skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I think you'd be insane to make [Soylent] more than 30% of your daily calories

You can't make claims like this without context. There's 85th-percentile health, and then there's 99th-percentile health. Plenty of foods, including Soylent, can help people attain or maintain that more modest level of health. Now, if you were an Olympic athlete requiring 99th-percentile health, I agree you'd be insane to make Soylent more than 30% of your daily calories. But if you're an average person eating the Standard American Diet, you are currently insane from a health standpoint, and switching to Soylent would make you a lot less so. And among all the options you might have for improving your diet, it is among the cheapest and lowest-effort.

It amazes me how people can fail to recognize that nutrition is a part of a larger economic problem of time and resource allocation. There are real tradeoffs to be made! Perfection is rarely attainable or even desirable except in special cases!

Rob Rhinehart, for his part, has always been honest about this. The Soylent team has looked at including things like antioxidants and digestive enzymes--things you'd get from whole foods but not from Soylent's processed ingredients--but they concluded that there's just not enough information to determine the types and quantities of these substances that are necessary to improve health. I think this lack of information is no accident. It's easier to research core nutrients whose deficiency will cause clear symptoms than it is to research nice-to-haves like antioxidants whose presence may cause slight performance improvements at the margin. Soylent is designed to reflect the state of nutritional knowledge. As that knowledge improves, so will Soylent. While I have bought MealSquares and enjoy their product, I prefer Soylent's approach to one that pretends our knowledge is more complete than it really is.
That's kind. You could also say that google has had a mediocre, confusing, poorly supported also-ran cloud offering for years and shows no sign of doing anything but continuing the current path.

The needle is moved by having nontraditional ideas and following through with commitment. I know Google has enough great minds for (a), where, bafflingly, is (b)?
He colluded with other sellers to 'fix' prices. In a fair market, individual sellers set their own prices. This works to limit the ability of one seller to price gouge. If they charge too much, a competitor will undercut them, gradually lowering the price to a fair deal for both buyers and sellers (in theory).

If the sellers all collude however, they can set whatever price they want. This can force buyers to pay more than is 'fair'. In the US, following some major issues with the railroads, antitrust laws were inacted. These laws make getting together with your competitors to set prices illegal in some cases. Some people think this is just a part of doing business. Others believe it's a necessary protection for consumers to maintain a fair market economy.
Higher education is absolutely a means to personal growth, but at ~$100K in the US it's a really extravagant form of personal growth.
Working on some additional features this week.
Viewing remote directories and files.
Downloading files from a remote server.
Performing DIFFs between local and remote versions.

If anyone has any requests, or wants more information, please let me know.
I have the previous edition of this laptop, and I'm very happy with it. I'm a Linux guy through and through, and I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is, rather than buying some Windows machine and hoping Linux runs well on it.

I'll probably pick one of these up later this year.
What you've said is essentially correct, but I'd like to make a minor correction: Chromium uses rietveld whereas Android (and some Chromium related projects) use gerrit. Rietveld and gerrit have similar workflows except that gerrit is more integrated with git (I think). Both are named after Gerrit Rietveld, a famous Dutch designer.
People with sloppy development practices could easily forget to include all the required copyright notices. All popular license require that the copyright notice is included in distribution, and forgetting to do so puts one under legal liability.
I'd already be pretty happy if we moved from XML to JSON. YAML would be icing.
If you want to query some services (such as Google Search or Google Maps API), you may encounter throttling issues.

Having multiple IPv4 addresses helps to alleviate that problem.

IPv4 address also has reputation attached to it.
That reputation is much move valuable that reputation on IPv6 address, because cost of IPv6 is pretty much zero, but IPv4 costs $10+ per address.
Your terminology and reasoning are very mixed up here. Your argument that "WebGL is not a 3D library because you have supply the 3D knowledge" is complete nonsense.

For one thing, WebGL is not a userland "library", it's an API layer on top of device driver implementations of the OpenGL spec. It's not designed to be something that "makes 3D easy"; it's not even a "library" in the npm/jQuery sense of the word.

I would not recommend any tutorials written by an author whose reasoning about OpenGL is so fundamentally flawed. You should really re-think what you're claiming here.
I own a TIG welder and have done lots of welding with mild and alloy steel (mostly 300 series stainless).

TIG welding is like learning to ride a bike. It's difficult at first because various parts of your body have to work in concert, but once you get the hang of it you can do really great work. I've not done much overhead welding yet though, that's where the wages are earned.
If you do anything graphical, be it 2D or 3D, you can use WebGL or Canvas2D (for 2D-only). For some domains it's enough to do redraw/render only if a mouse/touch-events fires which helps a lot with the battery performance.
What evidence is there that Amazon sets different prices for different users for the same goods?
Heh, I always ask what revision control system company uses. If the answer was SVN (or even worse - CVS), it's usually a deal breaker, because as a rule of thumb, that means company is bureaucracy ridden, slow moving, enterprise behemoth.
Especially if you're working with Postgres, which doesn't do multi-master...
[pdf] Does Board Diversity Really Matter? Gender Does Not, but Citizenship Does
This is valid JSON in the same LOC: http://i.imgur.com/gv79uNM.png

It just seems like YAML is making things more implicit. I like explicitness. Not against YAML, but it's no holy grail in my mind.

I'm more experienced with JSON than YAML and could be swayed on this, but so far I'm not. They seem like two roughly equal ways to do the same thing.

This seems oddly similar to the nit-picky problems people have when learning Python from a C-like background and being annoyed that semicolons and flexible indentation aren't the norm. When I spend months working on JS code, looking at Python slightly annoys me, and vice-versa, so I think I get it. I just don't think it's an important, game-changing thing.

I'll be learning about Ansible soon, so I'll have to also learn YAML syntax. I guess I'll have a more educated view once I've gotten deep into that.
How do you solve the coercion problem ? How do you solve ballot corruption (ie. I'm selling my vote on ebay) ?
I hadn't really looked into YAML before, so I fed it some data for a web app I'm working on.

Man, It sure is condensed, but because of that, not very readable to me. If this is the standard for YAML, it's definitely interesting, but not my cup of tea. It's sometimes hard to parse where a list ends or an object begins. If you want to argue that it's more space efficient, I'd say, just use gzipped JSON. If you want to say you're using it for the spacing and/or line breaks, I'd just say find a viewer that prettifies your JSON well.

Having a delimiter, at least when you're representing chunks of data, is really useful, easier to code for, and easier to read than tabs or other systems. This, not so much. It's kind of a hot mess. Maybe that thinking works well in python, but I'm not so sure the principle translates away from code. If I have a list of objects, I really need to know where one thing ends and the next begins without having to keep track of more than one thing at a time.
Argh, I really dislike this article. It spreads a LOT of misinformation:

1) His friend did NOT write a bytecode interpretor, he wrote a bytecode compiler: there is a HUGE difference between those two.

2) No, it wasn't faster than assembly code. And the arrogance and audacity to make such a claim is obnoxious. Unless you gained access to Intel microcode, this is just plain wrong.

I wish I could downvote this: its just bad for aspiring compiler/interpreter developers. If you want some quality discussion see Mike Pall: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.lua.general/75426
I don't think this is correct, but I'm also a little unsure what you're trying to say.

For why I don't think is correct: if you violate a license, you are legally liable for copyright infringement, just as if there was no license on it in the first place. Every license other than CC-0, Unlicense, and other PD-equivalents requires something of you. If you use a piece of BSD-licensed software without attribution, you are liable for copyright infringement. (In at least the US, if the use was commercial, this is probably criminal copyright infringement.) The rightsholder can sue, and offer to settle out of court by having you release source instead of paying damages. It would be unusual but possible.

For why I'm confused by this comment: isn't it intentional, on the part of almost all other popular licenses, to permit commercial reuse without requiring the release of source? Wouldn't one only use the Apache License, the BSD license, etc. if one wanted Ubiquiti to be able to use it without being compelled to release source?

Is your claim that people are bad at understanding what licenses mean, and are unintentionally choosing weak copylefts when they want strong copylefts? I could believe that, but I haven't seen much evidence of that.
It's certainly complicated and my answer probably does not apply to such a trivial example code that is using mostly stdlib functions. But the potential gain for Haskell is with loop fusion. The user could implement all of those functions themselves (sum, take, etc) and then loop fusion will bind them into a single performant loop that the lower optimizers will turn into a straight-line code, whereas in procedural languages only stdlib functions and certain patterns of general functions get the fusion treatment. Worse, throw in an unfortunate alias into the procedure and the whole thing collapses into sequential loops.
Very neat project. Also, your vga tricks are really really cool. I havn't seen anything like it but I feel like it should be much more visible!
The 6502 is a beautiful CPU, but is really simple too. I took me 5 days (let's say 10 hours) to get my 6502 VM working and passing Klaus Dormann's functional tests.
>whereas in Git branches have the additional purpose of keeping revisions from being GCed..

Not only that, but it is also used to decide what all commits to show to the user. In that way branch names act as little windows through which you can look at the DAG of history. Commits that you cannot see through this window does not really belong in the history according to git, and will be GC'ed.

So if you make a commit on top of a revision that is not a branch head, then it becomes a DETACHED HEAD. Actually there is nothing 'detached' about it. It is linked to the parent commit just fine. But git just does not consider it part of the history unless you give it a name. Here you can see the problem with git naming. 'DETACHED HEAD'. If you understand a head revision as a last revision in a sequence of connected commits, how can there be a 'DETACHED HEAD' when a 'HEAD', by definition is part of a sequence of commits..

I wonder why someone would call it a 'DETACHED HEAD' instead of something like 'UNNAMED HEAD' or 'ANONYMOUS HEAD'....
I think mail-in ballots are the best option. Oregon does them, but I'm not sure what other places do.

Every voter gets a ballot mailed to them far in advance of election day along with a booklet outlining the benefits/consequences of measures we're voting for, what each potential representative wants to do, etc. You can take the time to research all available options and make an informed vote, then mail your ballot in at your convenience or drop it off at any library.

Far, far better than having to get up early in the morning and being around people who might attempt to grill you before/after you vote. Less chance of votes being manipulated since there's a paper trail, too.

I really don't know why the rest of the US doesn't do it this way.
A Journey Through Open Source: The Trials and Triumphs in Roslyn's First Year Of
Biggest thing about yaml for me was that you can have comments. This is very useful especially when you use it for configuration.

For data interchange, I don't see a lot of advantages to yaml though.
JSON is the new XML.
I like both JSON & YAML for different reasons. YAML is a great configuration format; it's fantastic for being read and written by humans. JSON is much better as a serialization format.

Write config files in YAML. Write APIs in JSON.
Let's say I'm trying to force you to vote for my candidate. Am I going to be happy with you taking the option of going to the polling place to vote privately? No. You'll do it right here where I can watch you click the button for my guy.
Lesson to take from endurance sports for software developers
Well, I can paraphrase my own comment from the thread about Australian elections:

You can slander everyone who discovers vulnerabilities in your software, and you can even lobby to make it illegal to disclose those vulnerabilities, and throw people in prison over it, and so on... and your software will go right on being vulnerable. You can put every security researcher and white hat in the world in prison on trumped-up charges and throw away the keys, and it will not make your software one bit more secure. It will probably make it a great deal less secure.

Which is to say that this EO will accomplish exactly the opposite of its supposed goal.

It's like, even if I convince every human being alive that I am not bound by the laws of gravity, if I jump off a cliff I will die all the same. To think otherwise is insane, but for some reason when it comes to software (and hardware) security we give people a pass. (Not we in the tech community, but we who vote.)

This is one of the Big Problems with human reasoning. Maybe the biggest. It really does seem that most people, if you drill down, truly and fundamentally believe that the laws that govern all of reality, will respond to a popular vote. That if we all believe something hard enough, reality will take notice. Thus we get policy which is totally divorced from the goals it is purported to serve, and not held accountable to them at all. As though the President of the United States can argue with mathematics or psychology and win.
Hmm, I don't like the fact that strings don't have quotes; 1 vs '1', false vs 'false', with javascript's === operator, it's nice to be explicit about the type of data, since javascript is where most json (and later YAML maybe?) gets consumed...
> this executive order [does not] target the legitimate cybersecurity research community or professionals who help companies improve their cybersecurity

Non-story, it's not targeted so I don't see why anyone would be against this unless maybe they are racist or love terrorism or something.
The article states the voltage to be 2v.
I think its the assumption that EVM's are built as a blackbox and so unhackable.
Snowden has revealed enough to suggest that may not be the case, so it is quite surprising.
We’re probably worse off if we let governments choose the technology winners. That could impose even higher costs than what we face today.
They grow on trees and just simple to make zinc strips. Except they can't power an LED for longer than about a minute. Admittedly they are not rechargable.

Electrodes can literally be had for pennies!
One of the elements is that "the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce". I don't think Amazon's dynamic pricing satisfies that element.
YAML = configuration, JSON = serialization.
When I read the executive order it appears to explicitly target people "outside the US".

Basically the internet changes the paradigm of law enforcement. I get the impression this is a step toward allowing US to "penalize" people who actively seek to disrupt computers / networks in the US from abroad.

If you spend too much time trying to figure out all the tiny details and put them into the eo this is where (a) you can waste time nitpicking instead of spending that time enforcing, (b) cases get thrown out of court on technicalities just because "this is what the law / eo says". Instead I prefer a system where executive / judicial branches of government can spend all their time analyzing a case based on the merits alone and not on the technical jargon that may or may not be included in the law / eo.

I prefer the approach of "give the elected representatives a leash, but a short one". Spend less time agonizing over exactly what the law should say, and more time analyzing whether or not the law / eo is being enforced in good faith.

The one exception to this rule is if you have (a) an overly broad law / executive order, and (b) an executive branch who is not transparent about how they enforce those laws / executive orders.
OK why do all this? Just wire up some hardware keylogger and give it back.
Is that really a problem? There's nothing stopping anyone from pointing a gun at my head and demanding I transfer all my savings to their account. That would have more impact on my personal wellbeing than someone stealing my vote. But we don't ban internet banking.
Most likely because they are using a closed source platform. Fair enough if you are disclosing a companies IP.

From back in May last Year:

"NSWEC is working with voting provider Scytl [http://www.scytl.com/en/] to improve the use of cryptography. It will also incorporate a verification system in which encrypted votes are sent to both NSWEC and an independent auditor, allowing two sets of data to be compared to ensure votes have not been tampered with."

Interesting that on Scytl's website NSWEC isn't listed as a customer. [http://www.scytl.com/en/customers/]
Data Breach – Hackers Violated a Server at Linux Australia
The Bronstein is awesome and it has a fantastic index but I wouldn't call it a dictionary. Moreover it's far from comprehensive regarding to mathematics because it contains mostly topics relevant for engineering, physics and economics.

Vieweg Mathematik Lexikon is good, but in German. There must be something similar in English.
Its a bit funny, when they state that it turns on instantly, They then back it up with 12 second cold boot and 3-5 second from sleep
Why do we see a new "super battery" article every two weeks or so?
You shouldn't have any problems with CC65 (specially if you're emulating the Apple II!). In my case it took a good amount of work just to get a "hello world" using printf ;)

And re:Mandelbrot... thanks! it took 2 hours and 13 minutes to render that Mandelbrot in ascii :) Because my design with external SRAM I have around 2.2464MHz free after dealing with the video generation (composite video timing is so expensive!), but the extra overhead of the compiler has to be added on top of that (plus fixed float point numbers in a 6502 emulated in an AVR...).
I don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction. For me it's easier to believe that this EO was signed deliberately to make every important security researcher guilty by default. It's hard to go against a government that can always punish you for what you have already done.
Postal voting has two essential, unpatchable vulnerabilities: anyone can open an envelope and can be exposed to external pressure.

People are exposed to enough pressure just by virtue of having to interact with politically passionate people just to get to the booths. In many cases, they don't check photo ID, just evidence of enrollment.

At very least, I'd like to see internet voting implemented without low-hanging security issues, enough confidence in their implementation to open-source the code, and with the backing of security researchers and organisations like the EFF. At least if we had issues like guns being pointed to heads and potential invalid double-votes, we could discuss them in the context they deserve.
They seem to be awfully out of structure judging by the e-mails of the support team for a company that does 600M.
One problem I've hit a few times is parsing of strings with escapes in YAML. In JSON it's absolutely clear how escaping is works, in YAML, in practice, different parsers do subtly different things.
Can you point to specific examples of the CoreOS team dealing low blows?

Frankly, CoreOS started the ACI and Rocket because there was no open specification. Docker had started off with somewhat of a specification, then deleted it. A year later, CoreOS launches ACI as a public open spec, and suddenly Docker whips one of their own up over a weekend.

The entire point of ACI is nobody owns the specification. Docker wants to own the spec, govern the spec, and be the spec.

With something as critical as this technology -- we need an open specification -- far more than an open implementation.
$1.25 isn't wholesale though. I wonder what the supermarket is paying.
I hadn't thought about comments - that is a clear advantage to YAML. Great point to bring up, and supports the popular view I'm seeing that YAML is maybe better for config files. I can think of numerous scenarios where a configuration decision could use some context.
One thing that comes to mind is (for data interchange), it allows for custom objects to be explicitly marked as such

http://www.yaml.org/spec/1.2/spec.html#id2805712

additionally, it allows multiple top level objects in one file (which JSON can't do (not counting 3rd party modifications))

other than that, not much other use
There are already a couple pretty good responses, but I would add that all of the technologies you mentioned (along with others in this space) are still evolving and maturing.

Docker popularized containers, and now we're seeing the supporting technologies that will help fulfill some of the promises of container-based deployment. Big companies have had this technology internally for years, and now it's starting to get productized.

I'm referring to things like schedulers, networking, monitoring, etcd/consul, and more. I personally don't think all of the pieces are there yet to make it as seamless and easy as it could be, but it's coming.