skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I am writing an API right now in Flask, and I chose it over Django never having used Django for a REST service before.

When you say "there's no story" around auth, endpoint versioning, and other things does that just mean that you're not forced to follow those conventions with Flask / that Django offers utilities to help? I am a bit confused/curious what you meant by that since I've seen some wonderful Flask auth work, and endpoint versioning is pretty standard on most APIs, but seems like Django is a bit more strict with what they want you to do.
Agile 101 for new cloud developers and operators
Linking is really not big a deal with LGPL, provided you're comfortable with the GPL. You might have to think a little harder if you're distributing statically, but given the goals of the LGPL and the technicalities of linking, its provisions are reasonable.

Yes, you have to provide the source and a build process for the (L)GPL'd software in question. That's standard for both the GPL and LGPL; no difference. From there, linking is just another step in the build with ld, or at runtime with LD_PRELOAD.

The LGPL is incredibly under-appreciated. Developers love to complain about GPL'd software, but who actually takes raw chunks of code, or entire applications, and re-packages it as their own? Most developers don't have a reason to do this -- the majority of our work with third-party code consists of interfacing with libraries and that is where the LGPL comes in handy.

If you're uncomfortable committing completely to the GPL but still want to support its basic tenets, try the LGPL.
Looks awesome, happy to see more Ionic extensions in the world :)
Over a lot of varying things, I've become a lot more open to Microsoft now that they're no longer a monopoly. They can no longer be the bully they used to be.

Between open sourcing major frameworks, picking up more sane licensing models on some other things, they've really turned around expectations.
> PATRIOT act is probably the most notorious example.

It is the USA PATRIOT act, and not only is that name an example of what you describe, but its actually an acronym over a longer bit of the same thing:

"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"
"all models are wrong but some are useful" - George E. P. Box

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_E._P._Box

I'm not certain if volume was lost or gained, but it looked possible at some points. Some of the other modeling seemed a bit 'off' but for so little code in ASCII it was pretty amazing.
I don't think you are right to say "had to be compiled with". It could be compiled with SunOS cc, and the c compilers of other vendors that were crappy and out-of-date. It could also be compiled on the current gcc/egcs etc. that were out. I think it had issues with e.g. the solaris cc because it was a pretty broken and barely used compiler to begin with.
Generally speaking newer kernels are considerably more stable than older kernels

That may be generally true of kernels, but when you are guaranteeing compatibility and support for a set of hardware, I would argue that after you've confirmed they work for a kernel, freezing that version and back-porting fixes and features that are worth it with another testing cycle is generally more stable.
Unfortunately, this will come down to who has the better resources with regard to the legal costs involved. If VMware decides to really fight this in court, they may prevail, regardless of truth. IBM had an army of lawyers that were able to fight of the SCO case regarding Linux code coming from AIX. I don't know how great the resources that the Software Freedom Conservancy has.
Trust is one of the most important things in a start up. If this was an oversight that's one thing but if not, then walk away and get a better job. There are plenty out there. It's near to impossible to work effectively with people you don't trust.
Extensive discussion from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9151799
Data Science Weekly Newsletter – Issue #67
Any way to view what the article looked like before it was deleted?
They have their (imo, silly) reasons to dislike the GPL. Fear of having to release all of the source code for all of their products is not one of them.
I think programming challenges are the only recruitment tool we have that can cut through this and many other similar questions.
If nothing else, nothing is going to encourage corporations to prefer permissively licensed code if copyleft licenses aren't strictly enforced.
That could be any hosting service, but I would guess they mean hosting services with an emphasis on privacy, like cyberbunker.com or freedomhosting

Targeting service providers isn't without problems, but with so little information it's hard to judge.
Mexico, Remote, Full time or contract

Stack: elastix, nagios, snmp, smokeping, proxmox, vagrant, shell, python, ansible scripting, logstash, software packaging (deb,rpm)

Resume: http://javier.io/cv/en

Contact: echo m+javier.io | tr '+' '@'

Culture and people matter the most to me. I want to be surrounded by smarter and more experienced engineers than me. Unix geeks, vim users, open source fanatics. Logical thinkers, tool tinkerers. I think I can help most in a DevOps position.
It is a little unfair, I agree. And I think it's all too easy to be snarky about other peoples hard work (haters gotta hate), especially when it doesn't work out.

At the same time, Google seems to want it both ways. They have an idea and use their size to attract users and, perhaps even unintentionally, effectively block others from implementing the idea or scare others away (a size thing). Then, if they decide they don't like it, which can feel arbitrary, they pull out. Now the idea is tainted so others are less likely to implement it and users are left wondering what to do. They really seem like a bull in a china shop sometimes.

I like the innovation and the experimentation, but it seems like they could be more graceful about it for both users and other entities trying the same things. Perhaps they should try these experiments in a more stealth way? Pretend not to be Google? Of course, people might super-hate on them for that, huh?
I largely agree with this, but I also think it's worth noting that DJB opted out of writing most functionality, leaving it to the end user, so he has provided us with a fantastic bike frame upon which we bolt far less superior software than the alternatives.

You want AXFR with djbdns? Well, DJB decided that AXFR is stupid, and that you should live in a monoculture of only DJB software, which doesn't have to conform to standards, so you have to write scripts to handle this at both ends and AXFR is one of the BIGGEST security concerns in DNS.

That said, I've really enjoyed running qmail, dnscache, and daemontools. These days I use runit, simply because it is maintained, because I have trouble buying into the notion that any software can be suitable across platforms and changing underlying libraries. I have no doubt that runit's code is less stringent than DJB's, and I find it fruastrating that a couple of things I used to do with daemontools cannot be done with runit.

Anyway, always good to ressurect Aaron's ideas, that DJB outlasted him is a fucking shame.
That DO setup is really interesting. Care to elaborate?
Thank you.

Perhaps a mistake to say it, but, I mean, in the grand scheme of things, it's all just a simulation in 4d anyway. At some point, the universe implodes back upon itself and everything will be gone. So, ultimately, it kind of doesn't actually matter one way or the other.

Which means we can kind of do what we want, decide what we most value, if we so choose.

I do the things I do because a) "Everyone needs a vocation" (if you have read the play The importance of being Earnest, you might understand that to mean "We all have to keep ourselves occupied somehow between now and the time we die", which is how I mean it) and b) while I see no particular moral imperative to "elevate mankind," it's fun to work on solving hard problems and work on opening up opportunities that can't exist without that "elevation." More complex things emerge from less complex underpinnings and then things can get interesting.

I have to be here anyway (unless I commit suicide). Might as well spend that time doing interesting things that I feel okay about. Because while my body is dust in the wind and, someday, even this solar system will no doubt be dust in some galactic wind, my quality of life -- my experience of it -- matters to me. And a lot of that stuff that people call "wisdom" or "virtue" has a proven track record of improving my own contentment.

/talking in public before lunch, usually a mistake
> It's kinda necessary you enforce your licensing terms, but man, I wish people would realize that GPL is an extremely nasty thing.

But even assuming it is a nasty thing, no one will notice that if its nastiness isn't enforced.
The original concept was to scale via the open and self-administered community itself while keeping a hands off approach to all other aspects. Truly just a simple network of solid folks and not a product trying to solve every problem (though I imagine it could be productized). The hope was that by only letting in solid freelancers that these items could be handled by the freelancers themselves without too much worry about getting screwed over or hassling one another.

You bring up a valid concern about the race to the bottom, which is exactly one of the things I want to avoid. The thought around the minimum rate information was to inform others about what type of level of compensation one would need to even consider work. I think I might rework this right now and also inform folks that only developers with rates above XYZ are allowed.
Poorly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samy_(computer_worm)
The education most NCAA football players receive is pathetic. If you look at the time spent practicing, lifting, attending meetings, traveling, actually playing, the idea that they're learning much else is readily apparent. No wonder most NFL players end up bankrupt shortly after their careers end.
And how was Burning Man this year?
But still https://angular.io/docs/js/latest/quickstart.html says Angular uses AtScript...
From Multics: http://www.multicians.org/shell.html
One of the main problems with Wikipedia is that it is actually multiple products in one: an encyclopedia, a biography site, an news archive, medical reference and so on. If the site was an encyclopedia, McMillen would just have a short page or even nothing. He probably wouldn't be notable enough. If it was a biography site, say one specific to journalists, he would have a longer page, and if it was an archive of news, he would have the kind of page seen here. The lack of defined format leads to this kind of confusion here, for both the reader and the writer. The problem for many of the site's writers is that the "encyclopedic" stuff is done. There's only so much to say about dinosaurs. When any news comes up they flock to fill in the page with minutae, with the result that pages on pop culture topics are becoming so long they are almost unreadable. See my blog post: http://newslines.org/blog/wikipedias-13-deadly-sins/
Would you use this app to try on clothes at home?
Why the West fears insects while Japan reveres them
State sponsored virus “Animal Farm” targets human aid orgs, authors, activists
> No it doesn't. From the outside it's all bullshit branding. As a user I want to be able to find jobs, refine searches, use categories, and other activities based around getting-the-job-done.

It's not gov.uk's fault that you have a shitty experience doing that. The Government Digital Service (most well-known as "gov.uk") have never been involved in the Universal Jobmatch site that was contracted out by the DWP to Monster without consulting the GDS. I have no idea why you're attacking gov.uk for it - I repeat, they had literally nothing to do with it.

> URLs for unique resources works fine. The gov.uk as a namespace doesn't help usability. I'm happy to be corrected with evidence.

gov.uk is a platform developed by the GDS, not simply a namespace. It covers everything on the "gov.uk" main website, and a selection of subdomains, but not all (anything that existed while DirectGov was still a thing is not maintained by the GDS, essentially).

The majority of gov.uk revolves around a CMS that can manage many types of content. It provides a consistent interface for the people who create the content - people from every single Government department - to publish it, and a consistent backend that allows the developers to build new services that utilise the existing infrastructure.

Before, we had a pile of independent websites built and maintained by each Government department with no integrated search or organisation, a lot of duplicated technical effort as everyone had to maintain their own CMS, and an extremely poor user experience.
In the article I find these two statements, from Percival, contradicting:

"Percival talked about what the company might have done differently, and admitted that by the time he arrived in 2009, it was possibly unsaveable – not least because by that time, it was difficult to hire the most talented engineers against competition from Facebook, Google and other rising tech companies."

“There are companies that do not get social and they never will. Apple’s one of them, Google is the other: they’ve failed with Google+. When your culture is engineering-focused, you do not understand social. Social is a very emotional experience. Engineers are not so much, in a lot of cases,”
The problem with omitting language features like this is that the programmer is then forced to implement them by hand in an error-prone way. It's the same issue with Python and tail call optimization. Guido refuses to implement tail call optimization, so the programmer has to implement it herself in terms of a loop. Go refuses to implement sum types, so programmers code them up by hand. In neither case is the code actually clearer.

Since proper error-checking in Go actually requires doing by hand what a pattern match would have done anyway you're not simplifying anything for anyone by omitting them; you're just making it harder for the compiler to provide compile-time checks.

A pattern match is basically a switch statement. Go already provides the latter so the language would not need to become more complicated.
This got me thinking: I wonder if places like St. John's College[1] might eventually take up teaching directly from Turing and von Neumann. Maybe one day those sorts of great-books focused liberal arts colleges will be the only places left teaching the low-level stuff and the basic principles of computing, outside a handful of hyper-focused engineering programs designed to meet the limited need for some people in the industry who understand it well.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John%27s_College_(Annapoli...

(I can't speak to the rigor of that program from direct experience, but look at the reading list—it's not all the fluffy philosophy and literary criticism that many imagine when they think of liberal arts programs. They cover the major Greek mathematicians in the first two years, then it's off to enlightenment-era mathematics—John von Neumann or Turing, and maybe even something like TAoCP, wouldn't be out of place)
Punkettes movie
Supreme Court Rules Cops Do Not Need a Warrant to Search Your Home
Howdy HN!

Thank you for checking this out. I am currently in the development stages of this app. I am searching for feedback/gauging demand. Open for any questions as well!
Debian code search is the closest replacement I've found, though it doesn't really compare:

https://codesearch.debian.net/
Same here.

I think most people don't realize what the world was like before open source and free software.

Just using someone's code or sharing code for free was pretty radical. Now it seems obvious that you can use a free compiler. A free Unix-like OS. That was not the case. And people forget that.

I think GPL, GNU toolkit, Linux are a big part of that. I think this is a much better and interesting world than it was before. That is why I support it.
submitter here, not sure this is 100% real, buddy is trying to verify it now.
I also think this string format is the right default choice, since most of the time I'm building parsers that don't change or need to be built programmatically.

But Instaparse has exposed all the functionality as an "in the language" DSL as well using parser combinators in a map structure (near the bottom of the README).

You can also turn a string specification into a grammar map/combinator specification, which I have used when a part of my parser was generated at run time.
not so much. I pretty much know what I plan to wear the day before, so... shrug - then again, that's just me. If it works for someone else, that's cool, too.
I would think Python is pretty popular and more versatile than either of those 2 options.

Given the fact that it is used beyond web programming to do just about everything where performance doesn't matter.
While these are free, there is something to be said about standing by your product.
I think focus groups are inherently embarrassing. Not commenting on their utility, but the act of showcasing something to "normal people" for their "feedback" is, at its essence, pathetic.

While Google's 'everything in beta' mentality is endearing in a 'democracy'/'transparent fun-loving engineers' sort of way... it is also evidence to the fact that our information behemoth is rudderless.

Google Buzz.
They're basically achieving their dream now with Swift, though. I don't expect them to ever release that source. I don't think there is any precedent for Apple releasing source code after the fact.
A dashboard for my apartment
Hoe snel 10 kilo afvallen zonder jojo effect? – Leef Nu Gezonder
There is a pretty clearly defined set of safe behaviors under the GPL. If you do not link to a program, run it in the same address space as your proprietary code, or use any internal data structures of that program, that is safe.

No one can force you to open your whole code base. They can only make you choose between opening the parts that do the unsafe things listed above (linking, running in the same address space, utilizing private data structures via some kind of shim that is supposed to work around the GPL), or they can force you to stop distributing the GPLed software.

Until then, my company is solidly in the "Absolutely no
GPL" camp.

It's so stunningly easy to use GPLed software properly, and there are thousands of companies doing it. Just don't link it to your code, or try to do some kind of hack that avoids linking it while giving you all of the same benefits of doing so.

The problem with VMware is that they have been pushing all of the boundaries; rather than just taking the easy road and doing known safe things like ensuring that there's a clear separation between GPLed code and their code, or just releasing their code that is linking to the GPLed code.
Prior discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9157282
The funny thing is I'm having an affair with this guy's wife. It's great. She loves the attention and pays for everything.
The risk that I was speaking of specifically comes into play when you use GPL code along side other proprietary code. Potentially exposing the need to release your proprietary code to comply with the license.
If you care about more than the short term, such "political status of the code" should matter to you. The purpose of the GPL is not (or should not be) being able to say "my code is holier than yours", nor necessarily about having the best working implementation.

No, its main purpose is guaranteeing that all users can understand how the device works, even if they don't belong to the company that builds it. Other FLOSS licenses don't guarantee that in the same way than the GPL does, as they allow modifications to be kept secret. We could say that the GPL is "knowledge-friendly".

In the case of video cards, the alternative would be having only the proprietary closed driver and no open source version. It's incredibly hard to know of such closed systems work by reverse-engineering them; an open source driver, even if limited and less perfect, provides a full specification of the device.
Simple processes that perform a well-defined job. Programs which can be easily modified by people other than the developer. Composable pieces. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy.

What is the unix way from your perspective?
Enormous Martian ocean evaporated into space
Sadly I think it's disappeared into the ether. I also tried to find the Faroe Islands News Service blog that my friend put together, but it seems to be dead as well.
What a strange redefinition of "armchair general".

Probably the standard meaning http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/armchair_general

is too offensive to conservatives.

But since when did the public decide every archeology project? Did this one have any merit?
Even so, they did pay for it. Just not with normal taxes but instead with the exorbitant expense of supporting an empire built on unscrupulous business practices. Some surplus was spent on whimsy now sycophantically called "philanthropy". An even more bizarre word misuse.

So the web should be a place solely for advertisement, astroturf and ludicrous self-aggrandizement? No one should criticize bull when they see it?

You should have told this guy http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/ Then he could have had a deeply meaningful career writing apps.
Thanks facorreia.

My "plan" (if you can say so) was to continue the company after my graduation, anyway. So the degree would only serve as a backup in my view. But how much of a backup would a bachelors degree be?
From others I've heard that real life work experience outweighs degrees in most tech companies, and I think this is what I'm looking for support in.
Well, actually, it is about "quotable" more than "verifiable". The latter term implies that truth is part of the issue, whereas they only care about "quotations" as proof. Possible "relevant"/"trustworthy" quotations but not much more than that.
> Outside of a business that can hire lawyers, it would be helpful for the FSF and sites like http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause to have examples right beneath the licenses

They can't do that. The law doesn't work like that. The GPL FAQ[1] has to be deliberately vague about some things, because judges and juries themselves are vague, as are the laws they work to interpret. You can't have cut-and-dry examples of what can be done and what can't, because there can be many other externalities that could make a different case work in a different way, despite similarities to your proposed list of examples.

There are can be broad strokes, but the law is not a programming language. Recent xkcd comes to mind.[2]

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

[2] http://xkcd.com/1494/
There's nothing wrong with acting on reasonable suspicion. The problem is customs has a policy of exceeding their lawful authority in questioning travellers. I don't have any obligation to answer questions such as, "What do you do for work?" or "Do you have any friends in Paris?". Yet these questions are routinely asked, and refusing to answer them will result in punishment.

That's what happened in this case. Customs demanded irrelevant information in order to go fishing, the returning Canadian declined, as is his right to do, and is being punished for it.

Take a look at the Nexus program. It asks travelers to waive their rights voluntary in exchange for being permitted to avoid being coerced into waiving them at each crossing. If more people were aware of the rules and pushed back there would be no need for such programs.
Google docs is fantastic. I use it exclusively (docs and sheets) and haven't seen anything buggy about it. I have never found myself a wanting a feature in google docs that wasn't also missing from Office. The only limitation I came across in sheets was the limited scope of conditional formatting. That's pretty much it.
The High-Tech Fight to Save California Skiing
SAP to Cut More Than 2,000 Jobs Amid Transition