skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
var videoElements = document.getElementsByTagName("video");

for (var videoElement of videoElements) {
videoElement.removeAttribute("autoplay");
}

...in a Userscript ought to do it. HTML5 gives more power to those who can write code than we had with Flash.

That said, this does not qualify as easy for most users. If there is enough demand for a "never autoplay" feature among users, browers ought to implement an option in the user interface. It is not a good reason for keeping Flash around.
Petition Against Felony Charge for WiFi Prank
I wouldn't be surprised to hear there's a 10x difference in, say, error rates between the best and worst doctors. In fact, I'm almost definitely sure that's a lower bound, given my experiences with doctors in third world countries. Barbaric, some of them still are. Depending how bad the worse doctors are, 10x from "average" might be reasonable.

In software development, I think that 10x number is also a lower bound if anything. Bad developers are everywhere, churning out volumes of terrible, pointless, code. In a code review a while back for a client, I made an offhanded comment about a minor thing like "make sure this list is sorted and deduped". The code owner then started "discussing" that and estimated it'd take about 2 hours. I was stunned and added the code ".Distinct().OrderBy(...)" right there in the review. I'm at a loss at how to explain that kind of difference, and that's on a micro-scale.

At the other end, I've seen projects/companies go down colossally wrong paths because they simply couldn't understand basic algorithmic complexity. So, say, I dunno, a week or two to do it right, versus a year spent chasing down fake paths? That doesn't even measure the business impact of floundering around for a year while impacting customers.

Focusing on "coding 10x faster" is simply misleading. Like measuring an author based on how fast they can type.
It was a hit song in 1981: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/9_to_5_(Dolly_Parton_song)

it's shorthand for a tedious job.
We fail because it is about people interacting with each other. We fail, because we were trained to work on our own and competitively. We fail, because we have trouble to change our mindset and have even more trouble to change the minds of others. This is why we will fail at alternatives to Scrum, too.

Scrum requires a different mindset. It requires us to work in a team with honesty and jointly in order to be successful.

Teams fail at Scrum because they are dysfunctional from the start, don't share the same mindset about their work and processes or don't embrace the ideas Scrum provides.
فيلم يوم مالوش لازمة HD
This is the main reason probably, yes. Several Apiaceae with white roots are poisonous in Europe.
Yeah, that's a pretty cool concept. Here's an example: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-virtual-reality-team-infinite-e...

edit: Actually, that doesn't seem to be what I was thinking of. Here are some examples of redirected walking:

http://eprints.utas.edu.au/109/1/AISAT-Redirected.pdf

http://vrguy.blogspot.com/2013/07/redirected-walking-can-sav...

http://cb.nowan.net/blog/2008/12/02/redirected-walking-playi...
Thanks for the advice :). We bought an Intel Xeon Phi to try it but it's not giving the expected results :(...
Even with redesigning a majority of the software architecture to optimize it for Phi.
How did they manage to do this? Aren't there proper permissions requests like Facebook?
"Also a stealth observation is the hidden assumption that a negative or null result means the experiment was a failure."

I want to say that the "science" of the science fair is a sick parody of the real process of science, except the sick parody is itself now the real process.

One of the few things from grad school that still can cause me to momentarily crinkle my eyebrows in annoyance 12 years later is when I was in my machine learning class, and we were told to go use some automated decision tree learning software to go learn something from some data set. I deliberately chose a dataset and question that should have produced a null result, precisely to validate that the technique in question did in fact produce a null result. Despite the fact the professor completely agreed that I correctly converted the data, correctly formulated a hypothesis, correctly tested the hypothesis, and correctly determined the null hypothesis could not be discarded... I took a 50% deduction on the assignment. A thing that was ultimately irrelevant since I still got the max final grade in the course... what furrows my brow isn't the actual bad grade, but what it says about the mentality of what science is, even at that high level.

If that still doesn't sound scandalous to you... and it doesn't sound scandalous to a lot of people at first... consider the outcome if I had not chosen a data set that I expected to be null. Suppose I chose a data set that I expected to be able to learn something from, and I was wrong. (This happens a lot in the real world with real data, after all!) What does this mean? It means that 50% of my grade would have been dependent on me massaging the data until I did get a result. Yow! Real science should not be encouraging people to mine data until they get results like that. And one need not spend very long looking at how real science is done to see this idea is quite pervasive in "real science".

Real science is not compatible with the idea that a non-null result is "success" and a null result is "failure". Success and failure have to do with whether the result, whichever of those things it may be, correlates with reality. Ask a scientist this question directly and there's at least a decent chance they'll mouth words about how important the reality correlation is, but look to their actions and it's all "result = success".

I'm gonna be brutally honest here... my plan is that when the kids hit the science fair age, I'm going to tell them to just do what they need to do to get by, and explain to them what real science is. The two things are in direct conflict, and I'll take real science any day.
He said, "Because I don't have a license plate." I think he felt the normal rules just shouldn't apply to him.

http://www.thewire.com/technology/2011/10/how-steve-jobs-got...

http://www.cultofmac.com/126338/why-steve-jobs-mercedes-neve...

http://www.ehow.com/how_6197310_track-car-using-cell-phone.h...
Experience on the other hand has a lot to do with all those things.
[not the OP] In your example, the URL name would be a reference to an immutable document with an immutable ID. You can update the named reference to point at the new ID, but the old ID still refers to the old document.

It would also be possible to store and distribute new versions as patches to previous versions by linking between the patch set, old version, and new version.
> the long/short --/- two-names-for-every-flag dichotomy was useful for backwards compatibility when recreating original Unix commands, but for new programs, it doesn't pull its weight.

Short is more usable for users on the command line. Long is more maintainable in scripts. That's why it makes sense to have both.

> At the cost of requiring that each option be specified with a separate command-line argument, you can drop the distinction between - and -- entirely.

Again, that cost is high for users on the command line, one of the few places where every keystroke does matter. It's a lot more pleasant to be able to do:

$ rm -rf

Than:

$ rm -r -f

Or, worse:

$ rm --recursive --force

Orthogonality is definitely an important principle, but when it comes to usability, it often makes sense to offer multiple ways to accomplish the same goal for users in different circumstances.

Ultimately, you're interfacing with a greater primate. Even with all of our nice features, we still don't support USB or web standards. Instead, it's all lossy OCR and weird muscles. You should expect a certain amount of... squishiness... when interfacing with something like that.
Hello Again added a form http://goo.gl/forms/2VZAXFOigk for votes

Please pass the word, it would be nice to get a real world vote base on the internet and not some one sided community of organization
The point was really that space-filling curve indexes do not solve the underlying issues with polygon indexing, their oldness was not a factor. That type of indexing is so old that the patents (yes, they were patented by the big database companies) have long since expired. And yet they are rarely used commercially. There is good reason for that. There is a resurgence in their usage by people new to spatial indexing but it is pretty obvious that few implementors are aware of the extent of the computer science, which goes back into the 1960s.

The assumption of size was "large-scale", which in this day and age usually means massively distributed. A B-tree is not a solution to that problem domain.
I think you're spot on with all of this. The only way to do good molecular/cell biological benchwork is with access to a bona-fide lab. I have a suspicion that I could ferret out most of the kids who didn't do the bio work, but I suppose there could be a few who know the nuances of the work really well (or they can make up plausible lies and state them with confidence).

It might be better to restrict these competitions to "engineering". You can do some pretty good engineering/programming even as a youngster.
Heh. You're very right about the generation of 1. Even 2^54ish is not rare enough to ignore. Put it in GPU code and you could find it breaking in seconds.

But would you be comfortable ignoring double precision 0, with a proper algorithm that makes the probability somewhere around 2^-1070 or 2^-1020?
I think asking for particular details of an algorithm is pointless, and I wonder how many interviewers actually do that. The more common questions I've encountered in interviews are along the lines of "serialize a binary tree" where the data structures are basic but the problem has different possibly suboptimal ways of being solved. I'm curious if there really is an inherent and implicit bias to these sorts of questions that favors younger candidates. I'd be very sad if that's the case, as I'm more inclined to think other personal biases are in play.
Hacker News Share Button for Firefox and Chrome
If almost everybody "is doing Scrum wrong", is it maybe because of its fundamentally bad design?
I judge high school engineering projects at the Synopsys Science Fair and California State Science Fair, and have become quite skilled in BS detection. Aside from the usual methods to detect BS, the most revealing question in my experience has been "what problems did you run into while doing this project?" I ask this question to every student regardless of whether I think their project was BS or not, and the responses from legitimate students are usually sincere admissions of incompetence, while the response from a BSer is some inconsequential roadblock that they easily overcame. Students who are willing to submit a project where they did not produce the actual content will be willing to pawn off any experience or skill as their own, and will vastly overstate their abilities. The students who are humble about what they have accomplished and understand the full implications of their work are usually the ones who produce original work and win science fairs.

This year, I saw a project where a high school senior used deep power analysis and machine learning to break AES 128 on a microcontroller (https://instagram.com/p/0JzlxBoIaJ/). The student was from a prestigious private school, and the project required an expensive high-precision oscilloscope. Naturally I assumed that he had bought the project off eBay, so I didn't hold back in my questioning. But after I began questioning him, it quickly became clear that this was just an exceptionally bright mind who was willing to put hundreds of hours into deep understanding of a topic and reading the relevant research, before embarking on some original work of his own. He iterated over many possible solutions, and had an incredible demonstration of a working one. When I asked him difficult cryptography questions, he answered them precisely. And when I questioned him on his research methodology, he was humble in acknowledging his shortcomings and truthful in citing the research that guided certain aspects of his project. It is unfair to the exceptional few students capable of producing such a project to assume that all high school students are incapable of doing graduate-level research.
The onion has some good TED satires:

http://gizmodo.com/5950924/the-onions-ted-talks-parodies-way...

(Forgive the gizmodo link, but onion is blocked in China)

I think TED has to do with what I observe happens to corporate, startup, and ya, religious cultures that tend to take themselves a bit too seriously and live in an echo chamber too long.

I would totally pay for inspiring tech talks with sarcastic John Oliver style deliveries. A bit of cynicism and sarcasm goes a long way in making something seem real to me.
AngularJS ngAnimate integration for Velocity's UI pack plugin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwLMBdnbXk
> I have no idea if he's coding 10x faster

It's a bad myth that "speed" has anything to do with the 10x or 100x programmer. The thing that sets great programmers apart is their ability to instinctively and intuitively design elegant and correct solutions to a given problem while introducing minimal bugs. A great programmer whose code will stand the test of time without needing a total rewrite 6 months later and without a horrendous maintenance and complexity overhead could write their code at 10 words a minute and still be worth their weight in gold.

Personally I think "great" programmers are really just "good" programmers - those that understand the problem domain, have expertise in their tools and know how to minimize complexity - this should not be some white albatross but rather a level we should all aspire too. I think it is more useful to identify bad programmers - those that rage in like a bull in a china shop, adding layers of complexity and abstraction to cover up their lack of knowledge and expertise, who flippantly choose bad designs for a given problem because they believe in some universal "right way" and spend half their time on premature optimizations before their buggy product is even in a testable state.

I have come across numerous bad programmers in my time, and if they were nipped in the bud early before they could leave reams of damage in their wake, I can testify to many man-months in effort rectifying their mistakes.
A fellow bugler?! Well met, good sir. I like its Britishness and frequent references to cricket and other such obscure and quaint social rituals. In truth - though I am a non-Brit, I am an inhabitant of the Emerald Isle persuasion and require very little in the way of machine translation.

I am listening to Answer Me This! as I type my reply to you and I thank you for the pointer.
Can't you frame every social organization in this kind of light? Stuff that people spend their lives on - they make it sound simple so other people understand it - this forms a 'social group dynamic' through the action of communication or information transfer. If other people understand it, then they participate and contribute to the growth of 'stuff'.
Show HN: Hilarious startup ideas
Dark backgrounds are painful to look at unless you have an AMOLED screen, backlit displays just can't do black very well and the foreground text bleeds to much.
The problem with extracting org-mode into its own application is that a lot of the magic of org-mode comes from emacs. It's not so much being tied up in emacs as sharing and extending the design. By moving org-mode elsewhere, you'd reinvent the wheel and put an artificial division where there doesn't need to be one.

For example, org-babel allows you easy access to any language you have support for in emacs. Same syntax highlighting, same behaviour, same utilities. Improve any of that and org-mode takes advantage of it for basically zero cost.
Not that I care for what Meerkat was doing, but isn't this sort of a selling point of Fabric?
I thought that was odd as well. I call boys at age around 7-8 as being "in the dinosaur phase", because that's when it seems a lot of boys get really excited about dinosaurs and read up a lot on them, spouting info. And if not dinosaurs, then football cards or similar.

I wouldn't expect an 8-year-old to 'evaluate the trustworthiness of a source', but I think that that's not what is actually expected of the students, and that it's just the parent trying to shoehorn in everything an adult is supposed to do when researching.
He mentioned me by name in part 1 of this series, with a link to my post, and I didn't write anything about ageism. I'm pretty OK with the props I'm getting as is.
Would be nice in this case for the setting to be global rather than per app.
As we enter a more mature phase of the internet’s progress, it may be time for us to reconsider our strong bias toward the new. Maintainability and reliability are increasingly the edges needed to serve internet users accustomed to highly-reliable systems. New approaches to programming will still have their place, but they are entering a more crowded market where they really have to prove their value in order to be received.

We need to have a conversation about working with people of different experience and talent levels. We need to address our industry’s lust for shiny (i.e. young) over reliable. For in the process of that conversation, I believe that we will begin to address the odd inequities that plague our industry.

Wow.

And there exactly is a perfect example of the bias that older engineers complain about.

By using the same argument for older technologies and older engineers he conflates the two, implying that older engineers are really better off working on older tech.
>A member of the SHA2 (or SHA3) family would be more appropriate. RIPEMD-160 is slower and less resistant to collisions.

"openssl speed" reports RIPEMD-160 being a few percent faster than SHA256 on my computer.

What makes you say it's "less resistant to collisions"? I don't think there are any serious cryptanalytical attacks on RIPEMD160.
How “../sms” could bypass Authy 2 Factor Authentication
OK, but how does that fit into how we're actually using URLs today, like how would this change the web? If you browse my product info page, I don't want you linking to a versioned document, in general. In the cases I'm thinking of off the top of my head, I'm not sure when you'd ever want people linking/copying version-specific URLs that somewhat negate the point of updating the page in the first place.

Or perhaps I don't understand "Why can't we look at data that is published on the Internet is the same manner".
Do Antidepressant Drugs Really Work? (A: As well as sugar pills)
It's not virtual reality. It's just headphones for your eyes.
Yahoo Launches On-Demand Passwords
Twitter has two primary methods of authenticating API access:

1. Web version - typical Facebook style, describes specific permissions but there are only 2 options that devs can use: read or read/write (plus read/write + direct messages but that will be gone this year)

2. iOS version - menu slides in with all of your system authorized twitter accounts, you tap the one you want

I'm pretty positive #2 does not give you any real authorization messages or screens. I just logged out of Meerkat to find out but that screen doesn't work anymore because their keys are broken
Well, yeah, if you actually pay <10x when all is counted but get an actual 10x more, then you will have gained, but grandparent said "they won't pay 10x for 10x."

My tongue is in my cheek or some other such place right now because I kinda find this 10x business a bit funny, given that we can't even roughly quantify productivity. The thing I do believe in is that some people fit some kinds of work so well that it's silly to consider many other seemingly similarly qualified people as a practical alternative; as in, a hammer is good at hammering and it's not a question of it being 10x better than a shoe or 5x, it's just silly to hammer with a shoe, just don't do it. This is obvious but if phrased as "hammers are 10x shoes", it loses its obviousness and gains ridiculousness.
>. I have no problem with that mentality until it comes into stark contrast with the goals of those pushing OSS (see: EFF.)

Actually EFF has little to do with OSS.

Perhaps you meant FSF. In any case, most OSS software that isn't GNU has very little if anything to do with FSF. Some OSS authors, especially those MIT-licence inclined, even hate its guts.
If Scrum is so mega simple, why do we see endless cases of it failing to being implemented correctly?

That's simple, I think:

- 1. Scrum is not actually 'mega simple'. Like I said, it's a framework of outline for building a system suited to your organisation. It still requires skilled people to implement it correctly. It's like expecting coders to become magically better because they start using a framework like Rails - it might describe good practices, but it won't fix bad developers!

- 2. Related to that, we see bad implementations because methodology will not fix a broken organisation. If you have bad developers or bad managers, you will not produce good products. If you hire a bad consultant, you will not produce a working Scrum implementation.

Maybe we should start thinking of a framework, that people can actually implement and make successful, without requiring an entire army of coaches and consultants, who make a ton of money from it

It's obviously possible to have working and efficient implementations of Scrum; I'll testify that ours is excellent, and that's mostly down to hiring a very effective Agile Coach who knows how to implement it properly. And I know we're not the only ones - I expect you'll never hear about the good implementations full of happy developers!

The existence of an army of awful, unqualified consultants is a separate issue. You wouldn't expect to hire bad programmers and get good software; why would you expect good methodologies from bad consultants?

Hire someone skilled and let them implement a good system, and it will work.
Very funny... I made it through two episodes of Invisibilia and couldn't figure out why it was pissing me off. Sure enough, vocal fry: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/545/i...
Here in the UK you can get purple carrots as well, but they're most prominently on display before Halloween.
You can use an uncaptured subprocess to run a command explicitly in bash mode. I'm unsure how you think xonsh would break a bash script, though. When you run a script in xonsh it's still going to be interpreted by whatever is declared in the script's shebang. Just like you can run a perl script from bash, you can run a bash script from xonsh. E.G.

$ ls='foo'
$ cat test.sh
#!/bin/bash
ls ~
$ print(ls)
foo
$ ./test.sh
bin C:\nppdf32Log\debuglog.txt foo	initrd.img.old lost+found opt	run sys var
boot dev	home lib	media	proc sbin tmp vmlinuz
cdrom etc	initrd.img lib64	mnt	root srv usr vmlinuz.old
Thanks for the response. Sorry to hear that's been your experience.

I've been into quite a few companies in the same industry as the one I mention, that are roughly the same size (a few hundred people) and most aren't as toxic in that way. There is more HR, policies, feedback on performance, less (but not zero) patronage.

Tech people like to rag on managers. But I think good managers are worth multiples of bad managers. It puzzles me that more companies don't take technical management more seriously as an independent skillset, and instead let it be a kind of fiefdom for little Napoleons or a step in the career progression for a programmer.