skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Banning? DOesn't seem like banning.

It's more likely to allow accounts that have lots of flagging to be automatically shunted to an automatable verification step. Accounts that pass verification can then be worth human attention. Accounts that do not attempt verification end up muted.

Seems like a reasonable way to scale human intervention in the face of cheap, broad usage of throwaways by trolls.
They are saying:

(violent extremists with engineering degrees) / (violent extremests with degrees) != (university students in engineering in Islamic country) / (university students in Islamic country)
A quick guide to keywords
Which point in history was that?
>My pet theory is that INTJ males are prone to extremism. We see it here with this kind of pie-in-the-sky Libertarianism and other fringe views.

Well that's insulting. I'm a socialist!
Does anyone know what this means for spot instances?
Actually I think both the processing capability and communication capability are almost reaching their limits regarding the sequential performance, I bet that's why multicore and bandwidth are what producers advocate, and also people are working hard to utilize the parallelism. Missing the good old days when 'faster' truly meant the sequential performance for CPU and latency for networking, and you could always get 'faster' by simply increasing the frequency...
> And what did you gain?

All the functional goodness of easier to reason about code. A much more concise way to express common patterns, and a type system powerful enough to abstract away things that you have to repeat in Java. More dynamism than is possible to use safely in a dynamically-typed language, because I can write code that simply "does the right thing" in a principled, safe way that the reader can confirm by checking the types, whereas in something like Python it would be impossible for a reader to see whether that code was buggy.

> It is just a different syntax, that is nicer than Java on one hand, but also big and not straightforward on the other

Actually the syntax is often more straightforward than Java's. E.g. {} just means a block in a sense that's handled consistently everywhere in Scala, whereas in Java {} are required on a try/catch or a method but optional on an if/else.

> making core 'half-functional' does not bring any benefits in terms of composability, concurrency, reasonability (about the code).

Of course it does, or at least if it doesn't then the whole functional programming effort is a mistake. Any "pure" core is a) relative to some notion of equivalence that might or might not correspond to the things that are important to your particular problem and b) doesn't do anything without an impure interpreter. See e.g. http://conal.net/blog/posts/the-c-language-is-purely-functio...
SHPE San Francisco Site Makeover
I hope the manufacturer is internet-savvy enough to start producing the dress in white & gold.
I can't believe I read it to the end. After, I googled some of the text to see if this was a variant of some copypasta.
It's a bit odd that they don't stop launching new VMs on the old hardware. That would allow people who wanted to control the transition to just stop and start their VMs.
How it has pretty much been since day one.

Didn't many accountants sneak their private AppleII into the office to run Visicalc rather than having to deal with the mainframe and its admins?
HttpParser Error Buffer Bleed Vulnerability
Xkcd: Dress Color
I will say though that when it comes to abstracting elements, this behavior seems to be implicit across the board (angular directive templates require the same, though they include a somewhat-informative error state).

As someone who has only begun to feel out React/JSX after developing some large, semi-complex enterprise UI's in Angular (with the respective back-end, usually an abstracted REST API) I'm finding the React model to be a lot more intuitive and scalable.

Angular is fantastic until you run up against problems with complex tasks that either must run outside of the digest loop or require manual control of painting/rendering to compensate for the abysmal binding performance.
Having used Constant Contact for a while now I'm kind of biased towards them but I'm always looking at new ways and services for doing things. What is the biggest difference between SendGlide and them/what do you have that they don't?
These things have kill switches built-in, don't they?

My question would be, what happens to the markets if there is a quick fall, the algorithms shut down, and all the HFT liquidity is removed?
Crazy Pepper Spray Butt Hole Prank
>You are still dismissing the role of emotional trauma in your fairness equation.

I'm not dismissing anything. They are separate issues.

>Even if you freely decide to leave twitter due to experiencing trauma you will likely still have that scarring for a long time.

I agree, you might. It's terrible.

And even after the abuse perpetrator is banned from Twitter, those scars remain. The ban itself doesn't solve that problem. That's why they are separate issues.

The point of contention is the mentality that driving a few innocent people off Twitter is okay in the name protecting other innocent people's ability to use the system. You're just shifting the harm around, and aren't even affecting the real problems. The bullying will, in all likelihood, continue (especially if these are real, determined, sociopathic trolls), and you have more, self-inflicted, victims.

Anyway, getting a bit far down this rabbit hole.
The Play! Framework http://www.playframework.com has been pretty sweet for us so far and we use Java with it and that plays second fiddle to Scala users who really enjoy the full benefit of the framework.
Maybe it's because engineers have a mentality of 'teardown' and 'rebuild'. Bankers and corporations infiltrated the US government? Teardown everything. Rebuild. Screw the women and children. Destroy America. We need to start from scratch.

What these people don't realize is you can change from within. We have elected government officials for a reason. Guess what? 85% of congress people are white and male (and many of them old). I'm gonna guess most of the bankers are white and male (and old). You want change? vote some women in. vote some minorities in. They're not part of the boy's network. They will take care of the disadvantaged.

US is the best country for a reason. We have a good system of representatives and freedoms of speech and protest. People on this board seem to love Russia and China. Guess what? Russia is ruled by a dictator, and China is ruled by a group of men. China's gdp per capita is $6000, with endless pollution. In Russia, entrepreneurs get jailed and poisoned and their companies get stolen away. You love those countries so much? go move there.
Best option would be a bitcoin blockchain connected to government run internal blockchain (or similar) systems. That would offload huge amount of trivial transactions, simplify current archaic internal systems and reduce effectiveness of using sanctions for economic wars - which can easily turn to hot wars otherwise.
Assuming this is true, it is very bizarre. There is a very large and fundamental difference between fundamentalist Islam groups and pretty much everybody else on the planet. It doesn't even really have to do with the religious beliefs per se. The issue is that portions of Islamic culture did not go through the Enlightenment that produced most of the thinking that undergirds pretty much the whole planet except for a few pockets, with a few primarily Islamic societies prominent among them.

Most of us living in post-Industrialized nations can't even conceive of how a person in a pre-Enlightenment situation would think about the world. For instance, when you drop an object, it falls because of gravity, right? A pre-Enlightenment person would not see it that way. They would see the falling object as primarily an expression of the will of a god. Not a "supernatural" god. "Supernatural" suggests a separation from the natural. That separation comes from the Enlightenment. Without the Enlightenment, it doesn't exist. There is no 'physical world' here and a 'supernatural world' over there. There is only one world. The physical world, in all its operation, is an expression of a very real, very immediately present deity. This is a deity that punishes the wicked with sickness. It's why when it is time to plant crops, you ask the church, not an agriculturalist. It's why eternity is within arms reach. And it's why things like tolerance can not even be considered.

That being said, I wonder if these engineers are perhaps of post-Enlightenment beliefs, but swayed by less ideological factors, dominated by charismatic leaders and the like? I have a real hard time imagining that such pre-Enlightenment thinking can survive very long beyond contact with post-Enlightenment thinking. Then again, I might just be totally wrong on that. Post-enlightenment thinking doesn't promise you grand eternal wars between good and evil that every person is a soldier in with eternal life hanging in the balance.
Teachers don't need open source lesson planning tools. It is the lesson plans themselves which should be shared and improved.

Sure, not all teachers are the same, and not every class of students is the same. However, there is no reason why 1000 teachers need 1000 different lesson plans.

Your proposal for teachers sounds to me like you're saying that all web developers need text editors so they can build their own web frameworks. No, they can pick a framework or two invented by DHH or whoever, and then use those in their projects.
Sadly secure as a throw away term is an absolute used to label a continuum.
My friend created a tiny wind muff that you can use on DSLRs and some phones. They come in a range of types and sizes. http://www.micromuff.com/. The website has some comparison videos.
If it makes you feel better, my (quant and infrastructure) friends who work at algo firms that did phenomenally well this year all got bonuses way below what they were expecting.

People are pissed and jumping ship. There's way more people than there are positions available because the industry is contracting/consolidating.

Sure, the algos performed well this year, but these are the firms that survived. Lots of players got crushed playing the algo game and are no longer willing to play.
The city that privatised itself to death
To be clear, Twitter runs Aurora which is open source and has proven itself to be stable, battle-tested, and scalable; development on Aurora began in 2010, and over the years Mesos and Aurora have evolved together. Aurora has cron capabilities built into it, and Twitter does not run Marathon or Chronos.

Twitter engineering recently blogged about Aurora with a bit more on its history: https://blog.twitter.com/2015/all-about-apache-aurora, and The New Stack recently published a two-part article on the project: http://thenewstack.io/twitters-aurora-relates-googles-borg-p..., http://thenewstack.io/twitters-aurora-replaces-operating-sys...

(full disclosure, I work at the tweet shop)
> Static typing helps with catching certain types of errors long before the compiled code arrives in production but it's just one tiny factor that contributes to overall software quality.

If you use them right, expressing the constraints of your system in the type system, you can improve huge areas of quality. It doesn't give you much for free, but it does give you a tool that lets you check your own correctness properties more efficiently and maintainably than any alternative.

> Lack of expressiveness or lack of developer happiness can be much more detrimental to software quality than lack of static typing.

Agreed - but good static typing makes a language more expressive, not less.
One hypothesis proposed in the article indeed was:

"What exactly about engineers’ mindset or cognitive disposition could make them a good match for this ideological cocktail? We can conjecture that engineering as a degree might be relatively more attractive to individuals seeking cognitive ‘‘closure’’ and clear-cut answers as opposed to more open-ended sciences – a disposition which has been empirically linked to conservative political attitudes (Jost et al. 2003; Amodio et al. 2007). Engineering is a subject in which individuals with a dislike for ambiguity might feel comfortable."

(But mind you, that is not the author's main hypothesis).
Tech's High Barrier to Entry for the Underprivileged
I guess they see it as a good long term investment. Hope it pans out for them.
Interestingly, one variant of hereditary dwarfism that is present in a small group of people, Laron syndrome [1], is a good illustration to show that methods of altering the operation of metabolism to extend healthy life in short-lived mammals should not be expected to produce anywhere near the same gains in long-lived humans. The longest lived engineered mice are those with disruptions to growth hormone or its receptor, and Laron syndrome is much the same thing. The mice live as much as 70% longer, but people with Laron syndrome don't seem to be any longer lived than the rest of us, though it is possible based on the data gathered to date that they are somewhat more resistant to cancer and diabetes.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laron_syndrome
Fast track is a trade-off. It lets Congress set negotiating objectives, which new trade agreements must meet. If an agreement meets all the objectives, then it goes to a fast vote. If it doesn't, then it won't. It's not a blank check to the president, it's telling him up front "these are the must-haves."

For example, Congress could pass a fast track bill that says that any new trade agreement must not extend copyright any farther. They probably won't, though, which is why EFF is opposing fast track.

Fast track is fine as a governing concept, but if a group's objectives are not included in it, then that group tends to oppose fast track.

The EFF has decided to talk about the process in their campaigns, rather than the substance--a choice I am not fond of, because I think it perpetuates citizen ignorance of how government actually works.
Holding a classic liberal, or libertarian, philosophy and having strong feelings of empathy and compassion are not mutually exclusive. It is a logical fallacy to assume that because one is opposed to the government doing something that person is against that thing being done at all.
I think MS already has a solution for this.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/09/17/add-ons-stayin...
Is your point that Bitcoin is an anarchist currency for buying drugs, and nothing else? That it can't possibly have value outside of online payments?

"BTC" is just the unit of account powering the blockchain. You can use a blockchain to make almost any form of digitized information into a public good. Case in point: https://www.blockscan.com/asset

The blockchain is the ultimate distributed database. No other distributed database works without a third party controlling and administering it. This is critically important for all kinds of financial markets, because otherwise the entity in control of the DB is able to manipulate outcomes, hide data, and play games with insider information, and yes this is really happening: http://deepcapture.com

And why does a purely online-only, digital content provider need your home address to send you a video file, anyway? What about a server host? Gaming platform? The credit card paradigm is obsolete for a huge amount of premium digital content. This isn't to say the US dollar is obsolete, because you can represent dollars, or euros, or gold, whatever, as auxiliary currency units on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, although you'd still need to own BTC to send it around, for many this is BTC's primary form of inherent value.

Finally, it's impossible for many people in developing nations to engage in online commerce at all, because their banking system is utter crap. Billions of people the world over are underserved by the banking system, or don't have access to a bank account.
If I'm reading the slides right, longer chains of transactions on a side channel do not increase risk, so it's innappropriate to imply that a more heavily used side channel introduces risks comparable to credit-card chargebacks.

Each party to the side channel has a multisig transaction signed by the other parties involved, so if one party cheats (or fails to comply for innocuous reasons), then any party can shift the entire chain of transactions to the blockchain without risk. So the only reason you don't want side channels to persist for too long is that each party has to keep around more and more information as the number of transactions over the channel increases; that's burdensome in its own right, but it also likely means that a side channel naturally decays over time, as the probability increases that one of the parties involved drops out or loses track of information. So you don't want to roll over side channels too many times, but it's not a matter of risk of trust.

This really is a very simple and elegant solution. Basically, it recognizes (1) that cryptographic verification of intermediate transactions only needs to be shared among the parties involved, rather than among the entire network, and (2) that any sequence of transactions among a sub-network of parties can be considered as a string of intermediate transactions. And (3) it requires no trust because the entire sequence of transactions can be moved onto the blockchain by any party at any time.
I'm so glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for reading :D
This is a misattribution. It's like saying "The nails caused the building to collapse". The people using the tools are to blame, not the tools themselves. The ratings agencies gave incorrect ratings to mortgage backed securities, humans made assumptions based on greed and individual home buyers made poor purchasing decisions.

The flash crash was the result of bad algorithms, the tools acting on their own without significant human guidance or erroneous input. But that was a relatively minor event that temporarily affected professional market makers. Something like that could happen again, with a much larger impact. But the 2008 crash was not it, and wasn't related or even similar.

It is difficult to predict 6+ sigma events, but humans as a whole are no better at it than algorithms are. There were plenty of people who saw things that others didn't and made big short bets against the housing market. The problem there is that everyone else didn't listen to them. Eventually we can improve statistics to catch more outliers. Good luck improving human nature to get people to listen to predictions that go against the herd.
Algos were stewards of the '08 crash, not the reason. It's dangerously naive to believe overexerted housing values and propped up fundamentals weren't to blame. Not to mention how institutional trust went out the window once it was discovered how poorly loans were written/packaged.

Why wouldn't trend following be the winning strategy when the market stayed on a steady climb? Anyone who hasn't continued with that strategy, attempting to call a top to this current market, has probably taken a beating many times over.

If anything, Algos helped to correct the market more quickly as those who chose poorly were washed away with greater speed.
In the Chinese curse sense?
There are things I liked about it, like delicious food I grew myself, watering can be kind of fun, at the start... and I try to get out there. But picking weeds, digging earth, pushing/carrying heavy things... gets tiring even if it's just 4 hours a day.
"What incentive will telecom companies have to build the wireline networks that enable next-generation of web services if they can't make enough money to justify the investment?"

Regulation forcing them to build the networks or be heavily fined. Given their profit margins, I'm weeping...hold on...taking careful count...carry the seven...zero tears for them.
Interactive Gendered Language in Teaching Evaluations from Rate My Professor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jr...
Tech designer, 91, lands her dream job in Silicon Valley
Web-only access to iCloud
My theory:

Engineers tend to be biased towards solutions that are the result of actions they can take.

Political problems are the opposite of engineering, often the best action you can take is an indirect and uncertain persuasion aimed at getting some group to not directly oppose your interests. So, in the face of great injustice, real or perceived; those of a political mindset will try to establish coalitions, those of an engineering mindset will want to do something even if it's ineffective.
President Obama to Reddit: Thanks for your help on net neutrality
"there is no guarantee your new instance would not also need to be rebooted during the update window."

It sounds like you could spin up new instances until you get one that doesn't require the update.
But I need the entire blockchain for it to be decentralized, or someone else stores the entire blockchain, which is centralized.
If everything is immutable then a reference check is all you need. They key is to avoid deep copies. Observables are problematic when changes can ripple through your model/view-model - resulting in multiple DOM changes. This equally applies to WPF.
You need to find an activity to snap your mind out of that once the day ends. I go to the gym, run, work on robots at home, or play video games.
Who actually are they buying this from? ICANN? Or some other TLD suppliers?
This is interesting, I thought in order to use a fully independent client you needed to store the whole blockchain. Which clients support this?
I think this is the result of the relative ease of getting programming work and good salaries. It attracts a lot of people who are not really in it for the love. Some of those people are going to feel like their soul is being sucked out. This guy is one of them which explains his extreme reactions.

I personally would rather work at the shittiest programming job than go out and work on a farm. But that's just me.
You're right on the legal issue, re: deference, but you're ignoring the political aspect. These proceedings are heavily contested, and it's often easier to push through a new regulatory direction in pieces rather than all at once. From a political standpoint, "reclassification + we promise to forebear" follows by a change in forbearance policy is going to be easier than "reclassification + rate setting" all in one go.

It's also not a slippery-slope argument. Rate setting is a part of Title II, whether or not the FCC says they will forebear. And it's part of Title II because there is a long history of rate-setting in telecom. I posit that it's very different to argue about the unprecedented direction a policy may lead (like the NN advocates are doing), and to argue that a policy will take us back to a place we've already been.
How did the rating agencies come up with their AAA ratings on CDOs comprised of mostly subprime debt? They used historical models aka trends that basically assumed that housing prices never went down on a national basis. Throw a bunch of subprime MBS from different regions together into a CDO and bam our model spits out a AAA rating. It was based on a historical model aka trend. I don't dispute any of your other details.
This is why SEL4 is awesome. http://ssrg.nicta.com.au/projects/seL4/

First kernel with certain security guarantees formally proven; now open source. It can be used as a hypervisor which seems like its most obvious first use case. At least until there is enough middle-ware to build full systems directly with it.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I feel this article plugs very well into another article I read this month: "What nobody told me about small farming: I can’t make a living"[1].

[1] http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/what_nobody_told_me_about_sm...
Even when I move the slider over the "white and gold", I can only see blue and black... just one that is washed with a gold tint.