skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Using Django Rest Framework is practically the EASIEST tool for building microservices I've ever used. It's incredible how awesome it is for building APIs. We were recently looking at building out some new services in Flask or Express. We compared the advantages of each to DRF and quickly concluded that it wasn't worth it. DRF has so much commonly used stuff done for you and it sets up one of the best standards for REST API's I've ever seen.
Absolutely. If you ever used a web browser (one that understands HTTP and HTML), clicked a link on any website, or submitted a form, you've most likely benefited from REST. Here's an example: https://news.ycombinator.com
> it seems impossible to use multiple sizes in a single document

How so? It's possible in most cases to stick an extra class on the icon, say `.2x` and add a rule to your css such as —

[class*="2x"] {
transform: scale(2)
}
I wasn't trying to advocate only running part of the system.

Of course you can use things like puppet, but the comment I was replying to was saying these were solved problems in the Java world for more than a decade which isn't exactly true.
> For example: Messaging, Search, Authentication, etc. These all have different requirements and focuses and therefore lend themselves better to different languages.

What?

Every single one of those is a solved problem that has bindings to most major languages. Why in the world would you switch languages for an Auth mechanism (for example)?
Ping server monitoring in Golang
Yes, but they suffered the fate of being tied to OSes that failed to be adopted, so they went along with them.

I am a big fan of Wirth's languages.
Something tells me there's a lot more Surge Pricing in our futures. And just when you thought the modifiers were high enough, or that surge hours already have become any-waking-hours...

Rather than the bait and switch, why not just raise the price rather than feign at lowering it? Kill the lie that the Surge Pricing brand has become. Just be honest.
TL;DR -- Google found bug in Windows 8.1. Gave Microsoft standard 90 days notice of public release on 11 January. Microsoft wanted to move release date to patch Tuesday on 13 January. Google released on their 90 day notice date of 11 January.

Personally, I don't think Google should bend to the internal red tape of other companies. You are going to start maintaining this long list of exceptions based on other peoples priorities. There is a published 90 day policy, they gave 90 days notice, figure it out. There is also details missing about the communication between Google and Microsoft. Like when they asked for an extension, etc.
Yeah, how the hell did this get 20 points?
I think they're saying tho that in one case "bread" means a kind of food, and in the other, it means money. If the different uses were more directly connected to particular words that could disambiguate, it wouldn't be too hard -- head features typically can do this -- but the disambiguation here is far more conceptual in original. You know that you need money to buy things, and so you know that not having money is a good reason for not being able to buy things. But bread-the-food is not needed to buy things, so not having it isn't a good reason for not being able to buy things. So probably the second "bread" is the bread-money version. This kind of disambiguation is super tricky without broader world knowledge.
>> "Google's Project Zero seeks to find bugs in popular software and then give the manufacturers responsible 90 days to fix the problem."

Seems reasonable.

>> "On 11 January, Google publicised the flaw. Microsoft said it had requested that Google wait until it released a patch on 13 January."

Dick move. Sorry, I can't think of any other way to describe it. They may have waited until the last minute (or maybe they really did have to rewrite a tonne of code) but that's no excuse or putting users at risk when you can wait two days. Seems more like a marketing tactic than a desire for faster security patches.
Show HN: Graphosaurus – 3D graph viewer written entirely in JavaScript powered by WebGL
Huh, isn't it just start&stop ?
That is compiler specific without any portability guarantee to another compiler, you can just write Assembly instead, for what is worth.
David’s Health Tech Weekly #40: Urinalysis, smart belts, and more
Auto Poster Product Ony 150 Credits FREE 25 Credits When You Register
Well Microsoft had 90 days to fix the problem, why would 2 days make a difference? Sounds like Microsoft is trying to shift the blame and not to acknowledge that they fucked up.
I would be happy to pay more, Uber is already very cheap but I've noticed the quality of drivers and cars has gone down lately.

That, or create another service tier like Uber XL but for better cars instead of bigger cars.
The constant widening of the SIMD registers is an interesting trend to watch. MMX started off as 64-bit, and now AVX-512 is 8 times that. With many cores and a couple of SIMD units in each core, aren't CPUs becoming ever more suitable to handle graphic workloads that were once reasonable only for GPUs?
> Is there a technical way to implement a service like that in a non-compromising way? I.e. user sends you his public key, you brute-force some nonce value, until the key's ID is "nice"?

No. That is not possible.
It depends on the kind of dependency trees. I've seen plenty of semantic-y dependency trees and plenty of syntactic-y dependency trees. I'm not sure how common either really are ever, but on the semantics side, it's the best you get, usually, and isn't all that good for semantics. It's fine for syntax, more or less.
Does the Cruise Control cost 81 € or is the just the hand gear?
I had a similar problem and it turned out that google webmaster tools has an interesting 'feature'.

When you register a domain, say for example: http://www.cnn.com

Does not necessarily register if you have forced your server to use http://cnn.com (without the www. before the domain name).

If you have set up your web server like that, make sure you add the non www. domain to webmaster tools as well. For some strange reason, it seems some subdomains alongside certain settings in the webmaster tools area, will tell google that the two sites are totally different.
"How big data will improve our lives".
Duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8873694 which has substantially more comments; may I suggest that discussion occur there rather than here?
This Tiny Brain for Wearables Is Cute as a Button
As far as bugs go, I wouldn't spend much time arguing that this should be fixed before any release.
What about the headache of monitoring 10s of microservices, making sure they stay up and running and healthy?

I assume that REST or Thrift (or something similar) is the way most microservices talk to each other. What if the latency isn't acceptable?

I've thought about switching our architecture to microservices but these two potential issues are making me hesitate.

How important are these issues in practice?
a pre-commit git hook?

An example for jquery style commits is https://www.npmjs.com/package/commitplease
One of the cool things about the container is it isn't actually a physical box, but an API: a set of eight twist lock knuckles at the vertices of a 3D rectangle. There are slight dimensional variations, but the standard 40-footer makes up the vast bulk, and there is some level of interoperability between the other sizes.

Since that's all there is there are all sorts of other objects that are designed to fit in this envelope; tanks and even pressure vessels are reasonably common, but other strange machinery is framed to fit this infrastructure.
> Seems more like a marketing tactic

What do you think is most likely, that Google engineers were smirking and rubbing their hands together in evil glee as they planned to throw eggs on Microsoft's face, or do you think the bug just went though the 90 day mechanics and got released normally, not getting special treatment?

I seriously doubt it was "marketing tactic" but rather just a matter of not being flexible.
I tend to declare vars with their context. Especially in functions that are (unfortunately) longer than usual, having all vars at the top makes for a mess.

But I don't think the `let` syntax is going to be a problem for people who write plain JavaScript. It's more likely to it might become a problem for languages that compile to JavaScript. (For example, soak operators in CoffeeScript.)
I could see that freedom becoming technical debt if the project is big enough and poorly documented.

I keep picturing the legendary missing Novell server that was buried behind drywall at the University of North Carolina:

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1824
When gasoline is down 30% or more, those savings should go towards growth and competitive pricing. Uber seems to understand this, but the drivers complain. My how things always seem to come full circle -- before we know it, Ubers will be rude, yapping on their phone in unknown languages, and the cars will have torn upholstery and reek of incense.
Since you've not defined it, I'll assume "proper OO" is referring to Alan Kay's formulation: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HeInventedTheTerm

In that case, his opinion on class vs. prototypes is that it misses the point: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1998-...

As an aside, prototypes are strictly more powerful than classes, so they're no "shanty": http://web.media.mit.edu/~lieber/Lieberary/OOP/Delegation/De... (esp. section 6)
I really liked the article and some of the Blog-Headlines seemed to be interesting as well. But try as I might, I was not able to find a rss/atom/xml-Feed for plugging this ressource into my feedreader. Sadly, so I will probably miss upcoming interesting posts.
The gearbox computer for my Volkswagen was recently recalled under warranty. The dealership was shipped a new blank gearbox computer by Volkswagen which then had to flashed with the lastest software version, retrieved from VW Germany via the dealer's satellite uplink (I assume over ODB-II).
I'd summarize the article with these quotes:

"Our argument is simple. If we want fairness, then we should focus on the foundational economy and reorganise these activities to make them more grounded. This requires new kinds of policies which build on the naturally sheltered part of the economy and more or less reverse the operating principles of your local city hall as it has pursued competitiveness."

"Locally relevant improvements have to be defined without the one-size-fits-all assumptions of competition: dedicated bike lanes are not an issue in sprawling megacities or towns built on steep hills. In many low-income cities, access and pricing for basic utility services is an issue for edge-of-city informal settlements that lack utility infrastructure and/or require long-distance commuting; in a cold, high-income country with old housing stock, the priority might be short term measures that alleviated fuel poverty and longer term issues about financing necessary investments in secure, sustainable energy supply. In most cities, building or buying social housing and capillary transport improvement will be objectives which are interconnected physically and in terms of pricing decisions."

"The grounded city is instead a site of diverse experiments and learning which could and should be publicly led."

"Drawing on thinking from science and technology studies, government is about experimenting; experimenting is about learning; learning is about building on successes but also about making mistakes; and learning is also about recognising these as mistakes, and moving on."

"The point of fragility in all this is not the coherence and integrity of our vision of the grounded city; the question is about whether it is possible to put together a coalition of city government and civil society to get things done. We live in an era of post-democracy which has removed many of the pressures on city governments world-wide to act radically. Hence the lazy default pursuit of competitive success will continue for a little longer, though not without challenge by a new ideal."
This is the issue: https://code.google.com/p/google-security-research/issues/de...
Even if one programs in assembly, such features are a "black box" because instruction sets rarely provide any instructions for controlling these things, apart from issuing cache prefetching hints which are not mandatory for the CPU to honour.
From the article:

>"We asked Google to work with us to protect customers by withholding details until Tuesday, January 13, when we will be releasing a fix," Microsoft's senior director of research Chris Betz said in a blog post.
What if other people already know about the breach? Would you prefer the joy of ignorance, or would you rather protect yourself by some means?
These aliases (from ~/.gitconfig) proved to be invaluable countless times, I hope someone will find them useful:

[alias]
logo = log --oneline --graph --all --decorate
logg = log --graph --all --decorate
logt = log --date-order --graph --tags --simplify-by-decoration --pretty=format:'%ai %h %C(Yellow)%d%Creset'
ignored = ls-files --others -i --exclude-standard

Explanation:

logo, logg - improved logs
logt - log just tagged commits
ignored - lists ignored files
I found the focus on experiments interesting, as it parallels the Lean Startup approach.
Yes, that's the misfeature that works most of the time and is annoying as hell when it doesn't work. And you cannot turn it off forever, as per the manual, my local dealer and various online forums/VCDS experts I've met.
This sucks. I'm not saying it's not the answer, but the fact that you have to castrate your feed because spam sites can actually get "SEO credit" for your content just sucks. I always loved RSS feeds that published the full text, because I could read whole articles without having to click through.

Semantic web could fix this a little by making it easier to scrape with the <article> tag, but publishing content is exactly what RSS was meant to do.

I wish Google would (if even possible) find a better way to fix this. In the same way that there's an actual argument against single page apps because "they can't be indexed" or "SEO, man." Discoverability shouldn't be holding back progress (in an ideal world, I know). Rather, indexing should adapt to new technology so that we can make a better web that's still discoverable by users.
There are a lot of prefetch instructions and write-barriers in the available intrinsics:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh977022.aspx

I do not think one has full control over OOO execution on x86-64 processors. Also I do not believe one has control over the execution pipeline even in assembly, although I do not know exactly what you mean by that, so it could just be a misunderstanding.
The reason for giving 90 days is not that some issues are so complicated that they require 90 days to fix, but that bureaucracies can be slow and need a lot of extra time. In your case, that is 30 days of bureaucratic overhead, leaving them 60 days of actual work. This seems reasonable, as bussiness deadlines are 30 days.
I perhaps should have explained that a bit more. Technology choices have to make sense before implemented but giving developers the flexibility opens a lot of doors for creativity and exploration.

I strongly believe that learning new languages help people become better coders overall as it increases their knowledge of different problems and solutions which can be applied across most stacks.

Also no one developer should ever be solely responsible for a particular service. But that should also be the case for apps within a Django project.
Microsoft partners with Idea to provide phone apps, game – The Hindu
Exactly this. Too bad some people's hatred towards MS blinds them.
One possible explanation would be that China has such a gigantic population. Basically everything that is a niche there is a big community by our standards.
>it's safe to do typeof possiblyUndeclaredVariable

What would be the usecase of typeof'ing something undeclared in a block scope and then declaring the let further down?

Even more so with strict mode which does't really allow you to use undeclared variables anyway.
Reducing friction to get basic services seems to define their focus on fairness. Income can be one source of friction, so moving money around can theoretically reduce that friction. Better and more efficient design would probably be better because it reduces friction from the beginning.
"Microsoft's senior director of research Chris Betz said in a blog post.", "Several security researchers", "wrote one developer", "But another said"

So is this what the disclosure issue is going to look like when packaged up for the masses? No historical context on how the ongoing disagreements are the latest in decades of ongoing discussion? Or any mention of the events that shaped the popular ideas today? Just a sour blogpost and some bland quotes of agreement and disagreement from an internet so large you can always find quotes for the positions you want to portray. We're so fucked.

Edit: And apparently it worked on us too. Of course external messaging is going to paint the other guy as the unreasonable one.
For the most part, if it "works" you just don't mess with it. For american cars, you usually go to a dealer. My car had many ECU updates over the years, but everyone online complained that it fixed some issues(surging idle, detonation) but then added other issues, so I just never bothered.

For the performance scene, an SCT hand held tuner (http://www.sctflash.com/) flashes over the current ECU firmware with the latest available firmware plus any tuned parameters that you select
Multiple equivalent syntaxes (syntaces?) still adds a cognitive load.
Does it really matter if it's 90 or 92 day disclosure?
We actually use DRF. Although I actually find it overcomplicated for what it does.
What? Microsoft asked for 2 extra days and Google refused? Seems like an asshole move.

I am in general a huge Google fan, but in using Google services I realize that I am not much of a customer (I purchase extra storage and buy stuff on the Play Store); advertisers are the customers.

Microsoft on the other hand gets its money from computer users and it seems like they have a much more customer focused mentality.
With things like this you have to be flexible. All they asked for was an extra two days. To ignore that request you are doing something that could hurt users and hurt your competitor and it just seems slightly malicious. I can't see an excuse for it that makes it seem like a reasonable decision. Maybe it's not exactly a marketing tactic but it's malicious nonetheless.
How to Keep Your Failures from Being Mistakes
What about the people hit by the breach in the following 48 hours after the vulnerability is announced? Especially when attackers know they have a short window of opportunity before patch Tuesday hits.

Microsoft do issue out of band updates but they are very rare and for very serious issues.

It isn't like Microsoft was stalling for time, they didn't ask for months, they asked for days to fir into their scheduled releases. It's also worth pointing out the enterprises time things on the patch Tuesday cycle. An earlier release causes all sorts of implementation problems, especially if only a day or two in advance. In all likelihood you wouldn't see many machines actually updated in that period, but cause significant extra grief.
Almost everyone was already enjoying 90 days of ignorance. And almost everyone could have enjoyed indefinite ignorance with the same relative safety if Google had waited for patch Tuesday.
Engineers love zero tolerance policies, but that doesn't mean they are the best choice in every situation. A little wiggle room doesn't end the world.
GPUs are still about 5x ahead compared to CPUs. CPUs lack texture lookup hardware, that's the biggest catch right now. AVX2 gives gather support (one instruction, up to 8x independent loads to a single vector register), but currently on Haswell there's no performance benefit compared to doing the memory loads individually.

GPU memory (GDDR5) has also many times more bandwidth at expense of 10x higher latency compared to CPU.

Currently you put the workload that requires low latency on a CPU and embarrassingly parallel "non-branchy" workload on a GPU.

Both CPUs and GPUs gain about 20% performance per year per core. I'm no expert on CPU and GPU memory architectures, but both seem to be headed towards integrated 3D-stacked eDRAM memory. This can provide up to several TBps reasonably low latency bandwidth.
So, who forces Microsoft to stick to (so called) patch Tuesdays? No one, actually - it's Microsoft internal schedule, and clearly there are cases when it's absolutely unreasonable - e.g. when there's a 0day in the wild. So there has to be a way to fast track a fix - if there's not, there's something seriously wrong IMNSHO. Apparently, they thought Google won't stick to the 90-day limit.
The Church of Sweden was the state church until 2000. As a remnant of that, they can still collect membership fees through the tax system. It is open to other churches as well.
Jezus Christ that is downright scary. I'm not an American and I know healthcare and costs are bad in the states, but this is bad on a whole other level.
Oh my God the google circlejerk has spilled from Reddit.

How many people does google have sockpuppetting social media? My goodness.
I must admit, I'm not desperate enough for new readers to hamstring my own publishing to my existing readers - so summary RSS feed is out for me.

I'd consider delaying RSS publication but that's actually very awkward as it's an Octopress website (i.e. created and pushed as a set of static pages, including things like the rss feed).
If there can't be any common sense exceptions to the 90-day policy, that's just bureaucracy by itself.
> it is debatable whether OOP is a "good" style to develop at all!

You've drank way too much Kool-Aid here.

First of all: there are many different styles of OO, some more cumbersome than others, some so far removed from "classic OOP principles" that it takes effort to see how are they related. It's utterly useless to talk about "OOP style" as if it was a well defined, canonical set of rules - because it's not.

Second: there's nothing that makes OOP and FP be in opposition to each other. You should be aware - and if you're not, you should feel ashamed - that closures, one of basic FP tools, were supported in Smalltalk 20 years before Haskell.

Third: just as with OOP, things coming from FP are not uniformly "better" in any sense. Just as with every other paradigm, FP languages frequently have features needed only because they are FP. It makes very little sense to adopt those. Many really interesting features meant for solving real problems (and not for solving problems with a paradigm) are steadily coming to non-FP languages anyway.

> If I look at most of the libraries commonly used in production JS, pretty much none of them apply classic OOP principles.

Once again: either you have no idea what OOP is or you have no idea how JS libraries look like. For every http://ramdajs.com/docs/ you get hundreds libraries which implement their own kind of OO, starting from jQuery and Backbone.
*repost of my comment from another post on this subject[1]

>> "Google's Project Zero seeks to find bugs in popular software and then give the manufacturers responsible 90 days to fix the problem."

Seems reasonable.

>> "On 11 January, Google publicised the flaw. Microsoft said it had requested that Google wait until it released a patch on 13 January."

Dick move. Sorry, I can't think of any other way to describe it. They may have waited until the last minute (or maybe they really did have to rewrite a tonne of code) but that's no excuse or putting users at risk when you can wait two days. Seems more like a marketing tactic than a desire for faster security patches.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8873704