skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It turns out that the are just a simple syntactic transform that isn't powerful enough to express everything that coroutines can.

Sure, but at least with async/await you can reuse control flow structures from the original language, like for loops and try-catch. With promises you need to reimplement all of those as a library.
People don't need to trust science, they need to understand science. If you did never have time for educate yourself and develop a real critical sense, don't blame the other guys.
As I noted in a different comment, they don't even need to sue you. They can just "assert" that you've infringed on their patents.
Reading his actual post on the topic, it seems that he misunderstood (-stands) what evolution is. But he does so in ways that many, many people do, including many people who consider themselves scientifically literate on the topic.

What he's saying shows evolution is wrong is actually...evolution. It's more of a misunderstanding than a disbelief.

Evolution might be the science topic with the most people wrong in believing they understand it.

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/03/foss...
I don't think Valve will doing for longer time if the studios don't care.
My power outages here in Austin seem to be around a couple per year. I think my Internet outages (outside of those resulting from me not having power) are less frequent, though I don't have logs checking.

Now, my Internet being slow...that's not uncommon at all. I've also had them randomly charge me an extra $50 "by mistake", as well directly and repeatedly lying to me about what services/packages are available.

I'm in central Austin, and so ready for Google Fiber. My parents live out in the middle of nowhere, and Internet outages are quite common for them, easily exceeding power outages.
Reddit seems a bit without direction lately. Maybe they cannot make as much from their popularity as they expected.
Look at it this way:

People that want FCC to classify ISPs as a utility got what they want, and are pretty secure that things won't change, so they stopped making noise. People that don't want it didn't got what they want, and are at the last moments they can do something before it's definitive, so they are making a LOT of noise.
This reminds me of how a military contracts are assigned: Write a spec of what you need, and have companies bid to meet it. Unfortunately, if a company gets a good connection, they can just have the spec drafted in such a way that only that company could meet it. And thus, corruption.
I didn't say "should only teach". If your (obvious facetious, I know that) argument actually followed mine, it would say "A teacher only knows DOS, they would be most effective at teaching DOS". Which is true.
Its always bugging me to run my server deamon, with a full linux - inside a docker conainer on a full linux guest - on top of a hosting hypervisor - on bare metal.

Glad i am not alone
P2P Lending News-HackerNews for the Online Lending Space
Adams has a good point relating to alcohol, though. They haven't been unable to untangle correlation and causation. I used to be a "moderate drinker" until I developed (unrelated) health problems that mean taking medication every day. When I take my meds I can't drink. These health problems are statistically likely to end me sooner than most people.

So I'm likely going to be in the "doesn't drink dies earlier than average" column, but it has nothing to do with alcohol.
Reading between the lines, but I assume the author would agree on starting simple (feature A only), and only refine or add to that feature when the customer base dictates it. If one customer suggests feature B, another customer suggests features B and C and a third customer suggests features B and D, then perhaps it would be a good idea to starting looking at adding feature B or "pivoting" altogether to feature B.

And B may become more successful than A, but you never would have gotten there without first doing A really well.
NYC | Senior Software Engineer
NYC | Test Engineer Lead

Rocketrip is growing (fast) and could use your help.
We're hiring Senior Software Engineers and Senior Test Engineers to help us demystify the travel industry. Our platform provides incentives to employees to save money on business travel and as a result employees are enjoying rewards while companies are saving (a ton) on expenses.

Learn more about what we do here:
https://www.rocketrip.com/product/how-it-works

And browse our open positions here:
https://www.rocketrip.com/jobs

We're looking forward to working with you!

Rocketrip Team.
I believe most PC games are written against DirectX and XBox games obviously as well.
If you wanted to build a habitation on Mercury, you'd either build a mobile one that stays on the dark side of the planet, or you'd stay in always-shaded areas at the walls of craters. So you're shaded from the solar wind by rock.
Doesn't Visual Studio ship with full source code to it's C & C++ libraries?
Agreed, it's not like RS has any value other than it's store space. I'd probably ditch whatever procurement process they had for getting their tech anyways as I'm sure it's highly inefficient, lacking in product people want, and rife with corruption. Also the people that work at RS are next to worthless (IMHO in terms of helping build towards the vision jones1818 outlines, not worthless as people) for doing anything but trying to sell you a phone. There are of course exceptions to this but I agree with yesiamyourdad that you'd be better off starting from square one.
How much of a generation getting fat is attributable to institutionalised science versus people divesting responsibility for what and how much they eat and exercise?
They were talking about adding a jet to pump CO2 out of the atmosphere. Is there a chance you could direct the jet such that it intercepts Mars in a useful way?

Then you get to rebalance both the planets atmospheres at once.

However, Mars has pretty weak gravity so even if you could, I don't know if it would stick around.
Some companies write narrowly defined job requirements.
Clever (YC S12) is hiring full stack engineers in San Francisco to help improve K-12 education

At Clever, we’re building a distributed platform for educational software. Our API helps developers get their educational applications in front of millions of students, and it helps schools manage all their apps while keeping their students’ data secure - for free.

We’ve also experienced incredible growth: after only two years of existence, we’re moving data for 13 million students, and we’re in 1 in 5 schools in America (over 30,000 schools). We’ve just raised a $30M Series B, and we’re ready to expand even more rapidly.

Where you fit in:
We’re looking for full stack engineers: developers who are willing to work across the stack and have some kind of specialty, whether that’s product design, DevOps, databases, or system programming. Right now we’re a team of 47 people (20 engineers), and we work mostly in Node (Coffeescript), Go and Python.

Other stuff we like:

-Tech talks. Every other Tuesday, we do “Clever Talks” during lunch where one of us will give a presentation on anything he/she’s interested in. Recent talks have covered exoplanets, neuroscience, the history of hip-hop, hacking big-company customer service interactions, and what’s wrong with American high school history education.

-Bughouse chess. We play pretty frequently, although not always with Magnus Carlsen: http://screencast.com/t/xD7umWfo

-Picking up new skills. We offer unlimited Amazon credits for learning.

Check us out: https://clever.com/about/jobs

At Clever, we want to work with the best people - applicants of all backgrounds and beliefs are welcome to come improve education with us. We're committed to making our office a safe and comfortable environment for all employees.
5B reasons why coworking spaces work
Node.js is probably already included. I'm running that on my BeagleBone Black.
In the internet slump of 2004, a good salary was $120k/year.
In the internet boom of 2015, a good salary is $150k/year.

Adjusted for inflation, those are the same amount.

You can't explain that.
Wonder how Moo compares?
> What do you think we have now? A robust ecosystem of carriers?

No, not at all. I think we pretty much have a duopoly with the cable company (Comast+TW) and the phone company (AT&T) as the only realistic choices for the vast majority of consumers.

>Also, your post sounds a lot like you don't want Title II because you'll have to comply with regulations and you don't like the current system because instead of complying with regulations you found a loop hole and then the ISPs found a loop hole to throttle you. This whole post sounds like why it's bad for you and provides no reason why it would be bad for the vast majority of people.

If that is what it sounds like I'm sorry because that was not what I wanted to convey. I wanted to convey that Title II regulation may solve the net neutrality issue in the short term, but may set a framework and precedent that will subject all ISPs (and the Internet) to other harmful regulations which could ensure we never move beyond the duopoly we have now. Remember cable companies and AT&T are masters of guiding agency regulation and state laws (see for example the state laws banning municipal fiber projects). They are probably going to lose this round because of the public outcry and their outrageous behavior regarding net neutrality, but we should be very weary of what they will be able to do with the new regulatory framework.

I don't have anything to do with the VOIP company anymore, my only skin in the game is as a ISP customer whose only choices are Time Warner and AT&T for internet access, both of which offer what I consider crappy service and speeds.
Although I actually spent several months and a bit of money looking to put together a local fiber ISP in my area, but in the end shelved (or put on hold) the plans due to a (mostly state/municipal) regulatory environment that was heavily tilted in favor of incumbent companies who were cable cos or telcos.
Google donates $775,000 in grants to Code2040 to improve diversity in tech
>If nothing else it would be completely different than exploring Mars

Which is likely why it hasn't been done. If it's something completely different, it takes more time and money to get it working. Starting from nothing, exploring Mars and exploring Venus might both cost $100b. But if the research has already been done to research Mars exploration, sending another probe there might only cost $2b, whereas Venus still costs $100b.
Instead of waiting for the unions, startups usually just drop the degree requirement.
He also wrote a book. You might find it interesting.

http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/
Isn't the goal to make it homogeneous?
No, Mercury actually has a magnetosphere. I don't know about what kinds of protection you would need to get there though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mercury
> If someone wants to pour over tens of thousands of press releases, do some light fact-checking on them, discard the ones that are just obviously crazy or unimportant, and sort them by topic, maybe get a bit of context on them or flesh them out a little, then that strikes me as pretty useful.

That's what a wire service does.
Your disadvantage 1 is the result of a failure of imagination. The vast majority of life on Earth is built from nothing but carbon, oxygen,nitrogen, hydrogen, etc., and human life requires not much else. We could easily subsist on just these elements.
Uber hired 50 scientists from Carnegie Mellon to build self driving cars
Open Source at the Front of the Class
See siblings for thoughts on California. Deregulation can be done poorly or well. For a counter-anecdote, see the story of Southwest, an airline started with solely intrastate routes, which kept it from FAA regulation and allowed it to compete on price in a way that other airlines couldn't. It now carries the most domestic passengers[0], is highly rated for customer service, and has posted >40 straight profitable years (including the span of the most recent recession)[1]. FAA regulation was considered necessary due to the high fixed costs associated with operating an airline.

I am fully aware of the concept of a natural monopoly (econ major here), but the fact is that the majority of cable providers were granted exclusive franchises by municipalities. You may object to the source, but I am at work and don't have time to track down other support for this statement. Hopefully we can both accept the facts even if you object to the reasoning[3]. The article is talking about cable television, but since the incumbent ISPs are the same firms as the cable television providers, I hope you can agree that the analysis, regardless of your agreement or disagreement, is at least relevant.

Finally, there are many areas with multiple cable companies/ISPs (I live in one, and recently moved from an area where Verizon made a large FiOS investment and is competing very effectively with TWC - I do know that they've put a stop to expansion on FiOS). It is clearly possible to see competition in this area. The fact that many/most municipalities offered exclusive franchises and that we now see many monopolies in this area is only proof that many people _believed_ cable service to be a natural monopoly, not that it is. The fact that we see areas with competition in this sector is a strong piece of evidence that natural monopoly is not the case.

[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines
[1]http://southwest.investorroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1975
[2]http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa034.html
My guess would be that NASA hasn't done this because they feel like they have the traditional "lander" or "descent" type of probe worked out. They've done the engineering, they know the difficulties involved. What you're suggesting requires more expensive R&D, and means that the new probe has more chance of failing.

The conservative thing to do is to stick with what works. I do think you're right that the conditions are very different from Mars and this makes it possible to explore alternative approaches that may be better suited to the planet. I also believe that innovation entails some degree of risk taking. Just gotta get SpaceX onboard.
>Threads is a limited resource. Threads are expensive to create and dispose. Context switches are espensive.

There is absolutely no reason they have to be. If you have an async callback API, you can plaster over it with green threads and they are very cheap, and don't have to involve any new context switches.

>Threads must be synchronized. Threads can have race conditions.

You don't have to allow your threads to run concurrently just because you added threads.
Let's not forget that political sock puppet accounts are on basically every social media site these days.
Indeed. But perhaps enough to write an (incomplete?) open source driver?
no even that's too high - your ISP shouldn't be dealing with UDP or TCP (or anything else) - they should route IP packets and be done with it
And here is where the general population's mistrust in science makes us dig our own graves. You have all sorts of movements, from lobbies to NIMBYs to "environmentalist" organizations blocking transition to sustainable energy. And sadly, I just can't imagine a modern democracy really committing to an infrastructure project as big as rebuilding the power grid. We need more Elon Musks, who will push the right solutions in spite of the market, and in spite of what people say.
js-csp enables go-like concurrency in javascript:
https://github.com/ubolonton/js-csp
Patriots Used to Be Skeptical of the Military
> You can devote your attention to whatever else you like

This is key. Also this:

> Beats the heck out of being told what to think

A very repetitive job with no one talking to you is not that bad, because you're free to think, dream, rehash some old story you heard, etc.

Watching TV is the opposite of that, BTW, for that very reason (the whole purpose of TV is telling you what to think... and what not to think).
Can you support that argument with evidence?
Drive Facebook
>Honestly, probably the realistic view is that it never makes sense to colonize, or even send long-term human presence to, any planet besides Earth.

I think it could make sense when we have robots that are able to mine material and construct habitats without requiring human supervision. Just build the robots, drop them off on Venus, Mars, etc, then come back in 30 years and sell condos.
Note that "hydrogen" lists among your rather crucial elements necessary for life, and does not feature in Venus' atmosphere in significant quantities.

And, more so, while human life per se requires very small amounts of non-carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen elements, human technology requires very large amounts of non-carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen elements.
This is a great point, well said and does not deserve a single downvote. The problem is that you disagreed with the primary constituency of nix lovers around here. It should not be done on a highly visible thread if you value your karma.

Offering free software is only a crime when Microsoft does it. I find it laughable that these people typically support new tech, they back all sorts of non-open source projects and questionable schemes like growth-hacking when it suits them, but when it comes to Microsoft they just love to hate. (EDIT: I personally don't give a hoot, so downvote away Micro$oft haters ;)
For one thing, Google isn't fully back in China. They are putting together an ecosystem together with local partners, but Microsoft never left China. That's a big enough market to justify OEMs using Office on Android.
Could someone weigh in on the following quote? Sounds fishy / wrong to me:

To put this in perspective, a balloon that is one kilometer in diameter is capable of lifting about 700,000 tons, or the weight of two Empire State Buildings. Add a second balloon of the same size and the lift capacity of these two balloons increases exponentially: it’s now capable of supporting nearly 6 million tons of weight.
Thanks for the comment - that's excellent advice for anyone making a game.

I've intentionally kept the scope of this project very, very limited to make sure it's easily completable; the art is just simple blocks and the level design is taken directly from the Wikipedia article on the game I'm cloning. For me, this primarily an exercise in working on my technical writing and getting practice writing assembly language.

Glad you're enjoying the nostalgia of this as much as I am.
What the heck are you talking about?

Those two links seem to contradict your point that tap water isn't "clean" since they point out that it is, in fact, very clean.

I come from a country where that is not the case and water had to be boiled before you could consume it. Oh yeah, and it wasn't fluoridated so I had multiple teeth rot away before I was 10 years old (luckily I moved to Canada before most of my adult teeth really started growing).

I'm also really curious where you get your water since most bottled water comes from "municipal sources" (i.e. it's tap water).
Venus is almost as big as Earth. Any asteroid is much, much smaller. So the amount of atmosphere you would remove would almost certainly be minute.
>build them on multiple threads

That was the point of the blog post. Maybe described wrong, but that seems to be the point. The possibility of uploading stuff to the GPU on multiple threads on both CPU side, and the ability of the GPU to store those uploads in parallel. Maybe even render shadow-maps in parallel?

I wonder is there already the OpenGL equivalent of this? One of the main hurdles of OGL was issuing all the calls from the main thread, if that is gone now, that would be awesome.
If the pay-for-use you mean is "data caps", I think the reason a lot of people are fully against the idea is because historically they've been unreasonable. Like if your water was charged at a dollar a gallon. Because there's just one provider.

To continue the analogy, people had "unlimited" water before, and they might use 10, or 100, or 400 gallons in a month, they're not really sure. And then TWC applies a cap of 60 gallons and wants double the money if you want 100 gallons. If you hit 200 gallons before for some reason, forget it. No one in your area is offering you that.

So people said "what's this caps, screw caps, no more caps!" because they were crazy caps, and you couldn't just pay a roughly linear rate for more data.

Comcast used to have a 250GB cap, which is more reasonable. But it's flat, for all consumer tiers. And you can't pay less for 100GB or a bit more for 270GB.

And various companies at various times have had "unofficial" caps.

I think pay-per-gig-used could be reasonable, but I understand why many people are dead against it, so far it's only been a way to screw them.
Graduate degree sure.

At least one of my classmates I graduated with (EE) is now a physician. A former (CS) co-worker went on to get an MBA and a Wall St job last time I talked to him and another friend left the software field to become a financial planner. Another got a JD with the intent of specializing in IP law and becoming a patent attorney.

For quite a while, the people I knew who made the most money were techies with MBAs.
I'm running a 15 year old company in the Valley and have been a programmer here since 1987.

I do salary research each year to figure out what people are making so I can make sure I'd doing right by my people. I tend to focus on the .1% (point one percent) because my people are very skilled in their domain and I want to keep them.

What's interesting to me is that there used to be a glass ceiling for salaries for programmers. It moved with inflation but it was very apparent (to me at least). When I was a programmer at Sun (1988-1994 or so) the ceiling was in the $130K area.

If you wanted to make more than that you needed to go into management.

That seems to have gone away. When I checked this year for total [1] comp package I found that it appears to be about $325K. Remember, this is the .1%, these are people that google and apple and facebook and netflix all know by reputation and they all compete for the same person.

I dunno what a director makes these days but I'd guess that it is in the $300-400K range. The fact that an engineer, with no management duties, can make what a director makes is a relatively new thing. That didn't happen 20 years ago.

To try and more directly answer your question, if you don't get the payout (and I would bet that at least 95% of programmers don't, there is
a reason I go by "luckydude") then it is super hard to maintain a decent lifestyle on a single salary. I've got a guy working for me, I pay over market, he still struggles to make ends meet. He could make it easier on himself by living in a cheaper area but he has two kids, wants good schools, good schools are most of what drives housing prices.

Too long; don't read: no kids means you can have fun, kids means you need two salaries.

[1] Total comp: salary, bonuses, healthcare, 401K match. Salary != comp. Many, many people look at only salary. We pay full healthcare for the whole family, that's $30K or more per year for a family of 4. We dump as much as we can into 401K each year, that can be another $30K or more. Etc. Total comp is all of that.
App Costs You Can and Cannot Control
Don't all verbs use have as the auxiliary in the present perfect tense? As such I am enthused would not be an intransitive verb, but either a nominal predicate or a passive verbal predicate. A correct intransitive form would be "I've enthused about going to Disneyland".

In the first case enthused should be replaced by enthusiastic, which is the correct adjective, in the second case you would use by rather than about as a preposition for the agent. Correct?