skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Might also be scheduler delays in the browser[0]. I've seen more hardcore demos than this run pause-less.

[0]https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/window/requ...
The Coming Mobile SEO End Times
That's true. (See "Sharp readers may point out" in the OP!) But the guidelines are not a technical spec, and some redundancy is helpful.
I was reading these days the Symbolics C manual to find some details about the compiler's output. I know that the hw had assembly instructions that mapped almost one-to-one to Lisp primitives. However, what was the output of the C compiler and how did they integrate it with the Lisp code? For that matter, what was the output of the Pascal or ADA compilers?

In one of K. Reti's videos there's a blend of stack traces of Lisp and C code. What makes that possible?
I should've mentioned - the intermediary company will take the liability for any defaults. So, consider the case where you are getting paid a certain amount for one credit-check (this credit check is removed from your history after one year) and you are not taking the liability of default.
Given the fact that people get points for their answers, there is already bias towards positive and encouraging comments in hacker news. Notice how the comments start positive and later slowly add the information just to be "safe". Of course not in all cases. From my experience: if I give shallow positive comment I am more likely to get positive points, but strict negative and often deeper comment is down voted. This rule can further increase this bias.
Better designed “No Parking” signs coming to LA
Identity is usually stolen out of garbage cans and mail boxes, or by cronies working at banks and restaurants at least the kind of ID theft where taking out loans and other financial fraud that isn't just ripped database dumps of credit cards. They recently busted a network here that would pay drug addicts to break into mail boxes then use stolen property assessments for loans and false tax returns.

The attorney is correct that the internet just makes it easier for anybody to become criminal with easier access to tools like counterfeit currency when before they had to know somebody in the underground, but even then it wasn't all that difficult. I remember in the mid 1990s my highschool pot dealer used to also sell bricks of counterfeit $10 bills. Before that a kid in my elementary school had an older brother who would mint tokens and he would sell them to us at school to use at arcades and vending machines when the dollar coin was released in 1987. I don't think the internet has really changed anything these kinds of criminal networks always existed.
the intermediary company will assume the risk of default, so you wouldn't be on the hook.
CIO’s Are Wasting Money on Ticketing and Monitoring Systems…and Here Is Why
Then we should also punish those less-informed bystanders, since they're compounding the noise.
They really went the extra mile to describe the redesign. The design of the redesign announcement is really impressive.
I agree, but I still think the idea/algorithm/etc should be conveyed in sentences and math in the body of the paper. The code should purely be optional and not associated with the paper. I think the problem here is the author is referencing code in the paper, which puts the onus on the journal to evaluate the code. Juts put the code on your website. If people want it enough they will google you.
I remember reading the article. I found this to be quite interesting:

“In 2012, Google arrived on the list of top-spending Washington, D.C., lobbyists—a list typically stalked exclusively by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, military contractors, and the petro-carbon leviathans. Google entered the rankings above military aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, with a total of $18.2 million spent in 2012 to Lockheed’s $15.3 million. Boeing, the military contractor that absorbed McDonnell Douglas in 1997, also came below Google, at $15.6 million spent, as did Northrop Grumman at $17.5 million.”
In practice, Mozilla's Spidermonkey and WebKit's JavaScriptCore offer comparable performance to V8, and they tend to have less breaking changes.

But V8 is definitely the engine that has the best marketing. Chrome 1.0 launched with that great comic by the legendary Scott McCloud [1], where several pages were spent on explaining JS engine performance -- something that most people had never thought about before... Ever since then, it seems like many assume V8 remains unique regardless of what's happened in the real world.

[1] http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/
Oh wow – this is very informative, thank you so much.
Indeed. Sam pointed that out in his post:

Sharp readers may point out that the HN guidelines have always excluded those things. That's true. But it's still enough of a problem in HN threads that this is a clarification worth making. We tried it out last year when we released special guidelines for Show HNs. It worked well there, so we're extending it to the whole site.
Anyone have any feedback?
I really like Recurse Center's (formerly Hacker School) social rules: https://www.recurse.com/manual#sub-sec-social-rules

They address some non-obvious behaviors that tend to stunt conversation. It'd be nice to see some of those guidelines bleed over into the HN community.
Agree entirely. Academics led and industry followed.
Ah, but while that was definitely part of the success, the reason portability was even interesting, was because it was free ;)

You note yourself that the machines came "free" with their own software- Unix would have (at first) had a hard time competing with the bundled OS if it was not free. In which case it would not have spread beyond the PDP-11.

You might argue the machines are so expensive that "price is no object", but the major consumers of early Unix were (if memory serves) Universities.
Interesting story. I think that while I may not find an internship this summer, I can just work on side projects and keep learning — that can always continue, even if I can’t work with other folks. I really appreciate your story, and interesting perspective!
I've never heard that before, but it's excellent advice. Sometimes I like to come up with the best argument I possibly can against my own beliefs (basically playing devil's advocate with myself) to better understand opposing viewpoints, but this is even better.
Let me clarify that this is a proposal for a particular implementation of RISC-V, and per a post on the mailing list yesterday the first cut of the tagging extension will be released very soon.

It's intended primarily for security, essentially to allow hacks to let our current C type code bases to run ... less insecurely. It was proposed to allow the 2 tag bits to be used for other things like type and GC tagging, which is why I'm personally interested in it.
Just flag such stuff.
Here's another paper by the same author arguing that people who believe wrong things should be covertly manipulated by government agents to induce them to not believe wrong things.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
If we have extra buttons, let's have them be toggles like flag/unflag and name them something like "mean", "inane" and "misleading".
When and How to Take Notes
I just find it very, let's say funny, that he (or she!) simply declares what the correct procedure is. One must wonder, if he/she is some sort of an arbiter in such cases.

Also, it was rejected, with an invitation to resubmit, which makes quite a bit of difference. Especially when you take into consideration that the reviewers expressed why they can't publish it in the rejection.
This is really just an example of Bike Shedding.

Reviewing research papers is really, really hard work to do well. It takes a massive time commitment to truly digest and understand novel work to the level where you can provide a quality critique and review.

It's much easier to throw out facile critiques like the ones these reviewers provided. It shows that you know your stuff and did your job as a reviewer, without requiring you to actually understand the authors' innovations or lack-there-of.
This measure is bullshit.
The pedantic bickering is brutal because you cannot collapse threads.
I very much agree with you this time, Joe.

Manipulation is everywhere. Those that don't acknowledge it deserves being manipulated. You can't ignore such a huge part of all social interactions and expect that it will go away.
When criticizing a post/article, either commenting about the subject of the article and/or the writer of the article, my rule of thumb is to put myself in their shoes. What if I was the person being written about? Or what if I was the author of the article?

Some comments would (and do) have a negative impact on me. Other more objective comments or advice, though still sometimes hard to take when it is criticism, should be expressed freely.
One of the most negative habits is in my opinion the failure to read a comment charitably (to make an effort to interpret it in the best possible light

I don't even want charitable interpretation necessarily—I just want close reading and reasonably deep understanding of the topic! For example, the top reply to this comment of mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8941152 totally misses the plot.

Looking through my recent comment history, though, I'm impressed at the overall quality of the responses.
You are a lender of money. Someone asks you for money. What's the interest rate you should charge if you apply the golden rule? Zero, because that's what you would want to be charged. Therefore, the creditors in this case broke themselves the golden rule, and shouldn't complain that the debtors did also.
Volvo Life Paint – Reflective coating paint for cyclist safety
From the OP:

Negativity isn't the problem--gratuitous negativity is. By that we mean negativity that adds nothing of substance to a comment. This includes all forms of meanness.

That's enough for reasonable people to get the idea. Trying to force precision here would take us down a rabbit hole.
That can be at least somewhat deterred by registering the car with the manufacturer to get an unlock code, similar to what HTC does nowadays if you want to root one of its phones. Thus, there's a record of you having installed custom firmware (with the relevant warranty-voiding and such). While it won't specifically detect whether or not mileage reporting has been tampered with, it does signal to a buyer that the software is or was non-stock, and therefore all bets are off, caveat emptor, etc.

Alternately, the odometer could (and I'd argue should) be implemented in hardware, possibly as an ASIC (or maybe FPGA) plus dedicated EEPROM to store the counter, wired directly to the relevant sensors. Perhaps some data interface with the main computer, but it should be read-only. That would solve this issue right quick.
Damnn I can be watching this all day... so cool :-)
This goes both ways. If I think someone has misinterpreted me, I usually apologize for being unclear and clarify my statement. I would rather clear it up than start a flamewar, even if someone else might be itching for one.
Replacing x86 with a RISC instruction set would do little good. Performance doesn't come from the RISCness of the decoded uops, it comes from superscalar out-of-order execution, big caches, finely-tuned branch predictors, forwarding networks, a good memory controller, etc. That all takes up more transistors than x86 decode. POWER8 is the only RISC that is comparable to high-end Intel parts, and it is not a particularly small chip.

ARM used to have some ISA extensions for directly-executing JVM bytecodes, but it's deprecated. An optimizing JIT compiler gets much better results.
Is there a way to express the existence of this conflict of interest without being accused of being negative?
Hey let's actually do something about this: go to the play store and leave a 1 star review saying something like "this app doesn't encrypt anything, <non-technical explanation>".

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.netqin.ps

There are already a couple of comments by people who obviously read this article, please upvote them. I mean, you have to install it but I just told it to install it on a phone that broke years ago ;-)

Edit: formatting
What I hate the most are the cheapskates recruiters that don't pay for premium and spam you connection request not being able to send direct mails.

I don't mind being connected with relevant offers, that's what I signed up for. But then there are those low rate recruiters sending shotgun requests, asking for connecting and then asking me to do their job (you know, that'if you know someone interested' part) with mass request that are not even close to my listed skillset.

I don't understand how people can benefit from employing them, if they can't even match skills too job most prospects sent to interviews will be a waste of time for both parties involved.
What did your comment add that the OP or the others replying to the OP didn't state previously?

An "I agree" or "hear, hear" should be downvoted.
Yes, that's actually the direction I was aiming for, a little bit like the Slashdot system.

I just think it's very hard to choose meaningful adjectives/dimensions (the slashdot set also quickly feels limiting). That's why I'd start with the most basic sentiment(s) first (positive|negative, agree|disagree, ...), see how that goes, and possibly extend from there.
I can imagine a release of a plugin similar to Privacy Badger or Ghostery that whitelists sites that honor DNT and follow a reasonable privacy policy. I'd use it.

This may seem paradoxical, in that this plugin would only work correctly by not sending DNT to those sites.

But I've found that some tracking cookies are useful (the one for editing Wikimedia projects, for example), and sites should be able to earn their way onto a whitelist, as long as they honor the requests of people who say "No. Don't track me. Not even you."
Isn't some cynicism necessary to balance out herd-like behavior? Doesn't cynicism help to temper what may otherwise become a rah-rah echo chamber? To me, this policy seems like a way to squash otherwise-potentially-valid criticism--or cynicism (perhaps of startup culture itself, due to Y-combinator's interest in startup culture continuing). Under the new policy, my comment could be considered gratuitously negative, no? Even though it's designed to spark an honest debate.
Personally I think it should. HN is not just for technical stuff. If people don't think a submission matters, they won't vote it up.

Parallel comment is also correct - just flag it
This makes me think of a new requirement for a hypothetical programming language: this requirement is that the programming language supports a coding style where additions to the code (new functionality, or bugfixes) are appended at the end of the code text, rather than inserted inside the existing code. I wonder if a language like this would be feasible and practical.
Reading through the posts, this one struck me as the best solution...

"Personally, what I would love to see is io.js take the Node name and handle all of the development through the community. Joyent could then select specific releases that they will support as LTS for enterprises, complete with the requisite paid support packages. That seems like it might be a scenario where everyone could win."

Not only is it a practical solution that fixes problems on both sides, there are examples of similar arrangements that have worked out well, such as the symbiotic relationship between RHEL and Fedora.
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I wonder why they didn't just make an ncurses frontend to sam. You'd get regex search, selection-based commands and unlimited undo for free...
What a strange attitude! There's plenty of zero-cost bits available to allow for articles of all sorts of lengths. For example, the "Foundations and Trends" journals (e.g. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, or Foundations and Trends in Optimization) publish articles that are usually at least 100 pages long. These articles tend to be well-respected and highly cited.

Longer articles have many advantages in allowing for a more in-depth explanation, and it is certainly not the case that every reader wants papers shoe-horned into an artificial page limit.
> Especially in the early days, there were no end of clients asking for user-hostile and abusive behaviour.

Sadly true, and still true when it comes to the world of desktop adware.

The problem is when you sandbox hostile apps, you also end up sandboxing a lot of potential functionality which now becomes impossible. For example, I need call recording for my work, but the only mobile platform that still supports that is Android, but only on specific devices, with specific Android versions, and even then you may still need to root the device to get it working.

I'm sure there's a middle ground here, but it's going to take some effort to get there.
Are there any good approaches for doing this without a specific framework?
You're right. A corollary is that gratuitous negativity is largely unintentional. That's why we're asking community members to be more active in gently reminding each other when the line is being crossed. Gently!
> You can manage state in Java and C# in any other language.

Yes but I think that the "value prop" with Haskell is that it forces everyone to abide to a certain discipline with respect to type safety and immutability.

> they are marginal.

Relative to what/whom? All the projects you have quoted are really successful and directly or indirectly pushed mainstream software engineering forward (i.e safer style).
Rofl here we go, the subject of what is offensive vs. what is not.

Only scam artists, people wanting something from you, or people who don't give two shits about life will act or pretend to be positive.
No worse than the situation was for almost a century of mechanical odometers...
There are obviously bad comments, which most people agree are inappropriate but I think the problem is that there are another set of comments that the HN team thinks is inappropriate but a significant portion of commenters think is clearly okay.

So I think informative examples would point out comments that many people think are okay but that the HN team does not.
I think where the straw man fallacy comes from in what I set up is that it's not the websites themselves that are doing the tracking per se...it's your computer that's letting the company running the website know that this is a unique user. Because tracking in this manner isn't specifically illegal, a terms-and-conditions-may-apply statement probably is what's necessary. My original hypothetical question likely is too simple to survive a challenge. The "77 words of pseudo-legalese" that derefr posited would also help someone like my dad truly understand what's going on in the background and, heck, may even encourage him to research the matter more. Hopefully on a browser set to Do-Not-Track.
Ooh! And if you use parity encoding, like par2, that might be totally recoverable! Cool!
Quite frankly, I don't think this place has the capability to discern constructive "positive" negativity from truly pointless garbage.

Meanwhile the cloaked negativity where you're thinking cutting criticism but maintain a polite facade runs rampant. That's the toxicity I worry about.

When negativity becomes forbidden, it is only those with power whose negativity gets heard. They (read: you, Sam) only have to sit through negativity that's phrased appropriate to their 'position.'

This is a non-rule anyway. Suggestions aren't going to make the next gender hellhole thread any less toxic.

> Gentle reminders by peers are the best way we know to make the culture better.

Consider this a gentle reminder that you're trying to control the tone of conversations that can't be both polite and honest; it won't work, but that doesn't make you less of a meddling, controlling asshole for trying.
I doubt an average sysadmin would ever notice, let alone knowing what to do about it, let alone putting in the time and effort to do it.

Anyway I'm not sure I put the responsibility on the right group. It will probably be down to websites choosing ad networks that respect their users' DNT settings. Just like they choose ad networks that don't host malicious ads or ads that take over the whole page.
There's also a major safety argument that just isn't in play with things like cell phones or toasters. The stakes are lower.

If you really want to play with engine management, there's always megasquirt.info and wb02.com, which are more hackable anyway.
Non click bait wording: Ticketing and monitoring systems should be integrated
There's a difference between ownership of a physical data storage device and the ownership of the data on that device. You own the physical disk, but you're only leasing the data on it.

If we're going to lump both of these together as you're doing, then "own" is the wrong word to use; you're "leasing" instead. In that sense, I'd agree with you that the word "own" is used incorrectly in a lot of contexts.
I laughed at "shareholder algorithms"
I somehow can't imagine the automaker being in any danger of losing the suit, the firmware modification would probably be revealed in court.
What do adjectives have to do with commenting?
Hey there!

I tried applying through your site but it doesn't seem to be working. Is there an email I can send my application to?
Columbia University students fret over Venmo payments to alleged drug dealer
West Virginia signs in to law anti-direct automobile sales bill
Why? The device is built and sold in a particular configuration, among other things attempting to ensure the user doesn't do things with the device which the manufacturer didn't intend but will likely get blamed for. (Ex.: user, on recommendation of friend, "jailbreaks" an iPhone and installs new software which is buggy/slow, resulting in user telling others how crappy the iPhone is - even though the problem isn't Apple's fault, and Apple took measures to prevent such changes from happening.)

The hardware & software have a symbiotic relationship. Each must function within certain developed parameters to ensure the other can function within its specified parameters. That's how Apple can use lighter-weight & cheaper hardware yet get greater performance: both hardware & software are tuned together for optimized performance. Android, like Windows, is suffering from having to support unknown hardware. You're demanding that, under police power of the state (note that: you're threatening to arrest people for this), Apple explicitly allow/support software which Apple has absolutely no control over yet will get grief for when it sucks.

Relevant to the original point: a car manufacturer doesn't want users patching in home-brew software which changes/breaks safety features. While such could be done with hardware, they're increasingly trying to do things to prevent those changes too (model-specific parts, hindering others from making & using inferior components).
Simpler explanation: Random services where people signed allowing 'share data with third parties'. That's not random wording, those precisely are this type of metadata sharing agreement where money exchanges hand buying people information.
Trauma-erasure. It is empathy-violating when classified moderators without logs claim emotional authorities to tone police by calling their efforts psychological.

Triggering. Why do psychotechnological toolers resist persistent "shrinks for startups?"[1] versus recreating private wars by demanding forward-looking(-locking) statements and then having our data disappear at trauma random.

[1] http://twitter.com/mikellsolution/status/571590631304388608
If I observe something, I should be able to make my own representation of it.
Transmogrified Reality
It is here:
http://www.azulsystems.com/blog/cliff/2008-11-18-brief-conve...

It looks like Azul has basically given up on their custom hardware, I guess? They found a way to make their GC work on commodity x86.