skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Three things I don't like about Common Lisp.

1. It has CLOS but it doesn't really embrace it in standard library. You have list, vector, hash-table, each with its own iterator function. You have lots of #with-xxx macro. All modern languages utilize the idea of common interface like #iterator or #dispoable. You can clearly see CLOS library and pre-CLOS library in CL. CL needs to eat its own dog food (CLOS) more.

2. It lacks basic practical API library, while another containing big complicate academic functions. Its #format function is probably Turing complete. It has function to format number in Roman numeral. But it doesn't have function to deal with datetime. No networking IO function. No Threading library.

3. Condition and Restart could take the idea from Dylan. Tying condition to available restarts, and making class hierarchy of them, is a better idea. This problem stems from CL not actually utilizing CLOS.

Also, PACKAGE should take the idea of LOCALE, allowing easier local package rename, and less symbol conflicts problem.
I like Ramda as well, currying was a feature I didn't expect to use as often as I did.
That's a tough question to answer without context.

For us, on this problem, Go was superior to C++ (and Python). On another problem, that may not be the case.
what idiot is using Underscore at this point?
Just in case you're still working on your acre of hard red clay, try using the ancient technique of terra preta. This is what the natives in the amazon used to create incredibly fertile soil in the horrible red clay amazonian soil.
Tassuru – Smart Office – Automatic In/out
It would have been even better if they had been able to rig it so that the commands to operate the game roughly followed the rules of classical harmony, that way, the gameplay would be more obviously musical. As it is, it sounds a bit atonal.
> if you aren't paying for it, then you are the product, not the consumer.

That explains all of the ads I see on GNU Emacs.

/s
Underscore vs. lodash
Just to reinforce this, I worked with a F50 which offered vendors standardized tiers of quicker payments, in return for discounts which were (much) more than whatever their expected interest income would be. The terms weren't negotiated, they were just spit out of spreadsheet based on the interest rate.

I understand the importance of "cash flow", but the real goal seemed to be shaving every nickel to maximize profitability on the deal.
Foods you'll never find at Whole Foods
What many descriptions of the problem leave out is that it is critical that Monty knowingly picks a door with a goat. If Monty chooses at random, then the winning odds do indeed increase to 50% if he happens to open a door with a goat behind it.

The randomized variant, by the way, tends to garner roughly the same degree of "you're completely wrong" responses when given to people who know just enough about the normal Monty-hall problem not to be fooled by it.
shitting up the PR

Good people of HN, this phrase deserves your upvotes.
This just occurred to me: Lenovo is a Chinese company and this broke right at the start of the Chinese Lunar New Year (a Christmas-sized or arguably bigger holiday in Chinese culture). Obviously I can't prove this is having an impact, but it wouldn't shock me to find out that this contributed to the amazing PR tone-deafness and incompetence of their response so far. Of course, that wouldn't excuse any of the terrible decisions made earlier, but it would be an interesting wrinkle from the perspective of assessing their crisis-management.
I just want to start off by saying that I am not, at all, trying to place blame on Marilyn vos Savant for any of this.

When someone gets declared as the smartest/best in the world it first off sets people's expectations so high that they expect perfection, and secondly it places the individual onto a plateau for which others would love to knock them down.

The article doesn't discuss this, but I'm sure that played a part in why her detractors jumped on her so fast and so fiercely. They got told that this person was smarter than them, and they were inferior, and now was their chance at proving that that wasn't the case.

She was of course right, and she likely didn't declare herself the "world's smartest woman" but unfortunately for her, that connotation was still attached to her character, and no matter how modest she was it would have been difficult for other people to take an ego knock by feeling like this person was "better" than them.

Essentially the title of "world's smartest woman" set her up for something like this to happen. Luckily for her her detractors jumped on something she was correct about making themselves sound like morons. However it could have happened when she made her first public mistake (it would have happened eventually).

Fortunately this episode may have helped release the pressure somewhat that was placed on her character. She saved face, but her detractors feel like they took her down a peg so didn't continuously stalk her looking for mistakes.

PS - Just to reiterate I am in no way trying to blame Marilyn vos Savant or deflect any of it onto her. Someone else likely declared her the "world's smartest woman," that is outside of her control, and she dealt with this as well as anyone could hope to.
True, but probably not the magnitude of difference you should be worried about.
(I work at Stripe)

Correct! You set your price in USD, we present the amount in bitcoins to your customer, and guarantee you the price you set in USD.
This page seems to suggest that poplar seedling density in clearcut areas is on the order of thousands per acre, which then thin out considerably as the trees mature. See the "seedling development" section.

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/volume_2/liriode...
I think you're splitting hairs here. It goes both ways: if the host were to only open a goat door if the contestant initially picks the correct door, then the contestants would quickly learn to stop switching doors.
Look at it this way. You can choose 1 out of 3 doors. Or you can choose 1 out of 2 doors. That's essentially what's going on here. Of course the fewer the doors, the higher chance if success.

Increasing the numbers might help. Suppose you had to pick one out of 1000 doors, then 998 were revealed to have no prize. That might make it more intuitive that your first pick had a lower chance of being right.
...Is there a glow effect around all the text?
> their stuff 'just works'.

It doesn't, though. Apple hardware and software are fragile, buggy, and crash-prone. They beachball at the slightest provocation and destroy work with abandon.

And aside from that, well, "You're holding it wrong." If it only works for one narrow workflow, it doesn't work; it's a toy solution for a stripped-down toy problem.
- The drawer is too fast and it has no easing. It also instantly vanishes when you dismiss it.

- The underline on the E-mail Address field isn't animated at all.
The Unlikely Airbnb Hosts of Japan
Thank you for a great answer. I've known about this problem for a long time and never had a way to intuitively think about it. I will now be stealing yours. :)
I had 3000 views of this post, out of those I've received 2 confirmed referrals, totaling ~$9 in payouts.

Obviously, not much, but I'm still impressed I got _any_ referrals.
I don't know what is "men's movement", but including me in it to close an argument is VERY poor form.

I'm still curious about your opinion on:
"So equality, for you, is that we can mock males, but not women (i.e. titfest vs sausagefest), because in the past women have been seen as inferior to men?"
> Every open protocol starts with a proprietary app.

Historically not true.
It finally clicked for me when I understood the probabilities "behind the doors", if you will.

2 out of 3 times, you will not pick the door with the car. This means, 2 out of 3 times, your door has a goat.

Revealing a door does not change that fact- that your door 2 out of 3 times has a goat.
Yes. We've been using it in production for about 1.5 years to gather all of our syslog and our application logs. No problems at all, and we're up to about 20 shards of data now.

Honestly, I have no idea what we did before we started using it. It's an absolutely essential tool.
The original column and response is online and is unambiguous for fluent English readers.
Photoshop Turns 25 Years Old Today
Bay Area Rust Meetup February 2015 Livestream
Okay, how about this: Reverse the problem and talk about Monty's behaviour. Let's assume he wants to help you win the car because he's a nice guy. His goal is to give you the best signals he can.

His constraints are: (1) He has to open exactly one door, (2) he can't open the door you chose, and (3) he can't open the door with the car behind it.

If you've picked the car then he can't do anything for you (2), so he opens a door at random.

If you've picked the wrong door, he can help you out by showing you the other wrong door, leaving you with only one remaining option - an easy win!

So assuming you understand Monty's intentions, you can see that there's a 1/3 chance you've picked the right door and should do nothing, and a 2/3 you've picked the wrong door and should listen to what Monty's telling you.

(Monty's intentions are of course irrelevant because his behaviour is completely described by the constraints, but he doesn't know that and it's not polite to point it out.)
Any idea why it doesn't affect Firefox?
More than Flash, Steam, or mobile app stores?
The submitted title ("Underscore 1.8 makes last minute breaking changes to master without discussion") broke the HN guidelines by editorializing the title. We changed it to the article title, such as it is. If any of you wants to suggest an accurate and neutral title that is better, we can change it again.
You're shitting me?
Computing is genuinely becoming scary. If I didn't browse tech sites or spend my days on HackerNews, I probably wouldn't know about these things. I'm getting older and more disinterested in the constant maintenance -- I just want the shit to work. It sucks the most for those who learned "don't install anything fishy, run a virus scan, don't open attachments, and you'll be fine." They bought a computer and followed the rules and are still being fucked over. I've seen a high number of comments that say "oh man, I never trust OEM software, clean installs only for me." So it looks like there is another rule for the pleb/peasant/uninitiated computer users to follow. I can barely keep up, I wonder how nontechnical people do.
Then again, it's perhaps nice to have even a little bit of diversity between countries.
That's why the seller has to give the money to the consumer. The seller avoids the customers who scam which is a non-0% amount of the time, so if the seller is trusted this would be a good thing to do. I'm talking Amazon-level trust.
The way I see the problem is slightly different and I think quite intuitive. If you've chosen a goat, then the host, by eliminating a door, is telling you exactly where the car is. If you have not chosen a goat, then the host not telling you where the car is. What are the chances that the host is telling you the location of the car? It's the same as the chances of you having chosen a goat the first time around.
Then you want many cores. Link still seems to be single core, but with 6-12 cores compiles fly. I have a 6 core xeon machine at work (so 12 compiles at once); some have 12 core (2 xeon processors).

We just spec it out and have a local shop in Mountain View build them.
is it? Citation please.
Analyzis is getting in the way of communication. Do you have the answer to his question? Myself, I'm dying to know the answer.
If your boss owns the tools with which you do your work, they have the right to dictate how you use them.

Use personal devices for personal computing.
> ... I don't believe I need to be punished ...

It's not about punishment. It's not: oh, you did something bad, you need to be punished for it. It's that it shouldn't be easy, and doing it in person makes sure of that. That's all it is. And it sounds a lot like you're rationalizing your desire to avoid that situation by telling yourself that it would be better for the employee, as though you won't let yourself consider the idea that it's all about it being easier for you.
I've known the answer to the Monty Hall problem for a long time, but this particular explanation just so happens to be the first one that's brought me closer to grokking the answer. I dunno what's different about this one, but it makes sense to me. Congrats.
You would sell it for the same price just the equivalent in CAD.
Yeah, I look at it this way: Let's just focus on set B. You're staring at two doors. Some random process decided whether the things behind the doors are a goat and a car (2/3 of the time) or two goats (1/3 of the time). Someone privy to what's behind the doors deliberately opens one to reveal the goat. What changed? Nothing. The random outcome was decided before the door was opened and your odds don't change. That closed door now has a 2/3 chance of having a car behind it.
I have a close friend that was incensed about my explanation about how he was misunderstand. He even ran a broken simulation that showed he was right. When I corrected his source code with detailed comments, he further accused me of trying to fool him and make fun of him. Didn't speak to me for a month.

Bizarre. But I suppose this kind of thing that goes against instincts can really upset people.
I also had a lot of headache when a seller charged me twice and tried to send me another product because I had to charge back several transactions while explaining "yes, the FIRST one was legitimate and I got he product, but the later ones are not".

I had to charge back twice because the seller kept on charging me on the same credit card number! At least with Bitcoin you're only in for whatever you pay.
PDF

Didn't Hacker News used to mark PDFs?
Reading this makes me wish my math profs had played with lego during class.
Flagged for being unmarked PDF.
Go to Prison for File Sharing? That's What Hollywood Wants in the TPP Deal
Rare white dolphin glimpsed in Monterey Bay
info@superfish.com went through and I'd imagine that they must be reading this thread by now and can go check that mailbox to reach out to me.
A World Made of Rotor Blades
ARTICLE IS UNMARKED PDF

(PDFs can be malware, too.)
Funny, the exact thing happened to me. My 2011 MBP essentially bricked itself before Xmas and I replaced it with a Lenovo. I happened to delete the Superfish app as part of my normal crapware cleanup, but I didn't know about the still-there Superfish certificate until today.

I'm glad Apple finally acknowledged the issue and decided to make everyone who had the issue whole. I don't think I'll buy an Apple again though -- the unibody was in my opinion, the perfect form factor for a laptop -- user upgradeable RAM and HD but still a manageable size. Apple's new habit of soldering everything had me planning my exit before my 2011 Macbook died.
Samsung’s Smart TVs don’t just spy, they transmit in unencrypted plaintext
Tesla is a teeny tiny portion of the car industry. If Apple is thinking about incumbents, they are morel likely thinking: BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Lexus, etc. Maybe even Ford, GM, Toyota, Volkswagen, etc.

As those cars become more and more computerized, it's becoming clear: those companies absolutely suck at software and user interfaces. The interior of most cars today is an absolute chaos of buttons, screens, levers, dials, and indicators. It's like a wrap-around version of this:

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/01/dsc_01...

Apple has something that Tesla does not: gigantic piles of capital. Apple has around $230 billion in cash, which is more than the annual gross revenue of Ford or GM last year. Apple is ready to scale from day 1. Whereas Tesla is following a careful growth strategy, using each model's sales to fund the R&D on the next.
"You made a mistake, but look at the positive side. If all those Ph.D.’s were wrong, the country would be in some very serious trouble."

Best quote in the entire article.

And if I had to explain the problem in one sentence: Opening the first door obviously gives you a 1/3 chance, which remains unaffected by the host opening another door.
The probability is not about the doors, it's about who has the goat - which obviously doesn't change by removing false hiding places.

Let's say I have 10 doors, and put a goat behind 1 of them at random. You pick 1 door at random, leaving 9 for me. So, there is 9/10 chance that I still have the goat, and now 1/10 chance that you have it.

Now, I have 9 potential hiding places for this goat. BUT, I am willing to communicate to you which door I put it behind (if I have it, which 9/10 times I do). I tell you this by removing all but one (i.e. 8) of my doors.

So, there's 1/10 chance that you have the goat. There's 9/10 chance that I have the goat, and have just told you where it is. I then give you the option to choose my door instead of yours. Clearly, you should switch.

The key is that I'm removing not "one door" but "all but one" of my doors. In this way, I find the 3-door case to be the most confusing, because the minimum amount of doors is removed. With 3 doors, I only remove one door - which doesn't seem that spectacular. If there were 100 doors, I would be removing 98 of my 99 doors - which I think is easier to understand by intuition.

In fact, because of this your odds of winning-by-switching increase with the number of doors(see n-variant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem#N-doors).
Thanks! The drawer isn't a UI component provided by the framework (it's custom code in the documentation).
You can mine another cryptocurrency with your GPU and use that to convert to BTC. That's actually mildly profitable if you choose the right currency and your electricity costs are not too high.
None of the explanations in the article really convinced me either. But after looking at the chart of all possible outcomes for a while, it finally clicked. It makes more sense to think of it in reverse from the winning position.

Winning by switching doors requires your first choice to be incorrect.

You have a 2/3 chance of guessing incorrectly when all three doors are closed.

Thus, you have a 2/3 chance of putting yourself in the position from which switching will win.
I'm wondering if this also involves stealing keys that secures the Gemalto AWS mult-factor auth devices.
That's like saying "nobody will give up newspapers to use this Internet thing to get their news". Yet here we are.
But Github here is in the position where they are the only external party that could do something about this, because the code is hosted on their site.

> ... Im sure many people don't want GitHub to start arbitrarily banning projects because of a random set of beliefs they have

It wouldn't be unprecedented and it wouldn't be arbitrary. Google Code, for instance, only allows open source projects to be hosted with them. From what I can tell about Github, they allow any license. Doesn't mean that they can't change that policy.

Sure, it's easier to do nothing. But they alone could do something. And Facebook will get the goodwill they want from this without much kickback because nobody does anything.
From what I understand of Superfish, Mozilla (and other browser vendors) can't just blacklist the certificate. That would make all HTTPS connections error out. A message notifying users of the issue is all they can do.
Some people have their spouse do the banking. Some of those 7 billion people are 3 years old.
Onevest Startup Fundraising Q&A Panel [video]
Exactly--this case shows at an intuitively obvious level that the original problem looks like even odds, but the elimination of only non-winning doors always provides valuable information.
This looks very promising. As a Python developer who primarily does systems programming, I sometimes have to jump into C for system calls and optimization, or to Java for stronger type safety and real interfaces, neither of which I particularly enjoy. I could definitely see doing new projects in a language like this.
On the other hand, this is making the news.
I'm not surprised. At the time, almost every question every week in Parade magazine was just pulp. Questions of the type "what's the world's smartest woman's favorite color?". You could take anybody off the street and get the same answers. Parade magazine was a gossip magazine.

Furthermore, at the time she wasn't listed in the current Guinness Book so anybody that looked it up would see the column as a fraud unless they checked a specific old edition. Claiming somebody "is listed" when they had been listed, for one year many years ago, is a lie.

So there were a lot of readers who thought of the column as a joke. If you open 99 doors that are full of mindless drivel, what are the odds the 100 is the one that has something interesting? This is why so many people were fooled by it.
Protection from DNA collection is impossible, for the same reason the EFF wants to forbid it: We shed DNA all the time.

Currently, DNA does not contain "vast amounts of private information", and even the little amount we can get from it requires serious science and hundreds if not thousands of Dollars per sample to retrieve it. Currently it is more effective to prohibit specific abuses, like insurance tests.

In the future, DNA data will be as cheap and obvious as fingerprints, gender or body height. DNA sequencers will pick up human DNA all the time even by accident. Therefore, DNA and its information will be in plain sight, if we like it or not.

Fighting DNA collection will be a lot like fighting copyright piracy. The information is copied and distributed so easily, no way we can keep our DNA private.
This is great news, even though it's frustrating that they took so long to "do the right thing."

Last year my 2011 MBP failed literally the day before its extended AppleCare expired. Had it failed a day later, I'd have been in some trouble.
Time to say goodbye to usernames and passwords for website authentication
To save you the searching and reading, glfw is a lightweight cross-platform library for opening windows, and getting input: opengl specifies only rendering in framebuffers, so you need something else to open the windows and get input.
Because the porn site says "free for 3 days" and of course nobody remembers to actually cancel the subscription after 3 days. When they get the bill a month later they say "I never bought a full subscription!" and they cancel.

It's a cat and mouse game. If customers KNEW they couldn't keep getting charged they'd gladly pay $1 to watch for one day. $1 is STILL going to have $0.05 fee, not $0.35 or whatever the CC processor would charge for such a small transaction.
The factors are shifted to the phone. The Clef app on your phone is protected by a PIN (separate from your lock screen code) or TouchID on iOS. Each instance of the app is registered with Clef so you can revoke an individual device.
It's the Final Dribbble by Jakub Linowski
I wouldn't go as far as say lying, they just failed to consider the SAN. Unfortunately they pulled the doc, possibly due to what they claim to be a DDOS but it's still in Google cache:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XUbVSX8...
“Serial upvoting reversed” makes reputation suspect for employers
Paypal's IPN is the worst piece of garbage ever.
Groove salad is the best! Like Pavlov's dogs, hearing groove salad means time to go to work.
Done forest rehabilitation in parks, we cut down to 100 trees per acre from 400.