algorithms in a generic way myself, but I can see it being useful in some circumstances.)

What HKT is not there for is Haskell-like monadic "do" notation. That simply isn't idiomatic Rust, and I don't foresee it becoming so in the future. The try! macro is the way you do this kind of thing, and it's already shipping today without HKT as a type system feature.

[1]: http://doc.rust-lang.org/std/error/
Hum. I hear you. I've tracked demos come and go with their hype and lack of delivery.

Are they fads, though, inherently, or because of a lack of cultural and financial support? I like to learn from all of them but have no idea how to make a new effort that is worth more than just a splash of publicity.

My current bet is on just getting smart software in the hands of a wide audience that don't listen to programming culture.

What else can one do? Who are we rewarding by the way things work now?
So a helmet allows you to survive cycling incredibly unsafely?

Was the student going down a hill? I'd have to be facing some major deadline to be going 25mph on a bike on a straightaway.
Not sure why you got downvoted - when I was a junior developer, I got tasked with investigating building a simple app with Backbone, Ember, and Angular in order to determine what to use going forward for the non-profit I was working at (I didn't make the call what framework to use, I was just the test monkey for how to implement a simple app in all three frameworks). Angular turned out to the easiest by far to get work done with exposure to some advanced concepts - Backbone's documentation was very confusing since everything was in a flat list with high level details buried in there & not enough explanation, and Ember's templating system was very rigid and highly dependent on build processes for someone who had no experience working with tools such as grunt or gulp at the time.

React is probably the best candidate to achieve that simplicity along with Angular, although I would give Angular the edge, simply because it does not rely on tooling to build a small app and still benefits just as well from it when it is present. The documentation, even two years ago, was better than Backbone's at the time (and as far as I can tell from a recent study of Backbone, still is) - Ember's might have been a little better, but it also threw more stuff at you upfront.

The expert can probably work with all of these frameworks just fine - in the end, finding what framework (or no framework) jives with you is the best for your long term development. Become an expert with one, then experiment with others to draw good ideas from them and incorporate it into your code style, that is what separates the good developers from the rest.
I'd revised the post several times before posting it; initially I wanted to label the categories as "OAOOW" (One and Only One Obvious Way) vs. "TMTOWTDI" (There's More than One Way To Do It), then I figured that using the labels from "Worse is Better" more accurately captured the intent of the grandparent post, then I went back and re-read "Worse is Better" again to make sure I had a fair characterization of Dick Gabriel's argument. In the process C++ switched categories, but I forgot to update the first mention.

...now that I'm rereading it again, I wonder if my original phrasing was better. The idea that I want to capture is that there's a difference in how these languages approach corner cases: the C/Python approach is to punt and say "We're not designed for that", while the C++/D/Ruby approach is to add a feature to the language to solve that one case. C++ is basically what happens when you extend a New Jersey school language to cover the corner cases that it originally chose to ignore; that doesn't actually make it MIT school (which is more a philosophy on how to design systems, not how they end up), but it does put it in a different category from C and Python.
So many vanity metrics though.

Coinbase and blockchain publish wallet numbers which is used here and is another useless.

When they start publishing MAU I'll be impressed until then I'll just see wallets as a vanity number that is always going up.

Number of uniquely used addresses is being inflated by actions like the one I post about above.

Merchants and Merchants annual revenue are again vanity metrics. Merchants like wallets above does not accurately reflect current demand(go look up every story of people trying to travel using coinmap and finding almost all the merchants listed no longer accept bitcoin). Merchants annual revenue inflates the importance of companies like Overstock and Dish.

If VC investment was a good metric to follow we'd all be using Flooz and Beenz.

Hashrate has more to do with the improvements in ASIC miners than growth in usage/adoption.

And number of bitcoin repos is silly since everyone in the bitcoin space wants to be a bitcoin developer so the number of vanity repos is astounding.
N. Korea threatens strikes on US amid hacking claims
82% is really a astonishing number, i think now a days people don't want to fill up long sign up forms ( who has time for it ) that's why they prefer social sign up ....
Mensen Ernst
When Threatened by Worms, Bacteria Summon Killer Fungi
As somebody who hired developers at that time, it was far different from today. You could put a job listing up on Craigslist and have an inbox full of 100+ developers, many of whom had great resumes at name brand companies, who were willing to work for a few grand a month. Today it takes $100k+/year to get good people and even that isn't enough. You have to give them a reason beyond money to pick you over all of the other offers they are getting. They didn't care back then, as long as you could pay them.
I just wanted to thank you for ag. It's literally the most used command in my shell history and I consider it crucial to my work. So, thanks!
I'm always a bit skeptical of the libraries that generate IL. One of the biggest reasons I consider scripting is to support hot swapping, but the CLR doesn't do a good job with that.

I have used CS-Script before and it's decent. The assemblies it generates are eligible for garbage collection (if you use CSScript.Evaluator) but it also has annoying limitations. Everything must be defined before it's used and must be in one file.
I think the point may be that once you embrace those constraints, there's nowhere to go but a language with a fair bit of complexity. While Go chose simply to not embrace those constraints, and tell developers "You don't actually need C++ performance, and you really want a GC, and you should ditch Python entirely instead of trying to embed Go in it." Perhaps this is why Go found that their userbase didn't actually consist of the expected C++ developers and instead ended up being mostly ex-Pythonistas who are willing to ditch Python entirely for better performance.

FWIW, I'm glad that Rust didn't choose that path, as I've tried Go out and found that it really didn't work for me as a Python substitute, and am now dreading the day when I (hopefully) will have to rewrite parts of my startup in C++ for performance. I'm actually seriously considering Rust as a substitute here, but would like to see more stability in the core language before investing serious time learning it.

But I'm also someone who has never shied away from complexity in a language before, which probably puts me more in the "likes C++, Ruby, and D" camp even though I chose Python as my main scripting language. One of my main concerns with Rust is whether it will be possible to hire & manage developers who can work effectively in it, since I know that not everyone is as willing to learn new languages and language features as I am.
The ice business was very big in Michigan. In fact the only museum in the world about the ice trade is located here in Port Huron:

http://www.knowltonsicemuseum.org/main.html?src=%2F

Port Huron is North of Detroit on the Canadian border across from Sarnia. I've been there and its definitely a worthwhile place to see if you're in the area.
Do you know about Cathode?

http://www.secretgeometry.com/apps/cathode/
I worked for two companies in 2000-2002 that went belly up. I was lucky to not be unemployed too long during that time, but it just reinforced that I was lucky to even have a job. I didn't even think about negotiating an offer until recently. That mind set put me back so much that when I became a manager a few years ago, I saw that the company I was working for (one of the big tech companies) was paying fresh college graduates more than I was getting.

I also remember a few times where I was interviewing tech writers, and they would beg me for the job - they had been out of work for 2-3 years.

I don't think it will get that bad if the current cycle bursts. There's a lot more tech companies out there that are making money, and even if/when the VC money dries up there will be some jobs.
Suppose an opportunity comes up, but the technical debt in your software makes it exceedingly hard to respond to it. Either you still respond to it (with an obvious high cost), or you let the opportunity pass (and you "pay" the opportunity cost). So in a sense you can be forced to pay back your technical debt, if you include the "cost" of missed opportunities. But you are right that you always have the choice between those two, unlike real debt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
I think road might not be long instead its a U-turn u need to take
Show HN: My Personal Hacker News Reader
The whole thing really does sound like he didn't have any legitimate reasons to be doing that and is just deflecting criticism.
Why Bitcoin’s Erratic Price Doesn’t Matter
The year in media errors and corrections 2014
I certainly did not read that unclebucknasty was bothered by your phrasing, but rather was sharing a story and encouraging you to branch out into some "not cool" tech that could support you in possible bubble-burst future.

New suggestion, though. You should spend your time in school learning how to remove your prejudice. It's pretty bad, and will hold you back more than not learning a particular language will.

P.S. Just to be clear, I was bothered by your ageism.
Thanks. I updated the summary on my profile and included my email and some of the details suggested in other comments as well (didn't realize it was hidden).
Are you denying all these metrics as a whole, and implying that Bitcoin's usage is either stagnating or declining?? You can't be serious, can you?