skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>> We've since found exceptions, Maybes, and friends which are very powerful.

I think, and someone correct me if this is wrong, that implementing exceptions in Go is prohibited by go routines.

The stereotypical way to implement exceptions is using setjmp/longjmp which unwind the stack back to a known location. Since go routines are implemented as continuations, any particular executing go routine may or may not have it's stack in context, and I'm not sure what it means to unwind stacks across multiple continuations, ie is it even possible?

So that's one possible example.
> did I not condemn the attack, and clearly said that at max they should have been ignored, it was after all only satire.

Yes, and if you had left it at that your stance would be commendable. But you chose to significantly dilute your position in what followed.
I read it as if he was speculating and drew conclusions based on that. I also fail to see how they masked the purpose. Again, what was he expecting exactly?
How is it unintelligent to point out that downloading a few apps from a (formerly) reputable source of free apps results in your computer being basically unusable? What the article showed shouldn't happen, and it did despite download.com's assurances that it wouldn't.
What society has to do with this? Two terrorists are not society. If anything 'leaving all violence' behind is responsible. It could look very differently if those victims could defend themselves.
AMAZING: Sarah a NonCoder Creates Blind App, Picks $83k
Religion is legacy software (FTFY) -- as we all know legacy software is a pain in the ass to deal with and definitely not as easy to replace as your comment suggests.
In 2012, YC invested in a company InstallMonetizer[0] which, from my understanding, helps align software products with bundling other installers for additional revenue.

[0] http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/installmonetizer
I could take a photo some someone's male child, photoshop it so he is kissinganother male. That would be enough for some people to murder me.

You can argue that only a tiny number of people would murder me, but then it's only a tiny minority of Muslims who consider murder when they hear of Muhummed cartoons.
They had deification of leaders and ancestor worship.

The Japanese did some horrific things in the name of their Emperor, so I don't buy your assertion.

You could argue that the Far East are simply religiously backwards, using polytheism instead of monotheism, so your argument actually makes no sense, they simply haven't caught the monotheistic religious bug (yet).
> I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you. This is the kind of response that these extremists want.

I can't see that response anymore because HN doesn't believe in freedom of speech, but I do find the question of the killers' motives very interesting. The general reaction seems to be to straightforwardly accept the idea that it was a violent, dumb reprisal over cartoons they saw as blasphemous. I can't help but feel that actually, they may have been strategically brilliant. They chose a relatively poorly defended target, and they've successfully engineered a massive international incident which exploits the fault lines between Muslims and non-Muslims, between the left and the right, and among the left. The anti-Muslim backlash is going to be a recruitment goldmine for ISIS et al.

In some ways I guess whether this was by accident or design isn't particularly important, but I still find the question fascinating.
We're allowed to talk about this now? I thought all the stories on it were getting flagged off the front page?
> To offend him is to offend me.

You can't really offend that which does not currently exist. I can't offend Genghis Khan any more than I can offend the prophet or Jesus.

> The same way, someone would offend you by offending your family.

No, that's not the same way.
My downvote is for the wrong premise (the parent never said that Islam preaches violence) and nonsensical argument (no one relates Hitler´s acts with christianity beacuse his motives were mainly ideological and political, while the only motive of Islamic terrorists give is religious).

I´m sorry if you see anything more in it.
Unicorns exist. I have seen one. Of course, I can't prove it to you, but then, you can't prove to me that you exist.
Chemicals like BPA and GMOs aren't equivalent in any sense.
Violent acts against those who disagree with you is not a Christian principal and goes directly against the teaching of our faith. Period. Anyone who supports or performs acts of violence as you are referencing are sinning and blaspheming when using a reference to God for their actions. No excuses, those are evil acts.
Exactly this. The folks in places such as the White House are very quick to condemn some silly anti-Islam YouTube video, yet when the Palestinians make suicide bomber anti-Jew Seasame Street clones, the White House says nothing about the potential for such productions to be "irresponsible." It's like Muslims are little retarded kids and we aren't allowed to make fun of because the power to control themselves is not expected. Of course, when Piss Christ was exhibited in New York, there were some minor protests (mainly over tax payer funding of the exhibit) but I don't recall southern baptist ministers preaching that the artist and all of the museum employees should be shot up with rifles.

It's a fact that their are crazies in all religions, and plenty of atheist nut jobs as well, but the propensity to massacre a bunch of people because they're "offended" seems to be much higher among Islam. Which is a bit ironic, since my Muslim friends and families are among the warmest and most welcoming people I know.

However, conditions of extreme unemployment, poverty and patriarch-dominance in countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc, combined with a lack of democratic tradition makes these places powerful inncubators for terror.

Islam isn't the cause of terrorism, it's merely a vector.
Note that Windows is a similar mess. From the very beginning, you had plenty of different GUI libraries - MFC, WTL, WinForms, Delphi, Xwt, wxWindows etc. (let's not even mention Java, the perpetual red-headed step child)
Every office version introduce some new "default style" that everybody had to emulate (flat toolbars, ribbons...), resulting in a plethore of subtly different applications. Does your menu have icons? Where is the preferences dialog?

And the only salvation for the driver mess is that apart from Nvidia, Intel and ATI, every other manufacturer has left the picture. No more Tseng, S3, Matrox etc.

But Windows is immmensely popular. So you have to go through those problems. Linux isn't that hard, but it still might not be worth the effort. OS X does pretty well in that regard, not that popular, either, but very homogenous. At least since the days of RealBasic apps is finally over ;)
Paris attacks: ’I am not Charlie’
> Only on torrents, Comedy Central has tried to erase it from history.

That's bizarre. A quick Google search led me to the full episode here: http://pollystreaming.com/South-Park-Season-5-Episode-3-Supe...

I'm not sure if this is due to the Streissand Effect.
Religion might be better analogised to firmware - installed early in the lifecycle by the manufacturers, difficult to replace; most end users would not do so or even consider doing so.

If we look at someone who is born into a religion, lives their life holding those religious beliefs, and dies as a member of that same religion - is it valid to assume that they could have separated themselves from their beliefs? Just because a subset of the population undergo religious conversion or deconversion later in life (for whatever reason), does not imply that everyone has that capacity. It may well be that for those people, their religion is effectively immutable.

(Also, racial characteristics are at least partially alterable, using plastic surgery to modify physical ethnic traits, e.g. see http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/07/ethnic-plastic-surgery.html)
(1) Hitler was not a Christian*

(2) Religion does not preach, people preach. It doesn't really matter what is in the text of these old books - the only relevant question is what people do. I couldn't care less if their theological thoughts are sound or not.

* Well, its way more complicated, but he did not claim to act as he did because of his Christian faith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
I tend to agree with you. There are very few "extreme extremists" and muslims aren't terrorist.

But I don't know if we should conclude that everything is fine, and it's just a matter of a few unavoidable lunatics.

For instance, it is known that there are currently hundreds (thousands) of French people murdering people in Syria in the name of Daesh. Still a small number wrt the number of French muslims... But there are also a lot of people that support the killings at CH (including French kids or teenagers at school that didn't want to observe the minute of silence, probably reflecting their parents idea). Moreover, antisemitic agressions are also common place. And so on...

Concerning CH, let's not forget that they were bombed soon after their controversial drawing a few years ago. Without the police surveillance, I don't know how long it would have taken before other attacks.

Besides, CH has always been equally virulent against all religions. Probably less against Islam actually.
Wooooooww, this is the most amazing photos i've seen for a long time.
It's true - and work resumed shortly after that. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/11/8556...
> So, you call them ignorant (incredibly ignorant, at that) because they're not using a language with exceptions or pattern matching, and they're wasting they're time on "C-style" error handling and... what? They're ignorant until they use something else?

Honestly, yes, though I would try to phrase it more constructively. If you've only seen C-style languages, it's easy to be ignorant of the world out there; it's easy to try two or three languages and think you know what's going on, when in fact the languages you know all come from a very similar lineage. Like learning English, German and Dutch, and then assuming you know the general principles of human grammar.

If you've tried a language pattern matching and higher kinded types, and found them to be not useful, then fair enough. But you owe it to yourself to try, and even if you end up not using the feature, understanding it will make you a better programmer.

> Do you have anything that substantiates that?

Over many years of research into what causes bugs, there's only one thing we've ever been able to correlate reliably with number of bugs: number of lines of code. Even across different languages, the correlation holds: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/185660/is-the... . So the only evidence-based way to reduce software errors is to reduce lines of code - something you can do by switching to a more expressive language.
@throwaway90446: Well I'll be more happy to accept this, if anyone here had quoted any verse from Quran (taken with context). But sadly people believe what they have heard, without doing much research.
I care about people's feelings. I agree that there's probably a qualitative difference between offending someone and causing them to have a seizure. But I'd still prefer not to offend them, all else being equal, and this would be true even if there was no such thing as epilepsy.

There's no hard line. We use our best judgement, based on what we know of our audience.

However, I will note one counterargument that I find compelling, which is utility monsters. If we reward people for getting upset, that gives them an incentive to get more upset. I don't know the best way to deal with this, but I suspect that "no trigger warnings" is not optimal.
Especially since Charlie Hebdo's goal has never been to offend "just for the purpose of offending".

Their comics are for their readers. For most of their history (before the internet) only the few people who bought it read it and their drawings didn't make the news even if most of them would've been very offensive to some. They try to convey something insightful in an humoristic way, usually in a pretty unflattering way for the depicted. That's what satire means.

If they end up making pictures about islam these days, it's because islam hits the news much more than it did in Hara Kiri's days. Their drawings and articles always followed the news.

And when YOU hit the news because some people can't take a joke, you keep following the news and respond in your next issue: "please stop being so stupid" in an humoristic and unflattering way for the depicted.

If you can't depict the world around you in a funny way, usually unflattering to the depicted because the depicted might be offended, then you can't do satire. At least have the guts to say it in plain words: "I'm all for free speech except when stuff I hold dear are being caricatured". Which means you don't want free speech because anyone can then claim they're offended by anything.
The Amontage Engine would probably qualify as a volume renderer in original terminology.
How do you backup your production servers?
We're a small web development agency who have around 30 dedicated servers with various numbers of websites on each.

All of our source code is in Git, which means that each developer, the servers onto which the code is deployed, and the Git remote all have the full history of the code

Our databases are backed up really poorly - a hacky script I wrote a couple of years ago that dumps them to a file, and then they get committed into Git and pushed to the remote. However it's very difficult to extract them and can take up to a day depending on the size of the database.

Files that a user uploads to a server are not backed up
Server configuration files (nginx, apache etc) are not backed up
SSL keys/certificates/other are not backed up

I want to back up to the following schedule:
Nightly for the last 7 days, then before that, weekly up to 6 months

The total amount of disk space we take up on all servers is around 2TB

All of the backups need to be backed up to the same place - ideally without a single point of failure - I was thinking something like S3-like storage?
For epilepsy we have well-justified reason for warnings. For all the other things you mentioned, trigger warnings are wrong approach. What people tasked to cure PTSD will tell you, is that you want constant exposure to the stimuli until your brain starts to ignore it, and not constant evasion.

Trigger warnings are also harmful because they legitimize the idea that you can be offended about pretty much anything you like and therefore such content should not be published. It enables people to behave like children, instead of grownups. Mature people don't get offended because someone says something they don't agree with.

EDIT: What I mean is the danger of those utility monsters you just referred to downthread.
As a an atheist, who spent nearly all of his life in a country with 99% Muslim population, I do not understand how people who live in such society and got an education defend the religion.

>> First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam.

First of all, this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Islam, after Christianity, has the bloodiest history we know. The only reason it is the second biggest religion is because it expanded by violent conquers. Even in the off chance that the host is being decent, they imposed so much regulations on non-Muslims that they would end up converting. So this is exactly what Islam is.

>> On the other hand, Religion is a personal affair.

No one who has laid their eyes on Qur'an can say that. It is very explicit about how you need to treat non-Muslims. I don't know where the entire notion of "personal affair" came from.

>> But the level of Satire in question here, was perhaps too much.

Who says so? Who is the divine power that decides on what satire is too much in the absolute scare?

>> Besides the additional fact, that impersonation/impersonification of Prophet Muhammad is highly condemned in Islam.

It is free in the Western world for women not to wear head scarves, drive and have sex with whoever they want, by extension of this logic would it be okay for woman to go to Saudi Arabia and do any of these things?

>> Let us understand each others liberties as well as sensitivities, so that by standing firm together, we will all make a better society, both in France and the World.

No, you don't get it. Objectively France is the better society here. I am half-french and I can criticise France on various issues for many hours but it is insulting to do a comparison between France and a "serious" Muslim country.
That would only be true if the food wasted would otherwise be going to the world's hungry. This is not the case.

Most of the world's poor do not import food, they grow it in their immediate vicinity. Increased yields help them directly.

If you have a solution to the food distribution problem, by all means let's work on that at the same time. But there's no reason not to work on crop efficiency.
It's a worthwhile effort.
If you just go with the first thing that goes through your head, you're probably repeating someone else's meme.

It's a shitty thing to equate islamic terrorists (Al-Qaeda, in this case) with Islam. Al Qaeda kills eight times more muslism than non-muslims: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/surprising-study-o...

And Daeh is killing muslims and blowing up mosques: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-grue...

The idea that this is a clash of civilisations, rather than terrorists seeking to control co-religionists, is designed to drive both sides to their respective extremists.
My 3 cents:

Maybe a possible alternative would be to focus on one particular linux distribution, like ubuntu or debian, with certain dirty intall scripts ?

Or go all the way and just deliver a bootable CD or USB drive that install the games somewhere, and then boots up a certain linux kernel configuration with specific, working nvidia or amd drivers.

Honestly if I had a successful game I could sell, I'd try to sell it at half the price by packaging it with some linux distribution the game works on, just for promoting linux to show the consumers that developers appreciate it.

Maybe another other alternative would be to offer games on certain hardware which is supported, and not to other types of hardware.

But obviously, as long as hardware vendors don't give a damn about linux, I won't be surprised reading those posts.

Game developers should not expect being able to use the latest graphics features on an open platform. It just won't happen. The 3D hardware industry always adds new things, it's impossible to keep up unless you had engineers working tightly with nvidia or AMD.

So drop the support of high end 3D features, only keep the core ones that have been working for a long time (do you really need that shader ?), focus on other basic things (like scriptability and other libraries, there is so much stuff to put in a game engine), and deliver a working 3D engine that is easy to use and program with. I don't think any small developer who wants to release on linux can really compete with AAA, high end graphics titles. The only possible way to compete is to bring something new in term of gameplay, stop focusing on the graphics and the bells and whistles, it just won't happen.

TLDR:

gaming is obviously anti competitive if you want to release on linux. what to do: don't try to compete with what other games have already done, and focus on things that are doable and have been done well for a long time. There are many existing game concept that could be improved if you stop wasting time on the graphics. Having basic 3D rendering is already awesome in itself.
Bitcoin Price Crashes Through $250 Mark
> I'm effectively arguing that Muslims are highly offended because we have the liberty to be so for this case.

Muslims are highly offended because they choose to identify with their religion in a way that is not considered normal by non-muslims.

> Yet that doesn't qualify as enough to hurt someone, and that is why I said both.

Then stop saying things like 'the satire was perhaps too much'. There will always be people for who the satire was too much so your position would put an end to satire.

In my view the satire was still way too little.

Muslims being offended at stuff like this is bad for Islam as a religion.
This article is trying to figure out a point halfway through and failing pretty horribly at it.

Yes, there are serious oppression issues in a lot of countries regarding muslims. Yes, the average dumbsheeple will usually equate "muslim" with "terrorist" and the press is doing a bang-up job not dissipating that idea.

But France is the least of all the culprits throughout Europe... and far, far, far behind the USA when it comes to that. Those "patriot acts" and what not the article mentions, they are creations of the US. In fact, a majority of the current climate around islam in the western world can be traced back to the US and the completely inappropriate actions the country took after September 11.

I think what the author is completely missing is that the global reaction to the Charlie Hebdo attacks (which are on a completely different scale, yes) is one of peace and "pens". Hypocrisy or not, slacktivism or not, it's a reaction we can and should be proud of. What, exactly, is the author thinking would be a better alternative? Drawing cartoons about going to war against Randomistan because they are loosely affiliated with the attacks in the mind of Joe Clueless?

And then we have this garbage:

> What is extraordinary, when even the most cursory consideration of recent history is taken into account, is not that this horrific incident occurred, but that such events do not happen more often. It is a great testament to the enduring humanism of the Muslim population of the world that only a tiny minority resort to such acts in the face of endless provocation.

Well done, Corey Oakley, you're doing a much better job undermining muslims than the rest of the world is.
Drone and CCTVs for Everyone: Surveillance Tech Expands Across Latin America
Shareware today is basically a trialware from smaller/indie developers. As such, there's a plenty if you look beyond the company facades.

Just go to Softpedia, pull up a Windows app section and filter in Paid apps. The vast majority of what you see is shareware. NetBalancer, Syncovery, AX64, various PDF viewers, drive emulators for cloud storage services, etc. - all of these are made either by a single person or smaller teams. There are TONS of them; you just didn't realize it :)

Then if you extend the definition to just "trialware" and include larger companies, then pretty much all commercial Windows software is now shareware. You try it and then you buy it. Kaspersky, Acronis, Norton bloatware. Microsoft Office is offered under this model. Heck, even Windows itself is.
Extremists have an extreme response, but that doesn't mean they're the only ones who get offended.
I suspect the downvoting will recover. You point is fairly made and non-offensive (and IMO correct). You and mercurial basically agree.
To be fair, I think you're pretty free to criticize the more extremist aspects of Judaism, such as circumcision (yes, they scream "antisemitism", but nobody takes them seriously), the ultra-orthodox political campaigns in Israel (e.g. that men and women should walk on opposite sidewalks). Also, they don't seem to have as many idiotic rules as Muslims (no depictions of Yahweh? or at least I don't know about them, and they take them much less seriously).
> It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this issue.

It's only been 1,500 years. Lets give them a little more time mmm-k?