skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron, because consensus is not a scientific process.

Unless by "consensus" you mean that a lot of scientists have successfully reproduced an experiment. But nobody ever means that.

That being said, scientists are often informed and educated, so their opinions should be valued. But please take off the lab coat and call it an opinion.
That would be covered by net neutrality, wouldn't it? If all data has to be treated equally, that type of abuse wouldn't be possible regardless of whether you're paying by bandwidth or by usage.
> Suggestion that threads are way better than other asynchronous implementations.

I don't think that's true. The author mentions several languages that use different solutions:

* Java uses threads

* Lua and Ruby use cooperative multitasking with coroutines and fibers, respectively

* Go uses goroutines, which are coroutines multiplexed onto threads

There are definitely similarities, but not all are threads. The common element is that each solution involves keeping separate call stacks. (The author mentions this too.)

> You still have disjointed code.

I disagree. In Go, I can write an HTTP server that never uses the "go" keyword, yet it's still concurrent. This is because the net/http package handles the goroutines for me. With Node, I have to use callbacks no matter what.
god.thank(foo);

Dispatches human to nearest place of worship to thank god for 'foo'.
Not really, I think I just missed it when parsing text. I've also missed .NET.

EDIT: Scraped data second time. Added more jobs and more languages.
That looks very readable. Maybe the gripe was that GCC isn't readable? I don't know, I haven't looked at GCC code.
And then claims that all of science is just "looking at things"

Well, at least he got one thing correct. Mostly. Science is a system for generating a model of the world. It just also happens to be the best one we have, insofar as it has generated the most accurate model of the universe to date. Is it perfect? No. Should it be criticized? Yes, otherwise it won't improve. Should we throw it out altogether? Perhaps that question should be put to the literally billions of people whose lives have been saved and improved by the results of science. Or not. Those same billions are probably very badly informed about science, which is what Adams should be railing against, not science itself.
I usually do set WWW-Authenticate to None or WebForm (to prevent browsers to pop-up basic auth dialog).

And I agree with ambiguous spec on those concerns.
Tripadvisor buys zetrip/Rove
> At 50 kilometers up, Venus is remarkably Earth-like ... The atmospheric pressure is a comfortable one bar, the gravity about 90 percent that of Earth's, and temperatures fall within a hospitable range of 0-50 degrees Celsius.

Nothing to sneeze at, but I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that a flying habitat of sufficient reliability is orders of magnitude more difficult. Are there studies that suggest otherwise?
I used to be billingual (french and german) as a kid. I remember literally translating passages of german books/articles a few times for school assignments. It was easy not to get caught.
yeah, you're right, I misunderstood the question
The trouble with being a specialist is you only need the market to move slightly sideways and you are out of work.
Current estimates put any changes to the planets from our Sun to start about 1 billion years.

While I'm a fan of long term thinking, that's a bit too long to enter into any equation about which planet to colonize first.
That's a false dichotomy. The choice is not between tie your identity to everything or Chinese rating farms (nice work invoking the scary Chinese other as some specter that is ruining our app processes by the way - remember when the Japanese were ruining everything in the 80s?). There is enormous room for improvement in app rating procedures and process. Saying the only choice we have is what you consider the lesser or two evils based on the current state of the current system is almost laughably short sighted.
You mean "when the sun starts to swell," not "when earth starts to swell."

And this is a laughable concern. The Sun's main sequence is predicted to last another 4 billion years. That's more time than life has existed on Earth, about 16,000x as long as homo sapiens has existed.

If we're concerned with the survival something vaguely descended from homo sapiens in 4 billion years, there's little enough harm in taking another million years for our tech to get a little better before starting the project.
To me there seems to be a distinct difference between actively broadcasting a signal(radio) and allowing access to those who request it(internet)

Now, that's a very good point, but can't the very act of turning a radio dial be the 1930's equivalence of typing in a URI or clicking a link?

Wired magazine published an article in the 90's about the parallels between radio and the "new" internet, and it was filled with direct analogies between the two and how governments eventually took control and started regulating licenses and content, for the most part.

I am unable to find a link to that long article, but the ideas contained in it have stuck with me for a long time.
> I would say having a group of trusted reviewers would be the best way to handle that. Nothing is a good substitute for trusted content curators.

The point they are making is that with Google, your friends app reviews matter more than random peoples.
First, I'd never say that not agreeing with me makes anyone an idiot. Not agreeing with thousands of people from around the world whose entire professional lives revolve around investigating these very issues, though, requires a higher standard of evidence than your steely gaze and good old horse sense.

But speaking of standards of evidence:

>>>>
For example, there was a significant hiatus from warming for the last 10 years or so when there "shouldn't have been" (whatever that means) and it's only recently that some scientists have proven why
<<<<

The fact that you can't write down a model that predicts an extraordinarily complicated system down to the last detail is a very poor standard of evidence to require. It's the same flavor of argument that Big Tobacco used for all those years to squirm through legal loopholes about whether or not they knew that smoking killed people. I don't follow this literature but I'm not surprised that nobody can explain the handful of 100 year old ladies who smoked their whole lives and are as healthy as horses. The 'can you explain _this_ then???' defense isn't much of a defense when viewed in context.
Thanks. I should spend some time on something like Jekyll - to generate structure instead of messing with html.
Show the Love: Celebrate Your Clients with These Email Templates
If you haven't seen it yet, the latest season of News Room covers this exact scenario and nails it pretty close, except a different context. Its quite impressive to know the real story behind the fictional one on TV.
The point of my post is not "Hooray for me!", but was to point out that my good service comes from competition, and that the focus on rate-limiting of net neutrality is just a red herring.

The thing with regulation is that it is pernicious, and once created becomes very difficult to get rid of.

Let's walk through a hypothetical: Rate-limiting becomes illegal today, and simultaneously some arbitrarily effective incentive is put in place that will provide opportunities for new entrants to the market within 5 years.

Now fast forward a few years. New entrants are trying to compete in the market place. One proven effective way to gain a foothold in a market with entrenched players is to offer a loss leader. Say a new firm figures out that it can gain a lot of customers with a specific strategy - a cheap plan that is very restrictive on total bandwidth, except for Facebook, Twitter, and Netflix. For a huge number of people this would be a great deal - limited bandwidth for most things, but unlimited for the services they use the most. Unfortunately for this potential entrant to the market, their most effective tool for displacing an entrenched competitor has been deemed illegal.

A regulation that solves a short term problem may limit our options in the future negatively.

If there must be regulation, I would prefer to see regulation that does not limit my choices. Given a low enough price, I would be very happy to have a throttled internet connection.

Again, my point in the parent was not to brag or say hooray for me. My point was that I have great service because I have choices. In proportion to the limits of my choices, there are limits to my happiness with the service.

I do not intend to speak for you, but I'd like to rephrase your sentiment - not to argue with you or your experience, but to put it in the context I am interpreting the situation in. You aren't upset because Comcast offers _a_ plan that throttles Netflix, rather you are upset that you did not choose that plan. While in the short term eliminating that choice may improve your situation (or maybe Comcast offers worse service or raises the price or otherwise adjusts its behavior in a way that makes you feel worse off), in the long term it is impossible to make people better off by reducing the options which they may consider.
The electricity certainly gets used for lots of different things.

UDP and TCP is what I want my ISPs concerned with, not what I'm doing with those packets.
Everything in gaming is not fine, and that's fine
I suspect the conversations in this thread will be extremely interesting 5 years from now - should this regulation come to pass.
The worst for me is when there is a strong complexity requirement, but some other stupid limitation, like only specific special characters can be used. I usually result to something like "ThisIsBullshit!1" or something similar (though I started using lastpass, also 2fa where available)

I did come across a site that had a cuss word filter, then wouldn't let me change my password... lol. No mention of why it was an invalid password.

If you must have certain complexity requirements, spell them out. Personally, if it's over 8-10 characters (with leading and trailing whitespace trimmed off), I'll take anything... convert to UTF8 bytes before 1-way hashing...

As for using SCrypt, if it takes a modern CPU 1/2 second on a process to hash a password, then that's ripe for a DDOS against your authentication server, which is where failed attempt counts, and locking for X minutes comes in.
No games console has first class support for OpenGL.

EDIT: Rephrased it better.
The web is better now because there are more people using it. All the things that you dislike were requirements to onboarding all those people.
I was thinking a while back that an obvious AI application would be to replace the entire management structure of a corporation.

All of it. All the way up to the C-Suite.

This would naturally improve efficiency, and in not a few cases it would probably apply a significant multiplier to overall profitability.

That doesn't mean it would be a good idea politically or socially - although depending on the value system and long-term strategic insight of the AI, it might be an improvement there too.

You could even have an automated YC, where a model of Paul Graham selects between different business models produced by a selection of AI agents.

This could just be a joke, but to be honest I'm not completely sure it's not a serious prediction.
Some devices make this very difficult. Well, not very difficult - just more time consuming. I was trying to unlock a BIOS password on a Toshiba Satellite maybe 3 years ago, none of the default or "backdoor" passwords would work. However, you were able to reset it by using a jumper to complete a specific part of the circuit.. Not for the faint hearted, however if a thief steals the laptop, they'll have no problem opening it up in their own time.

I'm glad they've made this harder, as most thieves are deterred by the technical aspects of breaking in to wipe a computer.
Pretty impressed with the negativity here. Just a year ago, I remember all the stories on HN with people lamenting that the FCC doesn't have the guts to regulate broadband as a utility under title II [1,2,3] (admittedly with a minority speaking against title II, most prominently rayiner, whose comments I generally look forward to for an interesting contrarian view).

Y Combinator even published an open letter[4]. Quoting:

Title II of the Communications Act seems the most appropriate way to properly define broadband ISPs to be offering telecommunications. Speaking on behalf of Y Combinator, I’m urging you to adopt such a rule.

And here we are. It seems to me that the community has always been complaining about the different FCC approaches on the subject, and in favor of title II, until the FCC yielded. Politicians must think the tech community is a frustrating beast to work with.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7750036

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7057634

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7637147

[4] http://blog.ycombinator.com/y-combinator-has-filed-an-offici...
Hmm. Isn't the problem that most companies in fact are only great at one thing and with time that is what will kill them?
Everyone is hoping that it doesn't turn out into another Longs Peak.
> It's in a completely different class of service, and it costs a fraction of what my competing local offerings do.

However, your VOIP will not work during a power outage, during an internet outage, or any other time the VOIP company's servers are down.

Landlines work during power outages, during internet outages, and they provide around 5 nines of uptime (that's less than 6 minutes of downtime a year).

Those are the things your $35 a month buys you. How important that reliability is to you generally depends on your health. I know more than a few folks who would never give up their landline, because they have medical conditions which depend on reliable access to 911.
No job is the goal. No money is the problem.
No, bad. The federal government is no where near its smallest size and no one is happy with how they're executing. The last thing we need is to give them more money and power.
Spectrum auctions (the costs of which are passed on to the winning telco's customers) are not only a tax, they're a tax that gets marked-up by a private company before being collected.
The Italian Alps.
>Ten days ago Monty suffered a severe allergic reaction during a simple medical procedure that left him in a coma.

Such a young guy. Remember that you can never be sure how many "tomorrows" you get.
But I also follow my non-friends as well, I also might trust one friend more then another for their opinions.
They're referring to writing your own allocator.
Checking your browser is a cloudflare thing. FWIW.
Well, yes, I'll give you that "scientific software" is indeed too broad. If I restrict it to "software developed by teams of scientists working at universities and research labs" it's better.

And yes, lots of data aquisition stuff is Windows only, particularly the stuff that gets sold along instruments. But then, in that category, the trend seems to be requiring a (preferrably air-gapped) PC running XP. I've even seen stuff running only on Win98 still in use, and I've seen software for rheometers that is STILL distributed on 3.5" floppies. And don't get me started on the "needs-crypto-usb-dongle-to-function" stuff - someone should really tell them that the $300k instrument is a sufficient protection against software piracy.
> it never makes sense to colonize, or even send long-term human presence to, any planet besides Earth

I don't know, establishing a second, independent biosphere is sound from a risk management standpoint.
I too would like to know the relevance. From a wiki article [1]

In general, Direct3D is designed to virtualize 3D hardware interfaces. Direct3D frees the game programmer from accommodating the graphics hardware. OpenGL, on the other hand, is designed to be a 3D hardware-accelerated rendering system that may be emulated in software. These two APIs are fundamentally designed under two separate modes of thought.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenGL_and_Direct...
Why Is Google Making Human Skin? [video]
Question to those with science backgrounds: Would it be possible to 'seed' venus with co2 crunching algae, provided we figured some way of suspending them in the atmosphere above the point where they'd cook to death? Some sort of superlight-algae that could live in the clouds and crunch the CO2 in to O2? It would grow and spread and begin reducing the pressure downwards, allowing it to also eat downwards.
Netflix traffic and some hypothetical future tech like Surgery-over-IP traffic should not be prioritized equally.
It’s Not “Publish or Perish” but Rather “Do Great Science”
> The gap in training and social groups above and below could mean that new automation technology causes sudden, large-scale unemployment.

This also scares me. I've often wondered, what will happen to people in a largely automated world (which could be reality in next 40-50 years). Will there be riots as employment will be unprecedented? Will it open new industries or entirely new period of creativity for humanity (e.g. industrial age giving birth to age of information)?

When we transitioned to industrial age, I believe people had similar concerns but somehow things worked out well. Can we repeat that?
Boring is not the next best thing... Some people are actually paid to do the thing they love...
I see this argument a lot but it seems specious to me - though anyone can voluntarily overpay their taxes, the lack of a guarantee that other taxpayers will similarly be contributing more means that my personal overcontribution will be meaningless to everyone but me.
Not sure full employment is any kind of worthy goal at all. How about: utopia, where we all have what we need and some of what we want, at no personal cost?
Only argument for Venus atmosphere is that it sucks much less than its surface. Any asteroid would be better place. Someone must really love Star Wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organi...
I think you are forgetting something there. Technology will create less and less need for workers and so the base for taxation through income tax will minimize substantially.

Further more the problem is that many of the types of companies we see in tech are actually capital intensive not salary intensive industries yet they extract a substantially larger part of the economy without giving anything back besides cheaper products.

Even out of self-interest corporations should be interested in paying for their advantage because if they loos the mass market who are they going to sell to?
Again, and not in a "hooray for me, sucks to be you" way, I have options to choose from. These options make it unlikely for Comcast to behave in that manner in my market. If they do, I may easily switch to another provider.

If they are forbidden from rate-limiting me, they still have many dimensions by which to potentially decrease my happiness with their service. If they are my only option and they are forbidden from rate-limiting me, then they are likely to change their behavior in a way I will not be happy about along one of those other axes.

If regulation must occur, then I would prefer to see it happen in a manner that increases rather than decreases my choices. Forbidding a certain pricing strategy does not increase my choices. If regulation must occur, then I'd like to see something along the lines required sale of excess infrastructure capacity. This could happen in terms of utility pole access (the majority of which are not owned by telecoms to my understanding[0]), or through sale of excess bandwidth in an ISP's network.

[0] This is based on my recollection of readings I have done in the past, no current links. The question then becomes if the poles are not owned by ISPs (in general - in some cases they are) then why can entrants to the market not lay their own lines? This would be viable in proportion to the size/density of the market.
>For my Masters degree project at uni I had a demo written in OpenGL with over 500 dynamic lights,

I don’t know what kind of 3D engine you wrote, but as a FPS gamer I have quite a bit of experience with 3D engines. From Doom 3 to Alan Wake, some of the worst performance hits occur in scenes with heavy use of dynamic lights. Did OpenGL 4/DX11 fix this?

Which of the modern APIs have you actually used? How do Mantle, DX12, Metal, and OpenGl Next compare?

EDIT: "as a non-3D graphics programmer, who's tried to build FPS levels for fun and familiar with all the modern engines". This article is for those of us with interest but not experts in the field, right?
Vaccine Opponents Can Be Immune to Education (2014)
Here Are Three HIPAA Safeguards You Need in Place When Making an App Today
I have been thinking about this exact thing for a while now.

With Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, the resource utilization of a business is simply an algorithm, which can use any number of APIs to return profit and grow the entity.

All of these APIs we are creating for various functions may soon replace us. Many APIs already do directly dispatch humans to do certain tasks. The scary part is that when someone is providing a service to you, they may not be aware of whether their superior is a human or an algorithm.

A minimum viable autonomous corporation could be a lemonade stand that is managed entirely by an algorithm; with virtual currency it can hire a person to set up a lemonade stand at a certain datetime, and take a cut of earnings. If sales are slow, it could hire someone to design a poster, and another to post them in the area; or even an analyst to decide what the best course of action is. Over time, with many locations and employees, it would be able to learn the best locations and conditions for optimal profit. Perhaps also deciding which employees to continue working with and which ones to fire.

These "management algorithms" would likely need to be developed by someone. But what if the algorithm hired the person to write the algorithms, updates, and performance tweaks?

There could be a bootstrap algorithm that is simply an idea (these could be automatically generated based on search trends, market fluctuations, etc). These seeds would be open to the public for investment with virtual currency (bitcoin could be used to allocate the cap table as well), the program would be able to hire talent to build out the idea, and the investors would receive dividends.

I see this evolving as a kickstarter for viral autonomous businesses. And I don't see why it couldn't be viable with today's technologies and APIs.
Apple to Issue $5B in Bonds
I am curious about how a programmer would skip programming and go into medicine, law, or finance. Does this entail going back and getting another degree?
I'm sure there's a business model that could work at some level, but RS is in such a big hole that they probably have to kill it and start over anyway.

One of the earlier HN articles mentioned how RS had an electronics repair biz at one point (maybe they still do). That seems like a good starting point, then cater to hard core hobbyists which would be the core of whatever clientele RS still has. It's just not a big enough business for a public company.

Personally I think it's a good idea. 50% of Radio Shack locations will be up for rent soon, so all you budding entrepreneurs out there, go find some seed money and open your hobbyist/enthusiast/maker supply store. Do electronics repair, repairing phone glass, all that kind of thing, then try to reconnect with the core market of people who love electronics. Make it like the neighborhood bike shop that all the cyclists come to to hang out at. That's how Radio Shack started out.