skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If your sanity check in your load balancer passes only on a 200, it will fail on a 500, disable the host, and keep retrying until it gets a 200 again. It helps for there to be more than one single request to try in your sanity check.

For "random" requests, if you have a 500 response, requests of the same "type" should not longer be sent to that host. This can be changed based on scoreboard settings. Depending on the context, you may choose to serve cached content on 500s. This is one of the reasons multiple layers of cache and application intelligence is so handy.

I'm not underselling anything. Domain-specific knowledge comes with experience. If you ask a mechanical engineer 'What's wrong with my car if it makes the noise "bang-sputz-sputz-screech-screech-screech?"', the engineer will start making you lists of what parts can make each of those noises and begin cross-referencing to see maybe in what conditions a combination of those might happen. The mechanic will immediately tell you that for your 1991 Mercury Sable, the A/F mixture is off, the MAF sensor needs cleaning, the radiator has a crack and the accessory belt needs replacing. Sysadmin is a trade, not a skill.
10 fancy zsh tricks you may not know
How is it a great convention? I'm not trying to be contentious, however I am not sure how that is superior to underlining a link, which is a fairly ubiquitous convention. It seems overly cumbersome. It made me think though that perhaps a superscript would serve the same purpose and be less intrusive.
It's useful to point it out in tech because in tech, we believe that we operate with the purity of egalitarianism.

But real life is more complicated and messy.
My favorite writing tool of all time is, without a question in my mind, LyX.

It manages to find the perfect balance of minimal barriers to productivity, absolute power when I need it, and seriously professional grade results. It's like writing with iAWriter or similar tools, except I still have some basic structural options in the interface, and the end result generated is downright professional grade.

I think the "WYSIWYM" approach that LyX takes on, combined with the power of LaTeX underneath and the powerful customization possibilities that brings, kinda makes it a silver bullet for a writer in my book.
Unless you're PGP'ing everything that comes and goes from your mailbox, you have Z E R O guaranteed security. Sure your mail server host may claim that they are hosting only, but you can never be sure that an employee has not gone rouge. What if the host decides to start monitoring your mail server upstream?

Host the server at home instead? Well do you trust your ISP? I imagine you don't.

Trust along the entire transit of the message, as well as the final destination? Can't there either.

So in the end it doesn't matter if there's yet another service in the middle. API or host or anything. If you're not encrypting it locally it doesn't matter. Period. The only point you can sell on is you are removing a service that can cause a point of failure. But don't act like it's more secure than before.
Three product marketing lessons from the failure of Google Glass
>Accept that you need to put in some effort. Not much, don't worry. Most of it is shutting up.

Disgusting.
The main thing I'm looking for is automatic segregation in between Outlook and Gmail. I'd like 1 more bucket in Outlook so that other splits between sorta important and not important. Gmail segregates by type which is not always the best proxy for importance.

I'd like a Focused bucket which is senders I know, replies to me emails and otherwise important stuff (important enough that I want the iOS notification). The middle bucket is stuff I occasionally open. The third bucket is stuff I haven't unsubscribed to yet for whatever reason.
but there is no way with FreeBSD, like there is with
Debian, to say “never even show me packages that aren’t
DFSG-free.”

I would be very surprised to discover non-free software in FreeBSD's binary package repository. However, if this is a concern, one needs to set LICENSES_REJECTED in /etc/make.conf, at which point FreeBSD Ports will not build anything with a license that matches. If a company's concerned about the licenses of the binary packages provided by FreeBSD, it could simply set up its own internal binary package repository using poudriere, and use poudriere to filter out software with the unwanted licenses.

See /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.licenses.mk (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports/mast...) for the gory details.
How I do it is play with the system as a user first, and think of small stuff to change. It might be real features or bugfixes, but at this stage, it's often thowaways like "make that button report the current frommet count", or "add a new token to the file format", etc.. small changes that require communicating from disparate parts of the system or require touching deeply buried parts of the codebase are best. Often in a large codebase trivial changes can be quite hard to track down. The act of digging through and finding and making these changes give me an overall map of the codebase.

Fixing bugs is a great way to do this. If I'm new to a project, I will spend a few days just going through the bug backlog if I can. Half the time (at least) the bugs are not even real, no longer applicable or otherwise non-fixable, but just tracking that down is useful (and it feels good to close tickets)

Also, learning quickly what parts of the codebase you can simply ignore and treat as a black box, and where you need to change.
> Now, of course he has to pay for his own gas and wear and tear on his car, but he did not feel exploited.

Contract law is funny. In a perfect world, anybody should be able to make a contract with anybody else to perform a legal act for them. But the world isn't perfect. You have to take into account that the contract you just made might well be replicated hundreds, thousands, or millions of times, in countless different contexts.

Sex is legal. Forming a contract involving sex is not. Even if nine times out of ten, it's perfectly fine, that would generate huge social costs. It's why gambling is so controversial and tends to be relegated to a select few adult playgrounds that are set up to handle those costs.

Labor laws came into force awhile back to reduce the risks of employment. Before labor laws, if you got hurt on a job, it had the very real potential of ruining your life. Your employer would not pay for your care, you'd be fired, even if it was no fault of your own. And managers were often ruthless about coercing employees into performing dangerous tasks with no safety protocols. Labor laws protect you against yourself, no one should be exposed to some risks even if it means putting more food on the table.
Iraq is close to being governed by Islamic State. I'm not sure it is a good definition of "winning" either. Sounds more like US won the match, but lost the game.
I wasn't sure. At first I would have assumed there to be a small but significant difference. The difference in hormones should create distinct environments so a bacterium that can take advantage of that difference would be more likely to occur in one sex than the other. Probably the male as female is the default sex. (Is there any species that starts as male?)

What this tells me is that animals are conservative with their hormones. Allowing arbitrary proteins to seep into our gut would be wasteful.

There's also that if we allowed bacteria to be affected by our sex hormones, that would also make our reproduction susceptible to alteration by those bacteria. Natural selection cuts the finest when it comes to the genes involved in procreation. So it should be rare to find a symbiotic organism with a sex organ. Viral organisms of course don't care if the host dies, or can't have babies.
There's no way that "8GB max" is an Ultrabook requirement.
First world problem !

Yes, it is like trying to drink from a firehose. I find that the only solution is to skim the headlines and only read what is relevant to my work and immediate interests. Just have to accept that I will never read or know everything.
Show HN: A Better Reader View for Apple Mobile Safari
You seem certain that that you know exactly what the problem is, and exactly how to solve it, down to a list of steps. You even seem certain that a stranger on the Internet is part of the problem. Well, give me a break -- that's really presumptuous and condescending. Listening to the aggrieved seems like a good idea, but there's no guarantee that they have the answers.
I'm confused. Isn't the JetBrains IDE a gui? How can it be the best you've ever seen and impossible to sanely do merges?

FWIW, I've only ever done git merges in a gui, and never had any difficulty with it.
Yes, even with correctly generated keys if you perform DSA signatures with a broken RNG you risk reusing a k value which will leak your private key.
I'm not sure if the author was trying to replicate list comprehension or model an ORM. If it's the later - I can imagine much simpler designs[1]

[1] - http://i.imgur.com/PseeKH2.png
I don't know much about how SO works but your query got truncated to:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/lang

It didn't seem particularly useful for such a question. I could see why the poster might be tempted to ask.

Perhaps there is a particular way that SO should be searched? The recursive irony is both amusing and annoying: doing a google search, coming to an SO answer where a commenter rants "why don't you spend a few seconds with Google."
You use statistics.
For example, take the birthday paradox problem and check if the collisions are higher than expected.
Nice collection on tiny code
Do you not think that if these people didn't believe these platforms didn't provide an advantage over being truly independent of the platform they would go solo?

I have my dislike for these lubricating platforms (because eventually they will go vertical --uber with autonomous vehicles, for example) but for the time being they create a marketplace for these contractors (or alternative not-quite-employees)
An interest that one guy has is not evidence of the inability of many others to have written clean, sensible init scripts for several decades; which, as point of actual fact in this real world in which we actually really both exist, they have.

Shitty init scripts and the path to systemd have been self-inflicted wounds caused by a tiny group of inexperienced desktop developers. Such is life when you live in a local minima caused by your own incompetence, I suppose; even terrible, tasteless directions look like improvements.
I agree with this. Nobody should be judged based on how they look. If you compliment someone and don't compliment others, it could be interpreted the wrong way. If you compliment someone and it's misinterpreted, then it could also cause issues. Just don't judge people based on superficial things.
I agree. In particular, I wonder what, say, Metafilter would look like if every link were preceded by a diamond.
Maybe I'm missing it but I don't see how DRI is really sandboxing OpenGL.

Note: I helped write the OpenGL sandbox in Chrome and it's certainly possible I don't know the details of DRI enough to understand how it sandboxes but I do know what we had to do to sandbox OpenGL in Chrome, that includes re-writing shaders since we can't trust the driver, clearing buffers since OpenGL doesn't and so you can read other processes' data, and many other things and as far as I can tell DRI isn't doing things like that.
I can't think of another site that had such a huge gap between its very high potential and its very low fulfillment of that potential.
I am a female developer about 6 years older than the author. I absolutely love the end of this article:

> Slowly but steadily, I am learning to see my dresses and high­-pitched voice not as hurdles to my success, but as symbols of the perspective I bring to the table.

This conclusion is fantastic and shows a sense of confidence and maturity that I think all professionals of all genders need to project.
I agree with mryingster; what happened to underlines, which are a well understood convention as well as directly showing which words serve as the link?
That sounds like a weird off-hand complaint until you realize that she's not talking about once or twice -- she's talking about "making it a point" to do so. Even once or twice is perilous territory, unless it's in a particular context (she brings up the subject in conversation, for instance).

That is, he was attracted to her, and wanted to let her know it. This comes up a lot when people believe that anything said with "positive intent" to women is actually positive. A lot of geeks don't get this. Women aren't stupid -- they recognize the compliment for what it is. Whenever you feel like you need to say something to a woman because your genitals throb -- think better of it.

I've made this mistake -- it was subtle, not egregious (like the guy above), but I did. Nothing happened, and maybe she never noticed, but in retrospect, it's one of the those embarrassing things you do in life you get to re-live in idle moments. Don't let this happen to you. :-)

It's important to understand that sexuality comes up everywhere. In our work cultures, we generally try to suppress it because even in an office with all men, it can become a distraction.

With women in the workspace, it's much worse. Our society trains us to think of women as sexual objects who must always prioritize a man's perspective. Even if you are "enlightened", it's easy to slip up if you're too casual about it. When you want to offer a compliment on someone's appearance (in a nominally non-sexual context), you need to understand where it is coming from -- and do not lie to yourself. It's okay to be sexually attracted to someone in the workplace (that's humanity), but not ok to impose your desires on someone else without their consent.
You're correct in your distinction, but you are giving the impression that this is a bad thing.

If some companies like Uber and Instacart can nullify a nefarious law using loopholes, this is a Good Thing.

In general, there are strong reason to believe that regulation which restrict the freedom of contract are harmful, and the result of special interests trying to secure a competitive advantage through legislative means.
Modern trench warfare using massed firearms, entrenched positions, and artillery arguably began in the mid-19th century (the American Civil War and the New Zealand Wars, for example). It wasn't until after the first World War that the major powers started treating it as an intractable problem.
And it all comes down to "Supply or Demand". Whatever justifies the greatest return for those who hold the power.
Have you written any long documents or a book with LyX? Any recommendations on resources for learning LyX or LaTeX? There are a lot of Markdown-based publishing tools being promoted these days.
Right observation. Wrong target.
I first ran into this idea here[1] where one of the best ways to "push back against privilege" was "shut up".

[1] http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/2014/02/4-ways-push-back-p...
Fun fact: The actor Masi Oka (who played Hiro Nakamura in the TV series "Heros") is also a digital effects artist for Industrial Light and Magic. He specializes in fluid dynamics.
I know far more developers that think the egalitarianism myth is wrong and silly than that buy into it unexamined (I'm not sure I know anyone in the second category personally), though I suppose I might've lucked out.
That's just sad. How far will political correctness go when we can't even compliment others.
Just to add some actual cases, there was the $6.5 million settlement by Lowe’s Home Centers as well as a FedEx Ground case, where the idea of "1099ing an LLC" did not protect them.

"Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Kansas Supreme Court both held that FedEx Ground had misclassified employees as independent contractors who were operating as business entities or subcontracted additional routes to other drivers."

http://independentcontractorcompliance.com/2015/01/14/four-l...
Ah, the old stab in the back; a favourite myth throughout the ages.
The will to win isn't politically viable. War is heavily scrutinized and almost entirely unpalatable (to say the least). Sure America may have the might, technology, and numbers, but their enemy lacks political constraint. Now they're faced with ISIL. Their decision makers obviously strive to make visible the least palatable aspects of war in the belief it will expand their sphere of influence.

America should re-think military strategy. Do they wish to 'win' wars with violence? Can they? Or perhaps cyber war, surveillance, and infrastructure--all soft forms of control--are the strategies of the future.
Different eras, different mediums.

I think the success is correlated in the markets that they are driving though. RPi wasn't the first microcomputing board (Arduino was introduced 2005) but it definitely popularized them. Now you have intel Edison and a bazillion other tiny computers springing up.

It's easy to be skeptical now but I think 10 years from now it will be easier to compare Apple IIe to RPi (good or bad).
Handling five billion sessions a day – in real time
More than being terrified of NATO (it's not), Russia wants to retain a very high degree of control over its former satellites if it can. Including specifically Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine. Russia influences those countries practically as proxies as though they still belong to the old empire. Russia fears losing that control, it doesn't fear the NATO military alliance. I think it's a lot more afraid of trade ties with Western Europe and culturally changes that drive political changes.
I would argue that the entire point is to destabilize regions. Its a technique that all superpowers have used in the past, and continue to use today. The point is not "to win".
I understand the point you're trying to make but unfortunately it isn't an accurate comparison. However, I do think you've got something here because I question whether building F-22s at $150mil per plane plus the costs of armament exceeds the cost of feeding and arming the populaces as well as training them to defend themselves against groups like the Taliban and ISIS. I would also add in the nominal (it isn't expensive to educate people) cost of education on religions and basic human rights to help prevent the spread of radicalization.

I'd wager that it is far less expensive to do this than to build planes to attack an enemy where the costs of these planes is not conducive at all to the value of destroying this enemy and obliterating any progress towards paying off our debt.
You aren't quite hitting the nail on the head. It's not about funneling money into the economy, it's about manipulating the systems of governance to make theft of public resources and money tenable. It's the same reason that we have predictable "unpredictable" "bubbles" in the economy and it is why we start wards who's sole purpose is justification to steal public money for private gains. In many ways, there is even a disincentive to winning a war or military conflict at all. Imagine if we had responded to the 9/11 attacks in a smart manner; it would have cost maybe upper double digit millions of dollars to apprehend or kill OBL, but going into Afghanistan like buffoon cost us no less than $1,000,000,000,000.00 in direct expenditures and probably about another trillion in opportunity cost and indirect costs.

THAT's the name of the game. Stealing public money to enrich private individuals. As long as there is an incentive to manipulate America into blowing our money and efforts on military boondoggles, we will do exactly that.
Odd. I would expect it to come after the link, like a footnote, not precede it.
>You even seem certain that a stranger on the Internet is part of the problem

The stranger on the internet said they felt like part of the problem, so I don't really know what to tell you.

If you read between the lines a bit, I never said I had any of the answers. All I said was listen to the people that are affected, try to learn about their problems, and be empathetic, and maybe you'll find the answers.

I'm not trying to be revolutionary here, I just think one of the nice features of these types of issues is that the people being affected are actual people that you can listen to and have conversations with, and I think that's a good place to start.
Yes, I have used SO, and those responses are rare. If they do happen, they'll get deleted or countered quickly. The 'FAQ' was unnecessary and condescending.

You gave a shorthand description of what you did. You didn't post the code, you didn't explain why it didn't work.

If you can't be bothered to ask a question people can answer, why should anyone bother to answer? You claim SO is a bad community because you get rejected - I counter that you get rejected because you are toxic, and you not being on the site makes everyone else's experience better.

You not being there is a feature, not a bug.
[BETA] Growth Hacking Dashboard with Exclusive Features
Sure, but it's hard to argue that it is a better result than if you paid those same dock workers for building schools, out of that same government money, or if instead of a destroyer they were housing a fleet of cargo ships used for commerce. In the best possible case, seeing military spending as economic stimulus amounts to "we will use the fear our citizens have of other people to institute backdoor and inefficient redistribution and science research programs; because we failed at getting them to consent to fund those same goals directly out of care for others."

Of course, this assumes economic stimulus is really the main reason for military spending, which is probably not how the people in charge of these programs see it.
Imagining the Tenth Dimension (2012)
Chat rooms are pretty toxic on a discussion site where the majority of users are not on the chat room.
I agree with your first paragraph, but not so much with your second. This is one reason why people pay good money for production load balancers. This is also why people run independent scripts to retrieve test pages on their production servers, and monitor in general.

This is not a solved problem, but it's also not a novel problem. It's a problem that I've faced before, and it requires decent monitoring to catch.
There's a point that's even more germane: if you take the money and dev time that would be required to build an exploit to hose your system, you could probably for a comparable sum pay your programmers to obfuscate a new zero-day vulnerability into the FreeBSD kernel on the premise that it's an experimental feature.

In that regard the 'crashability' of the branch is indeed more significant than a random-numbers exploit: the crashability of the branch is a mnemonic for its general permissiveness towards unaudited (or not-sufficiently-audited) code. When you remember that your adversaries can inject code into the OS, that changes your threat modeling.
Some weird assumptions in your math:

-The cost to produce a loaf of bread is $0 above the raw wheat cost

-The cost to distribute a loaf of bread to all of humanity is $0

-A loaf of bread is sufficient to healthily sustain a starving person

I mean yeah, even if the final number was 20% of your "math", it would be a lot of bread. But the answer to world hunger isn't "let's take all the F-22 money and use it to make bread!"
Ahhh Stanford undergrads. Whenever I'm thinking this life is too brutal I can always count on them to remind me there are people out there whose entire lives have been shrouded in naiveté and privilege.

I wonder how much the media is to blame for this young woman's mindset? Did she ever consider that her boss might not be asking her opinion because she was an intern? Or just jump to I'm not getting 100% attention on a silver platter, must be sexism? It's not clear from the article.
A nasty surprise for the blind who update their iPhone