skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Curious... why use Elasticsearch over Redis? We're currently using Elasticsearch, but were considering switching to Redis, but now I'm thinking maybe we shouldn't. What's the downside?
> Is it just regular negative of me to say statements like that one are horrible, or it is gratuitously negative?

If you'd just said that, I'd say "regular negative", but also non-constructive and useless and the kind of thing I'd downvote for being non-constructive. But when you go one with this:

> Am I being a critical thinker when I say that, whenever I hear people make statement like that one, they are usually weaseling into some businessey doublespeak that roughly translates into "people like me can be negative, people like you cannot, but I refuse to say that outright."

...you aren't engaging with the idea that you are responding to, but making an unsubstantiated generalization that is worse than even just directly inventing a motivation to ascribe to the author of the idea you are responding to, because you are instead doing so for other people and using it a base for a guilt by association attack on the author of the idea you are responding to rather than engaging with the merits of the idea itself.

> Or is that shallow cynicism?

At best.
Joe, we normally call that concurrency, not parallelism.

Language primitives do help there as well: we do both types of computations at Graphistry, and for the concurrency side, use promises, FRP, and occasionally, processes.
That's probably not due to their health care, since their outcomes for major health incidents are poor. A major contributor to life expectancy is infant mortality, and two major contributors to "poorer" infant mortality statistics are aggressive prenatal care (bringing more children to term) and rigorous reporting.

Additionally, if you're trying to compare Cuba to the US, you need to keep in mind that the US has a abnormally high and statistically powerful incidence of car crash fatalities (we drive everywhere), and Cuba has an anomalously low level of accidental death.
Does the name "Brand X" on slide 29 refer to any specific language? Why add a mysterious third line to the graph when the presentation's primary focus is comparing the other two lines, Haskell and Java?
Of course this has nothing to do with lawsuits, fear of car modifications or emissions compliance. It is a businesses decision in order to establish new revenue streams where before there only was a single sale (and revenue) per product.

See all that data that is generated when people use the product? That could be mined, refined, and made into new products. All those computer screens in the car are suddenly new avenues to push advertisements. All those critical equipment are a avenue to sell repairs, where the producer has monopoly. And if nothing else, the computer inside the car can always be made into a platform.

Take a product, throw in some DRM, and voila, you can create revenue after sale. The DRM and the accompanying user agreement is the glue from which all that extra revenue can be made.

From a company perspective, I don't see how much of a choice they've got. A competitor can use that extra revenue to lower prices for which a consumer won't be able to assess when buying. Selling equal-looking products at higher prices normally spells doom, and regulations haven't even begun addressing the issue.
You must be a PR person for the auto makers. I personally want to know when my driving information is being sent to a third party and be able to modify this behavior so I can control how my information is shared.
Well, if they're interested in selling more cars, I'm in the market for a car that I can diagnose, repair and customize via a usb connection to my laptop.

There's an aversion to transparency in a lot of software stuff because you can't prevent people from stealing your hard-earned work, but in giving your customers more accessibility you'll have an immediate edge in the car market, which, after all, is how you make money.
+1. Yes, please.
This comment brings to mind the concept of the the steel man [1][2].

Steelmanning an argument means to go one step further. In addition to selecting the most charitable parts of another person's argument, one seeks to improve on it, by making it the best possible representation of the other persons position.

From there, one can offer their own counterpoint, to this improved version.

[1] https://themerelyreal.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/steelmanning/

[2] http://lesswrong.com/lw/85h/better_disagreement/
Manipulation happens in technology too, where it is called "hacking".

Next time I find a salesman on my doorstep, I'll have him arrested for attempting to hack into my brain :)
Why would you have `make all install' behave differently than `make install'? I'm imagining specifically when you have the install target present.
The adversarial noise issue is not so hard to understand, it's just costly to correct.

That link provides the explanation: if your classifier is not very regularized, then the classification regions are going to be close and irregular, s.t. a small vector may lead you from one to another. It's more of a geometrical fact f you think of classification regions in those spaces (of high dimension).

Guaranteeing a large minimum distance is hard (essentially why error correcting codes are pretty hard to encode/decode)
Again on assert()
>If it is valid, on-topic criticism, it isn't gratuitous negativity.

We'll need some assurance that invalid criticism can also fall under the category of "not gratuitously negative" as well. Otherwise, we've just defined "invalid" criticism as being against the rules. And strangely, the people in power are always the ones whose viewpoints are "valid", "true", etc.
Comment collapsing and new comment highlighting are both excellent reasons to use the extension.
Fear mongering is what it is. If average people who don't know how to read code can be frightened into submission, they can do whatever they want.
US man survived on raw fish and rainwater after being lost at sea for 66 days
> when the LHC runs, the chambers housing the detectors experience intense radiation

I thought that it was very energetic but low intensity radiation (outside the main tunnel). Does anyone have more data about this? How many "normal radiography" equivalents do you get for standing there for a minute?
> they could purposefully or accidentally make the vehicle non-compliant with safety/emission standards,

As much as I wanted to know about the mysterious "software upgrade" that the dealer claimed was available for my car (that was covered under warranty) - I understand why they keep consumers in the dark.

Do you really want some random guy messing with the base code of his car and accidentally get into a deadlock situation causing the brakes to not engage? Or for the vehicle's accelerator to keep increasing without being pressed?

Something else to keep in mind - people already have figured out how to remotely control a vehicle using bluetooth. [1]

I couldn't tell you what the solution is - whether it be build-your-own-car or forcing auto makers to release their source code - each will still have problems.

[1] - http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/02/senator-car-hacks-th...
shit you guys, can't you go with the reading my comment charitably or will you hit that downvote button again, thereby showing your hypocrisy?

The whole "why won't you be tolerant of my intolerance?" paradox again. Cute.
Bear in mind that what is and isn't constructive is not an objective measurement. It's a subjective value judgment. To some, finding bugs in someone's argument is a constructive thing - you are helping them by fixing their argument and showing them how to argue better in the future. Being better able to argue means an increased ability to communicate effectively with others.

So my question becomes thus: how do you define constructive? I, personally, have run across multiple instances of one person's constructive and actionable feedback being another's gratuitously negative useless nitpicky feedback.
I like all the libraries that you end up having to use with React (and I end up using Lodash with everything anyway). I also think React is a better solution most of the time, but it requires knowledge of the JavaScript ecosystem to grab all the libraries you need whereas Angular does not. As a newbie it can be hard to identify not only what libraries you need but also what is the best of breed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ017D_JOPY&t=3m15s

But I honestly fall into the other camp that believes respect should be given freely.

BUT

that lasts until you open your mouth and say something stupid. I've had "discussions" with people about whether or not MAtz Ruby had a GIL.

You don't get my respect for holding that opinion and I have better things to do with my time than worry about your feelings.

There's a clear difference between someone with a differing opinion and someone with a flawed thought process. I'm ok with a person telling me C++ is the most horrible thing since sliced bread despite my love for the language. I'm not ok with someone telling me allocation/deallocation in C++ is slower than C# because some article on the internet talked about allocation without going into the cost of deallocation.

One of those is understandable, the other is flat out wrong and if you choose to hold to that opinion then you're going to get dismissed as someone whose thought process is too faulty to trust.

And I have better things to do with my time.
Yes, I have some publications, and am familiar with the process.

I was attacking a theoretical review to make a point I wanted to make. The blog post doesn't say the reviewer recommended rejection on the basis of implementation in Julia, or that the editor's decision cited the language choice. My point was that if those things were true (which is not clear from the post), that would be bad. I make that point because in my experience, it's not uncommon for reviewers to take similarly unreasonable positions.
Well, at least we can always kaizen our way to betterment?
> That's probably not due to their health care, since their outcomes for major health incidents are poor.

The idea that the only important contribution of a health care system is through the outcomes it produces to major health incidents is bizarre; if that was the case, then preventive care would have no value.
The US and Cuba have roughly comparable rates of death due to coronary heart disease and stroke.
I wonder how they can do this for free?
I have a difference of opinion on the matter of downvotes. A long time ago I decided to try to treat downvotes on my own posts as editorial feedback. In the best case, it just meant I was unclear. In the worst, case I said something stupid. In between there are cases where I knowingly wrote something likely to get downvotes.

I believe downvoting a comment that I disagree with is often far better for HN than expressing my passionate "well informed" opinion. Downvoting prevents my inclination toward "trolling lite" in the form of explaining how someone is obviously wrong for the sake of correcting the internet.

To put it another way, downvotes are for downvoting. Downvoting and moving on is the right choice whenever it proxies the possibility of worse behavior. A downvote can be a way of mocking out a flamewar or general meanness.
Your post perfectly shows part of the problem, which is... you can give it, but you can't take it. If you're not prepared to give people the benefit of the doubt, why would you expect something different in return?
The who uses OCaml page is pretty impressive. https://ocaml.org/learn/companies.html

Looks like it is mostly used for compilers, cryptography, and risk assessment.
Loading everything into memory at once shouldn't be necessary to produce a hash of the entire input. All of the hash functions currently supported allow for incremental hashing. That means you can hash in blocks instead of all at once.
EZTV Impostors Hope to Cash in on EZTV.it Domain
1. Why? That sample on autocompeter.com is just a sample. Consider the search widget on a page like www.peterbe.com instead. Then it shouldn't focus immediately on load.

2. I see. I think it only happens when the client-side cache is empty. And it only happens if you type very fast. I think the right solution would be to not hide too quickly. That's a very useful piece of feedback. Much appreciated!
We can also view Karatsuba multiplication as a special case of a general class of polynomial multiplication algorithms (after all, numbers written in a particular base are just polynomials evaluated at that base). Naively, multiplying two polynomials of degree n takes (n + 1)^2 multiplications of coefficients, but a more clever approach would evaluate the two polynomials at a number of points, then multiply those values together, then fit a polynomial to the results. This involves only (2n + 1) multiplications (the number of values needed to determine the resulting polynomial).

Thus, our clever binomial trick is the observation that multiplying two polynomials of degree 1 yields a polynomial of degree 2, so we need to pick 3 points for our evaluation; if we pick the points to be 0, 1, and "infinity" (in the sense of a value such that P("infinity") = the leading coefficient of P, just as P(0) equals the degree zero coefficient of P), then we get our Karatsuba trick: we break (Ex + F) down into F, E + F, and E, and similarly for (Gx + H), then multiply the corresponding values together (our three multiplications), and from those results reconstitute the polynomial product we are interested in. (And we can apply this recursively to break down the multiplication of polynomials of greater degree than 1)

An even more clever approach notes that we can evaluate our polynomials at various roots of unity all at once very efficiently with the Fast Fourier Transform, which is what leads to the most efficient multiplication algorithms known.
I am 100% behind scientific research of Mars but I'd be very interested in seeing what kind of companies would spring up almost overnight if they knew they could make multiple billions of dollars and also how fast we would put people on the red planet if a profit was involved.
Can you flesh that argument out more? Is there a statistic we can find to validate it? Nothing is jumping out at me to suggest that Cuban preventative care is the reason Cuba ranks as well as it does on life expectancy.

The idea that life expectancy statistics do a poor job of capturing the quality of health care systems isn't mine; it's a pretty popular one among economists.
No, hypocrisy.

You don't get to pick and choose who to interpret charitably unless you want to be a hypocrite.

But here's the thing.

That idea is valid even though your dislike of my post is going to drive you to continue attacking me unnecessarily.

and that is why I have a tendency to dismiss people.
>But by "getting the idea" I mean the intent.

I'm suspicious of the intent. That's why I want a more formal criteria.
You missed my point, have a good day.
It may sound like it on the surface, but I don't think it is a good thing in the long run.

There's a fine line between making a community and making a herd. Upvoting / downvoting encourages both, the problem being trying to have enough to encourage the first without enough of the second to lose the community you've built.
>it is much easier to look at an after market part and determine if it was cause of the failure because it is a physical object. Software and the state and sequence of events are much harder to look at and conclusively say "yes, this was the culprit".

I don't buy your argument.

For example, to plug in a laptop and do a checksum of the binaries would take seconds. To disassemble an engine to find a spec'd up cam would take hours.
You are right. _Some_ companies do pay, that's why I included qualifier [generally].

We don't really know the percentage of the companies who do pay, but judging by the recent openSSL debacle, it's not great.

I know this is probably not the right forum, but I was hoping to engage collective wisdom to come up with a third option, which would guarantee payment of some kind for an open source development.
FWIW, the Technicolor router I have from my ISP (Telia) is also deeply flawed. It sometimes tampers with TCP sessions from specific apps, setting the TCP sequence number to 0 for specific packets (same every time). A reboot helps for a short while.
Another thing it does is spew massive amounts of garbage datagrams out on Wifi - it looks only pseudo-random, but it's nothing that Wireshark can decode beyond the IP layer. (IP addresses are there but looks like random public IPs.)
Not so sure about that being the best way. I agree that it would be the best for not confusing short-term. However, there are also many problems with that approach, mainly that Node.js is not of the community, it is from Joyent. While this works great in some cases (Linux), there were apparently many problems with Node.js.

I think the best would be:

1. Joyent giving the name to io.js so they can keep developing Node.js at a fast speed while keeping the name to avoid confusion.

2. As 1 is highly unlikely, IMO the best next thing is for io.js to gain market and popularity as fast as possible.
SEEKING WORK - Minneapolis, MN. Local & remote.

I do embedded software/firmware on multiple platforms, primarily Atmel AVR based. Design electronics for sensor interfacing and motion control. I will take on projects from tiny one-off's to small production volumes. Never turned a project down for being too small. Also available to consult on software development process. Experienced in FDA Medical Device regulation (21CFR).

Contact info in profile or email hlb @ luxevolutica.com
There are very few cases where you should be doing encryption without authentication... and as soon as you're doing authentication you'll be doing more than just xoring with a stream cipher output. :)
It started as a side-project and still is. I'm the creator of the service and my day job is as a web developer at Mozilla.

If this service becomes surprisingly popular I'll look into ways to monetize but that's unlikely to be the case unless I'm really really lucky.

The origin of building this is that I found a cool prototype of the concept in a blog post, then threw that into my own site and later realized I want to re-use that for a (day)work site. So I though instead of copying it, I'll write a microservice.
The United States was only slightly green. I would have thought it would have lit up more. It may be because they passed laws in the min-1800s prohibiting importing of slaves.
Great news, the Gear is an awesome piece of kit if you have the cash, I'm planning a few projects with it myself.
Regarding the name, I just desperately needed to call it something when I started the git repo to build the prototype. Then it stuck and I decided to "brand" it as such.
This is a little overly black and white in my opinion. Yes, the EFF is not flawless in their articles and writing. They have written questionable things before and I don't always agree with what they say. Regardless, they are a huge force for the rights of every day Americans and I think our rights would be tremendously eroded without them. This is why I donate.
I responded to the idea behind a specific statement, I did not make a generalized observation about the guideline.

I even quoted the idea I was responding to. Perhaps you should practice some of that charitable interpretation.
Node seems to have tons of controversies around it ever since its inception.

As much as I would love to enjoy Node, I can't. It's just too much drama around it.

Strongloop, Joyent, none of these companies are guiding the Node community in the right direction (the Node community itself probably are too full of "strong opinionated" individuals that caused further drama).

Strongloop is basically a bunch of people with money, hired a few Node core contributors to get street creds (of course the Node core contribs people would be more than happy to get paid and be the face of a company... y'know, ego and money) and try to be the RedHat of Node (oh, they bought NodeFly and laid everybody off ).

Joyent saw "gold" in Node but it's quite clear they're having hard time to capitalize their first-mover advantages. Maybe Accounting still doesn't like the idea of paying a bunch of people with money to support an "open source project" and figure out how to make money later on.

Hence we're seeing how Joyent just didn't own NodeJS and leave everybody to dust with tons of contributions... if you want to own an OSS project, invest tons of resources, make sure you own a large percentage of the codebase, deliver tons of new and exciting features, put lots of marketing behind it, and make sure people have hard time to "catch up" thus creating an invisible barrier to enter. Hire the smart ones that still can somehow understand the codebase and contribute effectively. Another way is by providing sub-par documentation for the public to contribute, of course that's more "evil" than making it hard for individuals to get to know the codebase...

Now we have IO.js, a "community" driven with individuals who "work for corporation with Node interest" behind them...(those APM companies and Node-based service providers wanting to be the recognized leader in Node).

Let's be honest (and be real): Node is positioned to be the next popular framework after Rails. It's not hard to see why there are so much politics around it. The difference is that Rails has DHH as BDFL and he didn't want to make money out of Rails (if you don't count public speaking...) and Node has no BDFL...
Depends on the backend platform actually. Apache CGI processes (PHP) are fire-and-forget per request. But for example Ruby and Node.js servers persist through request cycles. It's important that any state is unique to the request, sometimes even the caches should be per request.

Node.js has a package called piping that hot-reloads require()ed files. It makes interactive development possible. Checkout my backend and frontend interactive isomorphic starterkit: https://github.com/RickWong/react-isomorphic-starterkit It hot-reloads Node server code and client code your browser.
How could this sentiment possibly have anything to do with Hacker News? Much to my disappointment, Hacker News doesn't offer financial aid to commenters.
I once visited a Washington DC Beltway Bandit government contractor's office who had a Symbolics Lisp Machine that they used exclusively to develop Fortran code, which they compiled into Lisp and debugged with the awesome programming tools.

And of course there was Gyro's Zeta-C compiler, with an interactive C listener.
My apologies. The question was asking if this statement was "gratuitously negative" or just "regular negative", so I thought we could take its negativity for granted.

I would tend to agree with the original commenter that "horrible" is a negative word, and with you that "blue" is not. I hope that clears it up.
Clearly some people were interested or it wouldn't have reached the front page. I'm not sure what your point is -- what's wrong with another "naive reporter discovers how the sausage is made" story?
Rather than getting yourself wound up with faulty thinking over something that's clearly wrong, is it not just better to show them the facts? It's quicker than arguing too.
> My experience tends to be that if you can hold a dissenting opinion respectfully, and back up your assertions, HN treats it favorably in the long run.

I think "in the long run" is key here.

When I make a comment that challenges some band of partisans, but strikes a factual tone, my observations is that it initially gets downvotes (presumably from the partisans who are hovering over the thread/story), but in the end gets moderated highly.
The input still needs to be cached for eventual output in case the hash matches I assume.
The post you're responding to is at pains to explain that the new guideline isn't "no negativity", which seems to moot your concern pretty much completely.