skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm actually consistently surprised that gender bias is really a problem (although I'm out in Boston so perhaps I don't see it). I would have thought that economic incentives would have stamped this stupid behavior out ages ago. The idea that team-killing unprofessional behavior on this reported scale is being allowed to continue by investors / management, or that VCs and hiring professionals are purposely ignoring strong opportunities because of peoples' gender just strikes me as being so stupid and shortsighted as to be almost unbelievable. Is this really happening, or are these types of articles simply exaggerating the extent of the problem?
I think you misunderstood. they are adding a non web library, not leaving the web.
Animating Family Trees, a la Pachinko (d3.js)
This is Eric, from the React Native team.

We're starting with iOS and Android, which will keep us busy for the foreseeable future. That said, we will open source soon, and we'd be happy to accept help targeting other platforms!
Yeah, the Java bashing I could (and, admittedly, should) have ignored. It is more the crediting the language for the success that I would rather focus on. It is a fairly strong assertion at the end, that I feel needs more support. Back when fewer teams were writing Java applications, I feel similar advantages were felt for it.

Of course, I still pine for lisp, so I can not claim to have no biases. (Well, that and MMIX)
The link escapes me now but isn't this what Marriott is claiming?
People were clamoring for invites to http://ello.co about four months ago, then the hype died down. Is this. any different?
If you know that you will be eventually convinced of it, shouldn't you just short-circuit the process and start believing it now?
The benefits of using Dart are debatable. There are however no such doubts on the utility of native mobile apps. The lack of adoption of Dart is due to the lack of interest within the broader JS community; the same community which is going to be excited about React supporting native apps. This immediately improves the targets to which they can deploy with skills they already have.
There are at least two possible explanations:

1) Customer service response is highly variable

2) Twilio (like any company) is extra-responsive to customers who have a large audience on the Internet
According to the Wikipedia article, Sutter had title to 48,827 acres (76 square miles or 200 square kilometers).
Not sure, but having encountered laziness in Clojure and Haskell, it can be non-intuitive and it can be a bitch to debug. It allows for some conceptual beauty, though, and there are certainly some use cases in which laziness is the right behavior. The question is what should be the default; both ought to be allowed. In Haskell, they are, but you start using bangs a lot (e.g. Point !Int !Int and the ($!) operator instead of ($)) and there are also shallow vs. deep considerations, because forcing a thunk only evaluates it one constructor-level deep-- to "weak head normal form".

That said, I much prefer Haskell's laziness or Clojure's laziness in seqs over the broken laziness in other languages. There's a lot to like about R's libraries but... fuck this:

> Map(function(x) (function(y) x + y), 1:5)[[3]](0)
[1] 5

Python can be tricked into the same evil if you build closures in a loop. Haskell doesn't have that, thankfully.
Goodness! I didn't even know there were enough lines to have a fairly complete grammar and tokens. Honestly, this would have been perfect and a better assignment to give in a Compilers course instead of asking students to build some C-like language--at least this language seems fun!
Yes, just like the DPS interpreter translates (high-level) DPS into (low-level) pixels. Looks pretty similar to me. (but then I am not overly familiar with DPS or ReactJS)

EDIT: To clarify, I am sure that the current UIKit also tries to do optimize rendering. They probably do some kind of internal batching, etc. But they have no (public) data format like DPS or a virtual DOM that is generated, optimized and rendered. I don't think that DPS is all that different.
I agree--there were several decent points being made in the article, but fluffing it up to look like their gender was the reason they didn't get their desired funding was kind of disingenuous.

I can think of a probably a dozen local startups off the top of my head here that didn't get funding either. Tough shit.
Generally the argument is never around saved computation but instead around composability. Lazy languages ensure that everything behaves like a value and in that domain operations compose much more effortlessly. You can't reason about operation as easily, so you don't, and the language can cope with making that work more or less correctly.

Which is definitely suboptimal in some cases!

I think honestly the goal should be reasoning about evaluation order statically instead of trying to find some clever argument such that laziness or strictness is clearly "correct".
I always wanted to make a whole movie out of Arnie one-liners. This is awesome :)
Note: Parody of a NY Times article (see link at bottom of page).
What point are you arguing that you think others are disagreeing with?
OP here. I'm so sorry to hear that we let you down like that. Totally not what we're striving for. Wouldn't be surprised if you've moved on after an experience like that, but if you need any help from us in the future and you're not getting what you need, please feel free to reach out to me directly (gb@twilio.com).
Of course, and I completely agree. I'm just trying to provide a contrasting opinion from a normal user who doesn't have a huge internet audience.
> the airwaves are public.

Specifically, the ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) bands, that common WiFi operates on, are open to use by anyone, and you can't interfere with anyone else's use of them.

Alternatively, you can license (effectively, lease) your own little slice of spectrum from the FCC, and then it's ‘yours’, and then you don't have to use forged packets to stop other people using it — the FCC will slap them for you.
Laziness in data structures has the biggest benefit in the spine. Leaf laziness is just more surface area to hide unexpected thunks. If you really want that, do something like

data Box a = Box a

type Lazier a = Tree (Box a)

Generally, I find that a little habit around leaf strictness ends up eliminating laziness concerns entirely until you get to explicit concurrent programming and need to think carefully about what thread is forcing what execution.
I think I might trade a global economic crisis for a fast protein folding algorithm.
Thank you, and I appreciate it. If I get abandoned again in the future, you'll be the first person I contact.
Probably not. <JeffGoldblum> Life will find a way! </JeffGoldblum>

> The bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans is the best known extremophile among the few organisms that can survive extremely high exposures to desiccation and ionizing radiation, which shatter its genome into hundreds of short DNA fragments2, 3, 4, 5. Remarkably, these fragments are readily reassembled into a functional 3.28-megabase genome. Here we describe the relevant two-stage DNA repair process... figure [1]

Direct radiation exposure is not the only threatening aspect of a GRB and even Deinococcus Radiodurans can't withstand the full onslaught of a nearby GRB [2], but I do believe that D.R. is a good enough proof of concept to argue that adaptation is not only feasible but probable. GRBs would set life back a few hundred million years (whether here or in a remote galaxy), but I doubt they would put an end to it.

[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7111/fig_tab/natu...

[2] http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/070226_grb-life.htm
The issue with Fermi's Paradox is the fact that it's not a paradox at all. It relies on assumptions and presumptions that are now dated (we have explanations for).

For starters, let's begin with the first point it makes; If there are a bunch of civilizations out there, why haven't we heard them yet?

That's the wrong question. It makes an incorrect presumption; Why should we have heard them? Do you think a highly advanced civilization is going to be using something as archaic as "radio signals" to communicate across vast interstellar distances? Due to the inverse square law, it's incredibly inefficient, laughably so. It would be like trying to use smoke signals to communicate across oceans. A beam of light would be more efficient. But the beam would be instant and you could never "listen in" unless you were physically at the location of the target.

And who knows what else, maybe they communicate with gravitational waves, or something else we haven't discovered yet. Perhaps something with quantum entanglement (although that's unlikely). Yet, all of those cannot be detected unless you were specifically the target of the communication. They're not like radio waves where you can listen in. That's actually the very reason why they're so inefficient, they're broadcast omnidirectional and that takes a lot of power - wasted power.

And that's only one of the incorrect presumption Fermi's Paradox makes. There are more. I don't know why people keep bringing up the term when it's no longer applicable given what we know now. There is no paradox. There are plenty of great reasons why we haven't detected aliens yet, and none of them are paradoxical.
I tend to think of OCaml as a functional C. It's strict and not purely functional. You can write for-loops and while-loops if you want (but you shouldn't) and use refs to have mutable state (but you shouldn't). It has a better module system than Haskell, but doesn't have type classes. It has functors, which are equivalent-- OCaml's functor is an operation over modules and only very loosely connected (through type theory, which isn't essential to being proficient in either language) to Haskell's Functor type class-- and better in some ways and worse in others.

Haskell is more expressive and has a much more powerful type system, but it's probably harder to reason about performance.

OCaml's biggest issue (note: I may be out of date on this, since I haven't heavily used it since the late 2000s) is the GIL. This probably limits your ability to use it for multithreaded programming, but it can compile down to extremely fast single-threaded executables.
Comedians call these "street jokes." The problem is that social media is speeding up the plagiarism process. The good thing is you have a paper trail now.

A friend of mine that is a standup had a joke of his told by The Jokeman Jackie Martlin as a "street joke" and recently saw a poor version of it in a proper for the TV show "Cougar Town." It happens.
Instead of "abandoning the web" I'd call it a "post browser" framework. What we're seeing here is the first piece in the next-gen internet world that doesn't require a web browser.
You're thinking of Poul Anderson's "Tau Zero". It won a Hugo award in 1971. There are a few others that have worked the same concept, but none so famous or well-written.
Also "winning" the right to working in a coal mine or laying roofing wouldn't really be a victory after all compared to SV. These people want the upside of being a male without the risk that it carries. Yea some of us get to play this game in SV. What about the vast majority of us that have to work a shit job to support our family? Giving one gender privileged access to industries like SV while simultaneously sheltering them from industries like the coal mining industry would also be a horrible form of marginalization.
It seems to me that in the end it all comes down to your actual hypothesis whether and what is actually interesting …
I'm assuming you meant the prices dropped to 1/4 of their previous level. Even then, pretty much any civic minded organization or "citizen scientist" is priced out of the market. In fact, the only people who can access it, in that range, are people who can turn a profit on it, i.e., likely not looking out for the public interest as a primary concern.
I think "interpreter/compiler" problems arise way more frequently than people expect. It's just they're often not called that until they're being tackled by interpreter/compiler experts.

In particular, you can think of things like message passing, interpreter/command patterns, and anything which uses reflection as being at least a little like an AST/interpreter pattern if you look at it in the right light. Then, if you have a team of compiler writers they can make a big win there.
> The person I was listening to was not a conservative and pretty much embodied the nightmare a lot of conservatives have about "Net Neutrality".

To be fair, that didn't seem clear, but I might've misread your post! Regardless, I do know of a few conservative hosts who have most claimed net neutrality and the fairness doctrine are analogues. Fairness doctrine has been used as a right-of-center zeitgeist for some time (and rightfully so, IMO), but that the current state of net neutrality is beginning to frighten people who don't identify as conservative is a good thing. The problem I have with it, for instance, is similar to your reasoning: It proposes stricter regulations that might transform government-enforced "neutrality" into something far worse than the present alternative. Of course, I'm supportive of the idea that something needs to be done to prevent anti-competitive practices--I just don't think I agree with the current propositions. (At the very least, the bittorrent fiasco with Comcast is suggestive that highly unpopular actions can be reversed if enough people are willing to push back; it just isn't guaranteed and public complacency/apathy works against those of us who wish to do the right thing... then again, when doesn't it?)

> It grates me as a small government conservative (for some definition of all those words) that I cannot find a simple example legislation dealing with peering and traffic shaping that would keep Comcast / Verizon from using a natural monopoly to change what buying internet bandwidth means.

I definitely agree. I think this is a problem that's endemic to government. There are few good reasons why legislation should be more than a dozen pages--and certainly not multiple thousand pages--and all too often reasonable legislation makes it through almost entirely disassociated from the problem it was originally intended to solve. Simple problems are conflated into things that become unsolvable simply on the merit that everyone wants a proverbial piece of pie. But no one actually wants to prepare it.
Remove attributes from HTML in Node.js
These are always tough pieces to respond to, because there are certainly a lot of gender inequalities in the startup world.

But I wish the piece had spent more time talking about the trajectory of the situation instead of just a description of its current state.

They mention this particular pair of founders was turned down by YC and their trouble raising funding, but not any of the stats YC shares about how they have funded more and more female founders, and all of the outreach efforts they do.

They mention Ellen Pao concerned a lawsuit, but then only say she is "at Reddit", instead of saying she is currently the CEO. The CEO!

Also, they mention Peter Thiel and David Sacks are the new generation? I honestly didn't know who David Sacks was until I just looked it up. What about all of the partners at YC? What about Mark Zuckerberg? What about all of the non-sexist people?
Haha. I knew someone was going to call me out on that -- tried to phrase his HN status succinctly and came up ambiguous. I was looking at the average rating on the top 10 list, but you're absolutely right that a couple folks have more gross karma. Semantics matter. Thanks for pointing that out.

And thank you too for the compliments.
The problem with all this talk is that the scale is weird.

Silicon Valley is what? LinkedIn, or a 2015 YC summer intake company? At the scale of LinkedIn, maybe this argument is inconsequential in many ways. At the scale of a 2015 YC summer intake company, it is irrelevant.

Where between those two is this argument relevant? Should a growing company desperate for talent spend seed money while unprofitable on "operations staff"? Or should they minimise that pay and try to get great devs? Great sales people?

That's the issue with these kind of sweeping statements - there are so many companies in a labour market, and very few arguments can ever apply to all of them, or even most of them.
That's my thinking as well. I've read up a bit on feminism, the picture I get is of a movement that's trying really really hard to get people to take them seriously. They've chosen tech as the battleground for precisely that reason. Personally, I think it's great. I like seeing my compatriots forced to confront sexism.

If you think sexism is bad in technology, you should see it everywhere else. The gender gap has gotten a bit better in the last twenty years or so, but traditionally male occupations are still overwhelmingly male, and likewise for female occupations. And salary gaps where you do find men and women working together are just abominable.

Sexism is one of those things you just kind of ignore until you really start looking, then once you do you see it literally every fucking where. And it's utterly depressing. We like to think that because we gave the vote to black people and women that we're enlightened.
In general, most ISPs will drop any routes more specific than a /24. Presumably datapath has negotiated with some specific providers to allow /32s; it's up to that ISP to scale their routers to handle it; other ISPs will only see the /24 aggregate.
Is this really an explanation for the Fermi paradox? Would a factor of 0.1 or even 0.01 really change the import of the Fermi paradox?
There's a reasonably broad consensus that life isn't possible in the central part of the galaxy due to normal excessive radiation levels, even before considering extreme events.

Of course, galactic size being what it is, these two "central parts" could have boundaries differing by, oh, say, twenty thousand light years no problem.

I forget the details but I've seen arguments that too far away from the core is bad too.
And just as a heads-up to those who haven't watched, implementation details and code samples are coming tomorrow.

But basically the tl;dw seems to be that you can write JavaScript React code that runs efficiently on mobile and renders native primitive components instead of dom primitives (<View> instead of <div>).

It also introduces the idea of "Learn once, write everywhere" instead of "Write once, run everywhere", which I think is a great idea.
If you click on the original keyword name, it links to a YouTube video of the quote, which usually has the movie name in the title.
Remaking the U.S. Government's Online Image, One Website at a Time
Oh, I agree. I just think the problem in this case is that it's difficult for us (being well fed and well educated) to fully appreciate the immediacy of starvation.
How about just springing the $5 for Metafilter?

They can post a link, but just one a day;
they can follow other people on the network;
they can click on the links posted by members they follow (no limit);
and they can click “Thanks” to endorse a link they particularly enjoyed.

Yup. Metafilter. Except they let you post as much as you like.
Delaware Considers Digital Driver's License
Thanks for that - makes more sense.
The point of the faraday cage is to explicitly allow specific signals by setting up repeaters (i.e. femtocells, or whatever they're called these days) inside the cage.
Wow, and the graphs on http://www.tylervigen.com/ are just incredible.
Only if you use it to interfere with US government communications (Title 18, Section 1362).

If it only interferes with other people's communications, that's just a regulatory matter (47 U.S. Code § 333), and practically speaking the FCC will only fine you if don't fix it or stop using it after you've been notified.
"I kind of wish there was a post-ANSI art scene, maybe using unicode, or encoded HTML <div> tags or something equally crazy and inventive."

If you look at the early issues of WIRED magazine, I would say that's the post-ANSI aesthetic, but that's just my opinion. 1994 and the Internet really killed off the BBS thing fast, otherwise I think Ripterm (or something like it) would have replaced ANSI because modems were getting faster http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/library/PROGRAMS/GRAPHICS/RIPS... For me, 1994 was switching from primarily Pascal, TheDraw & DeluxePaint to HTML, Photoshop & Java.

As far as the demo scene, I was not really part of that but I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that was based more on the C64/Amiga which had powerful graphics/music capabilities way before the PC. So I would guess the demo scene came first and the ANSI "BBS" art was more a product of the IBM PC-compatible world. I remember going to an Amiga club meeting and a few of these guys had big boxes of disks and they would just trade like that, they had limited Internet access through the local university but they didn't have a BBS.

I offered to host their MODs (Amiga music modules) on my BBS. Because of that, I had the largest collection of MOD music in the area. It was like Napster before Napster ;-)
Couldn't you argue art is pretty much a hobby for all participants except the 1% in each field that makes a living from it?
> If the strike price is a concern, it could probably be negotiated down.

Please ask a qualified accountant about Section 409A of the tax code and what happens if you're granted stock options at less than fair market value.
This article was extensively discussed just a month ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8812724
This "little bit" of centralization makes Gridcoin sufficiently brittle that it completely annihilates its chance of being widely successful AND stable.

Here is a thought experiment for you to understand: imagine if Gridcoin was as big and as valuable as Bitcoin, which has about $1 million dollars worth of bitcoins mined every day. A good chunk of this million dollars would be distributed based on BOINC rankings. So many people would be interested in gaining control of the BOINC servers. They could either hack them. Or they could offer to outright purchase the domain names and entity managing them, maybe they would even hire the staff running the servers. They would give appearances of operating legitimately at first. But eventually they would interfere with the rankings for their own financial benefits, either plainly maliciously, or with excuses to appear semi-legitimate (they could say "since we run the BOINC servers, we deserve a share of the profits"). The Gridcoin community would be upset and disagree with this. Maybe they would try to abandon trusting these BOINC servers, but how? They would not all agree on a solution. This would create forks in the chain. Maybe they would try to set up a new entity to run a new set of BOINC servers. At this point the situation is a mess and is no different than Ripple/Stellar to whom this exact scenario happened: part of the Ripple community abandoned Ripple and followed Jed McCaleb's Stellar fork.

Morale of the story: absolute power corrupts absolutely. You cannot give power to a central entity (BOINC servers) to control distribution of money. This is too much trust and is bound to break at some point.

And in addition to these social problems caused by centralization, what about the technical ones? What happens when the BOINC servers are down, ie. under DoS attack? How do you resolve gridcoin transaction conflicts which could be resolved by looking up the BOINC ratings? The whole gridcoin network would be unable to operate due to a few servers being down. On the other hand, a true distributed currency like Bitcoin does not depend at all on a single server. This is why being 100% fully distributed is incredibly superior to being 90% distributed like Gridcoin. Even if it was made 99% distributed, the 1% of centralization is what will eventually hamper it.
Or, maybe they're both right.
After Dickens World