skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have a pet theory that half the reason that the public bought the overly simplistic theory that fats are bad is due to the collision in English between the word "fat" as a type of substance, and the common use of the word "fat" as a pejorative adjective.

This has even affected some of my family members for whom English is a second language, but who learned both meanings of the word simultaneously in the 80s in the US. Some of them can't separate the concepts, no matter how hard I try to explain to them that they are mostly unrelated.

EDIT: wording
I agree with the general sentiment of this post but I don't think a polymath is necessarily one who is an 'expert' in multiple fields. It isn't as much about the learning and mastery as it is about the interconnections between disciplines.

I think of a polymath as one who is able to gain a level of expertise and understanding across several disciplines. The polymath then uses that knowledge to generate new insights and interesting innovations or even new fields of study between and across disciplines.

Check out the book 'Mastery' which is -- as you might guess -- about the process to attaining mastery in any subject. It delves into the history of the 'great masters' including Michaelangelo etc and discusses how they utilized cross-discipline thinking to take each of their crafts to new levels. Very cool stuff.
I'd argue that most human diet and fitness results aren't even 'science', simply because you can't treat humans like lab rats.

The "experiments" we do are extremely limited in scope, and thus the results are limited in scope. Sadly, the authority of "science" combined with the desire to do something grand means that a lot of marginal, limited results get turned into authoritative broad headlines. ("Scientists say eggs bad^Hgood^Hbad")
The article claims this is not true and the author has a good reputation. I've not looked at the OpenSSL code, but if the author has written an isomorphic example, then there no over read. Is the article incorrect?
Suggested reading: How To Ride Your Bike All Winter – And Love it by Mr. Money Mustache

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/11/03/how-to-ride-your-b...
I like the point made. I also think he touched upon another point that needs fixing with the comment of "winged monkeys in the media".

Mainstream news is broken. Sure its possible to dig up a good/factually accurate/balanced perspective story in some of the less visited corners of the internet. But news mainly serves to validate someones politics more than real reporting. This needs to change so that the media can earn back some credibility as well.
The problem with the "science" around food and fitness is that there is an underlying assumption that is wrong, and that assumption is this: There are things that are inherently good for us.

Nothing belongs anywhere, and nothing exists on purpose. Nothing is "designed" for us. So many diets and fitness fads tap into this idea of what is "natural" and try to implicate that there are certain things we are supposed to do. That the human body is "designed" to consume certain things in certain proportions. When you think about it for a second it becomes obvious that this is patently wrong.

Everyone is different. Everyone is going to be genetically predisposed to certain conditions as a result of consuming certain things. There are some things we all have in common (basic need for certain vitamins and minerals), and there are certain things we know are bad for us. Our natural evolution has lead to the current state of things, but our consumption habits, behavior and understanding have now surpassed our natural evolution. Even when we try to get back to our most primal it doesn't make sense, because even humans running around 50,000 years ago eating berries weren't "designed" to do that. They simply didn't die as a result of doing it before reaching sexual maturity.

We need to stop thinking about food as being good for us, as if we are going to find some magic diet that works for everyone. It's never going to happen. Our understanding of genetics and the human genome may lead us to a point in the future were we have a better understanding of how our individual genetics are affected by different foods—and we can synthesize substance or specific diets that are optimal for each individual—but we will never reach a state where we "figure it out." Why? Because there exists no correct answer.
Not sure where the author got "redditcoin" but here's what we're actually doing with redditnotes (I said the same thing to fortune when this rumor first arose):

We will be issuing redditnotes.

Our research leads us to want to wait until the law and technology around cryptocurrency are further along before deciding exactly how. We want to make sure we can give the community the full value of the equity when they receive it in the future, and today we haven’t been able to find a way to do that within existing regulations.

Edit: here's the last official blog post on the subject.
http://www.redditblog.com/2014/12/announcing-reddit-notes.ht...
We were not contacted by this guardian reporter didn't contact us for comment. So it goes.
Here's a thought I wrote on HN five years ago [some typos fixed]:

"Imagine an engineer who normally comes to work in jeans and a t-shirt. One day the boss says "I want you to present your product tomorrow. Here's the address." So the engineer cobbles together a demo, dresses up in his khakis and a polo shirt, and shows up to present... at a nationally-televised, black-tie event. That's analogous to the situation in which climate scientists now find themselves.

For the most part, climate scientists are doing normal science, and thinking in terms of presenting their work to other scientists. But their work has become the centerpiece for huge global initiatives with large economic, environmental, and political impacts. This means their results, methods, and even personalities are being subject to an unusual degree of criticism (some valid, some not.)"

This creates a credibility gap. The science they're doing is perfectly acceptable in the "getting less wrong all the time" sense, but not really acceptable in the "we have a completely proven solution" sense.

We've all heard "science ... it works, bitches". Yeah, science works and planes fly -- but individual scientists will tell you it's more like http://www.twisteddoodles.com/image/86414780702 or https://electroncafe.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/scientific-pro... . Loads and loads of uncertainty, repeating experiments, interpreting results, criticism from other scientists, and then eventually you get something that improves on pre-existing ideas by a small amount. So the emphasis on the "planes fly" kind of science ends up increasing the credibility gap for the sort of ordinary science done by most scientists, because most science doesn't have flashy "now we have airplanes" type results.

Then there's the problem of science being presented by polarizing figures rather than scientists, and often being tied to specific policy recommendations that aren't actually all that closely tied to the science. Politicians are both overconfident in the science, and overconfident in their favored solutions.

So people end up buying anti-vaxx BS, even though that's an area where the science works in the "airplanes fly" sense. The data is overwhelmingly in favor of vaccinating for things like measles. But if people can't tell the difference between that kind of science and Al Gore saying "we need cap and trade" or some guy on TV selling nutritional supplements who uses the word "science" 12 times per minute in his infomercial, they'll have a hard time trusting even the best science.
That's true.

It's also true that diet et al. are actually hard problems. We're dealing here with complex systems. It's not easy to find optimal answers, assuming such answers even exist.
Not just a variable thing, also a time scale thing.

I put my hand in a fire, I get a burn right away. Pretty easy to know what happened. Sure there were many variables. My shoes, my pants, the weather.. but pretty clear.

Drinking a drink a day may do something good. May do something bad. But both those events happen in 20 years. Holy crap that is hard to tell! (but yes, partially because it mixes with many variables).

There is also a part of science of "we all WANT what makes us happy to be deemed healthy!". Decision affirmation rocks! So if there are 4 studies that say a drink a day is bad for you, and 2 that say a drink a day is good - which makes the newspaper? Coffee, chocolate, alcohol - all things people love, and all affirmed by at least SOME studies out there. Awesome!
Perhaps. Having been there at the time, OS/2 was killed by linux. So... you're not going to run this new windows95 thing, eh? Then why bother running OS/2 when there's linux?
6to5 compiles ES7 too?
Docker Q&A for Windows Users
Spidermouth the Night Clown will stay with me for years.
In our times, being good at things is not enough anymore. You have to be a 'specialist' and in some cases, chief specialist, and you can only be one, if you have dedicated yourself to it 'solely'.

Jack of all trades and master of none. will only leave you among the mediocre. It is easy to be good at multiple things, but as I said, almost everyone is good at a lot things. But a Few are the real class.
How do you return a result (this function isn't doing so)? I'm guessing getJSON could be returning a Promise but there must be a way to do the same in an async function.

EDIT, here's the spec, looks like you can just return: https://github.com/lukehoban/ecmascript-asyncawait
I'm not sold two-way binding tools get inherently complicated, I just haven't seen this increase in complexity in our current app which is quite large. But I am attracted to react for the reasons you mention, the virtual DOM aspect is very nice so I'll give this a shot.

Although even though ReactLink works it a.) feels like quite the hack (i.e. not very composable) and b.) is a more code to maintain still when it comes down to it.
I don't quite understand this argument. I certainly agree that front-running of the kind you describe would make someone a lot of money. This is one of the reasons that being a NYSE specialist was hugely profitable back in the pre-electronic era. I'm making the statement that this sort of thing is in fact no longer possible on on any U.S equities exchange.
Maybe the fact that a pill is needed to balance out a given diet, shows that you are using a given diet that the human body is not meant to sustain?
I put perks 2nd as I think about it myself as more a progression up the pyramid...

Ah well, at least the outcome of being selfish ends up with a good result!
In addition to what others have said, the C1 isn't actually more powerful than the RPi2. They should perform about the same in terms of CPU. The main thing the C1 has over it is the GbE port.
I have a simple criterion for a summary judgement of the reliability of results:

a) Is the data made available?
b) Is it a Bayesian analysis?
c) Has a power study been offered?

As a statistician, I have a keen awareness of the ways that p-values can depart from truth. You can see Optimizely's effort to cope (https://www.optimizely.com/statistics). You can read about it in The Cult of Statistical Significance (http://www.amazon.com/The-Cult-Statistical-Significance-Econ...). This Economist video captures it solidly (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/10/daily-c...).

The key component missing is a bias towards positive results. Most scientists only have two statistics classes. In these classes they learn a number of statistical tests, but much less how things can go wrong. Classic, "just enough to be dangerous."

In order to cope, I have a personal set of criteria to make a quick first sort of papers. It's a personal heuristic for quality. I assume some degree of belief (Bayes, FTW!) that those that offer the full data set along side conclusions feel confident in their own analysis. Also, if they're using Bayesian methods, that they've had more than two stats classes. Finally, if they do choose Frequentist methods, a power study tells me that they understand the important finite nature of data in the context of asymptotic models / assumptions.

I'd suspect that other statisticians feel this way, because I've heard that privately --- what do you think of my criteria?
This is a pretty terrible post. Science didn't kick people in the balls for 20 years, the media did. The media pushed bogus results of bogus studies on people, and overstates the case that "X is because of Y" on real studies who do not make such strong claims themselves.

The media is responsible for people's distrust of science, because not only do they push bogus claims, but they also push FUD as well. Particularly oil and coal industry anti-climate change FUD for the past 20 years. That is precisely why people doubt the scientific fact of global warming.

And yes I would prefer to live in a world where people defer to experts. It's great that people have "pattern recognition" but trusting your own half-assed judgment on an issue where there are experts who have studied something for 30 years is not "pattern recognition", it's hubris.
What if your startup's product is a Wallet Ninja?
How to Renew Your Business Like a Rampaging Zombie
I really like Scott Adams, but I think he failed utterly on this post.

The problem is media. News programming is constantly looking for something to breathlessly report, and is delighted to find one or more so-called experts who will loudly extol / lambaste the latest findings.

If you look at the leading causes of death, understand your own history and risks, and follow the advice of credible doctors, you'll be doing great. Most of us don't do that, and then we scramble for fix-alls.

It's these silver-bullet, "all-x-is-bad, all-y-is-good, z-causes-cancer, w-cures-cancer," reports that are jerking your chain.
The bigger point is re-investment in to the scientific infrastructure - in spite of its inefficiencies feds seem to be doing an OK job but are cash constrained. On the other hand big profitable tech companies in spite of lots of cash are still playing the game of paying less for taxes and other financial engineering tricks and are doing basic minimum (which they are entitled to). One may say, its not their job, which is absolutely true. But the outcome here we want is, better investments into the scientific infrastructure so the US remains the dominant player for foreseeable future and that would not be possible with a massive companies sitting on tons of cash and who are unwilling to make investments in to the future because of the perceived "volatility".
It means someone could in theory create a vertically integrated alternative to the entire field of medicine rebooted from the ground up with more modern understandings of things like statistics (e.g. Bayesianism) and more efficient bureaucratic constructs, and it'd probably be considerably better than what we have.

I say in theory because this would cost a rather large fortune and would probably be illegal in most nations, so it's not likely to actually happen.
How to Setup a JMH Benchmark + HEALTH WARNING
What if the 70's science is right and current thought is wrong? There is no way to know! Argghghggh!
CodeHS - San Francisco - Full Time - Curriculum Engineer

Want to help change the face of computer science education around the world?Join the CodeHS team as a curriculum engineer. As a curriculum engineer, you’ll be responsible for helping to create curriculum and build the tools around it. You’ll be responsible for projects from end-to-end: You’ll make the videos, the exercises, the lessons, the quizzes, write the autograders, and build tools to make it all work better.

We’re planning to make courses for the high school level and beyond, so extensive familiarity with many programming languages and web development is required. You are someone who could be or already is a professional engineer, but really wants to write curriculum too.

You like to bring creativity to your job every day, and likely have experience teaching programming, either at the high school or college level. You will have creative freedom to create the best possible learning experience for students.

Why should you work at CodeHS specifically? We are a small team working on a big problem. We already have a program that students and teachers really love, and we’re making it better every day. You’ll have an opportunity to make a big impact on education. Thousands of students will take your courses.

A few more details: We work in SOMA, near lots of public transportation, get lunch every day, provide health benefits, and have great team activities like a monthly hackathon and weekly team recess.

If this sounds like a role you’d be interested in please apply at codehs.recruiterbox.com.

We are hiring for other positions as well.
I think they were just trying the emphasize the giant scale of the operation. I feel like the average reader would associate x-rays with the machines found at hospitals. The synchrotron, of course, is a vastly different machine.
FIRED Employee fired from Golden Corral for telling maanger food is unsafe
I think you're probably overestimating the difference. Here is an algorithm for mechanically transforming a C function call to a Haskell function call:

for all arguments in the function
if the argument is not a symbol surround it with parentheses
delete all commas
delete the two initial parentheses

And an algorithm for converting Haskell calls to C calls:

put an open parenthesis between the first expression and second expression
put a close parenthesis at the end of the expression
put commas between all expressions between these two parentheses

The fact that it's so easy to convert between them highlights to me that they are both pretty easy.
That's because you're unfortunately incorrect. There is a thing called capital-s Science, distinct from lowercase-s science. The former is a religion, just like you said, and the latter is merely an updating empirical process. The former is what Scott Adams and most other people discussing the article are talking about, and the latter is, hundreds of years later, so banal that it doesn't merit discussion.
The Germans did not have plea bargains for quite a while: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...

They do now, but I think it's still different from our system: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol34/iss2/5/

Their court system, however, has some fundamental differences from ours.
But it is not constant. It was much faster long ago. So there must be shome mishake.
Sounds like Van Eck phreaking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking
Is io.js production ready yet?
I think that this is deeply wrong. "The Media" is a popular punching bag, but the media largely repeats what large institutions tells it. Journalists don't (for the most part) have the skills necessary to dive deep into scientific literature.

For every big "scientific" view that has an agenda behind it that either vastly overreaches the available research or lags decades behind the available research, you can generally point a finger at one or more corporations, government agencies, or not-for-profits.

GMO fearmongering? Largely environmentalist NFPs.

Breast cancer overdiagnosis? Largely cancer fundraising NFPs.

Nutritional science? Largely the government.

Let's tell pregnant women to live in a thick cocoon of craziness? Medical insurers.

And so forth.
I subscribed to Men's Health for over 5 years. I read every issue and many times headlines would contradict one another. Many of the headlines were based on studies from what felt like arbitrary Universities or Research Centers. It's pretty much the equivalent of click bait. When you read past the big letters and highlighted sections you see clearly that the studies aren't scientific at all. Their sample size is always too small or they always leave out important human factors or they leave out the middle man of cause and effect. When it comes to diet and nutrition I most definitely see a lot of bad science out there.
If no one says anything, then is there any motivation for it to get any better? Is the article is totally wrong or can it be translated into a problem statement whose solution is an improvement? IMO, it is equivalent to a user complaint about a software product. Possibly science researchers would not be the ones to solve the problem, but rather science journalists (I don't know). But still, if the public devalues the results of scientific research due to lack of confidence then that could conceivably result in less funding for scientific endeavors and less scientific progress.
There are a few comments here and directly at the article which mention the concept of a balanced work area, with open spaces as well as private spaces. So far, nobody has given an example of this.

I happen to work in a balanced office. Our desks are all located in a former warehouse. We're all mostly developers in my area here. There's a culture of ambient noise and conversations, frequent interruptions for collaboration, etc ... all WITHIN the warehouse area.

HOWEVER, we also have dozens of small phone booth (one person) rooms where people can go to take calls or work independently PLUS dozens of 4-6 person collaboration rooms PLUS adequate meeting rooms for larger groups PLUS a couple quiet rooms where anything louder than typing is heavily frowned upon PLUS a reasonable work-from-home policy when employees require it.

Yes, this is Enterprise (so not that exciting, but they can afford to provide such a location). Yes, there are tradeoffs (you are still expected to be in the office a reasonable amount of time, dependent on your individual manager and management chain; sometimes the warehouse noise is pretty distracting; etc). Given all that COULD go wrong here, I have been pleasantly surprised by how RIGHT this company has gotten it. A good chunk of this has been the work culture allowing employees to adapt the available space to what is needed for each individual team.

I'm sorry so many of you have experienced the horrible implementations of open office. I've been there previously. I only hope that more companies see wisdom in mixed and balanced work environments in the future.
And since people were able to recover SSL keys, does this not mean that this buffer was used for... everything? Having a non zeroing allocator for an entire library seems rather ambitious. It's significantly worse then just having a buffer pool for, say, incoming packets or something.
An exceedingly large number of people distrust science not because they've been paying attention to it, but because someone told them to distrust it. They couldn't care less about the rigor behind the science if it differs from their own worldview. We have an enormous problem of flat out science rejection in the US for no other reason than politics and religion.
No, actually, trans-fat heavy vegetable-based fat products were invented for cost reasons around three-quarters of a century before saturated fat concerns began, and saw a big upswing in popularity in the early post-WWII period more than a decade before the research indicating that saturated fats were potentially a heart-health risk factor.

Its true that once the health concerns about saturated fats first started appearing, the marketing of margarine and related products leveraged it to imply that there product was more healthy, but that's not why those products were invented.
IoT Developer's Journal – Issue #2