skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I wonder why they (both node.js and io.js) chose to use processes instead of threads to do multiprocessing, because with threads you can have at least structural sharing of immutable data structures.
In my view, yes, that's shallow cynicism, because it denies good faith in the other.

You may be right that not many places on the internet are better, but HN can and should be much better than it is. Rather than measuring it against rampant internet negativity of today, we should measure it against a future online community where people have learned to refrain from taking their negative feelings out on others.

It no doubt took a long time for people to (mostly) learn how not to do that in person, so it's not surprising if takes us a while to learn not to do it online.
"dumb" and "sophisticated" aren't mutually exclusive, especially when you look at this particular example: only sophisticated algorithms could automatically react to Tesla announcing new product, so only them could do dumb decision and take April Fools joke into account when trading.

The point they seem to be making is that benefits of fast trading massively outweigh the losses from making dumb decisions like there, so algorithms that integrate more and more input signals into decision making win in long term - no matter how rough are their assumptions about those signals.

It's not about algorithms being fast and simple - it's about algorithms doing more and more complicated stuff (not in "how", but "what" they do), so they can easily make (and will make more often with time) dumb decisions when looking from human point of view - but at the same time they can quickly react on much more types of events that normally would have to be noticed by human first, or already deduced from market actions.
Apache Spark is written in Scala.

Whitepages is also Scala.

That's off the immediate top of my head.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm very eager to see the lowRISC stuff come to fruition.
so says the censor, so it must be true.
Its in a very abstract sense, ownership. Tou don't get to make any decisions whatsoever regarding said business. You don't get to speak for the business. You don't get to work there. You don't own anything, in fact, except the stock share.

No, its a polite fiction that a 'share' is related to the business. Its related to the right to bet on the business' performance, and a little bit more. If the business fails, you have certain rights. If its sold, your share is handled specially.

That the return doesn't go into your bank account is especially damning. The company money is entirely kept separate from your money, because they are not legally related.

Dividends are a red herring, used by few companies and factored in/out of the stock price near the dividend date. Stock buybacks are another anomaly. The company can decide at any time that you don't own your share, they want it back!

There have to be special rules put into place to avoid 'abuse' during buybacks, mergers etc. Because otherwise the non-existant connection between the share and the company would be exploited to the fullest, by leaving the shareholders out of the money entirely. SO rules get made to force the company to pretend the share is meaningful.
I was purposefully using "crap" as shorthand, there :)

In detail, I don't see HN ever being a place where legitimate (in other words, well articulated) criticism gets deflected or discouraged on the grounds of being mean or unfriendly. At the end of the day, if you have learned something factual about what you've done, it should not be discarded just because the usual social niceties were not provided.

Think of a Show HN post for an obviously slapdash and insecure web service of some kind. I'd fully expect the comments to contain almost nothing but proclamations of how the author is doing it wrong.
Ah ok, my mistake. I'm sorry. I think we agree then, you're right I'm a man and people still say to me "Where'd you learn to do all these things?"
There is a different between the "strongest" interpretation of a comment and the "best possible light".

For example, if somebody tells me "Angersock, you can go happily fuck yourself", I'm not going to expect them to be wishing me a rousing and cheerful round of masturbation--that is the "best possible light", but not the "strongest interpretation".

Properly handled, assuming the worst of a comment, articulating the argument you think is being made, and then rebutting it, is far better than just assuming the best--provided it's done civilly, of course.
I did do that (point to my profile, which demonstrates I don't work at Microsoft) with my comment, albeit in an implied manner.

I think you're reading too much into my comment. I don't think you're giving me the a charitable reading of my comment, which is against HN's spirit.

Furthermore, comment threads are for everyone, and not just the people participating. Letting us know whether or not you're going to respond is very "you"-centric, and yet again doesn't really fit with the "spirit" of HN.

Maybe in the future you examine your glass house before throwing stones.
Ask HN: How to make Google notice me?
I really want to work at Google, for various reasons. I'm writing software for many years, got a great job, managed people, and I can get any Sr. software engineer role I really want. But I really want to work there.

I got many other companies contact me, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Linked-In, Netflix and even a couple of YC companies.

Google contacted me only once, but for a "10% technical, mostly customer support around ad services"

What do I need to do to get on their radar for a software engineer position? :)

What do I need to do in addition to this:

- got a 5 digit stackoverflow reputation, 3% overall in various topics

- got tons of twitter followers on technical topics

- got many github repos in many languages, several pull requests merged into popular projects.

- My degree is from a top 10 US university in computer science.

- I have many years of software experience

- My company SOLD Google one of the products I worked on (instead of developing in house)

- got a pretty high HN karma on technical related comments in my "real" username

- Great linked in profile, tons of recommendations and endorsements

- People tell me I'm a really good software engineer

- I am a really full stack T-shaped guy, knows a little about a lot and a lot about a little.

- I can write fluently in Java, Scala, C++, C, JavaScript, ES6, HTML5, CSS3

- Have a relatively popular blog, with a couple of technical posts getting to HN front page.

- I'm REALLY prepared to take that Google interview, but I just need them to call!

So to all of you who keep getting Google recruiter spam. What are you doing that I'm not? Do I need to start speaking at conferences? Write books? Start a PhD at Stanford? (an MSc from a top 10 CS program is not enough?)

Google? why not you like me? :)

Hope to get some insights, really appreciate your help.
My honest opinion here is that almost everyone is completely missing a crucial point. Nearly all of the reasons given for locking people out of modifying their cars apply equally to cars without computers. Changing the odometer? It's far easier to do that on a car with a mechanical odometer. Making the vehicle non-emissions compliant? Nobody used the DMCA to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to remove their catalytic converters. All of this has been fought for far longer than computers have existed. People have been successfully fooled into thinking that this is a new situation, when technology is only being used to prop up an ancient ideology. Very frustrating indeed!
If you delicate snowflakes can't nurture the next yo! to a $10B IPO because some anonymous asshole on the internet told you your idea was a piece of shit, maybe you shouldn't have a $10B IPO...

Just sayin.
F* you. That's the stupidest rule I've ever heard of.
What's sad is that I wrote about this about 25 years ago when I first wrote gmake's -j feature.

http://highlandsun.com/hyc/#Make

The Chrome/Ninja discussion reminds me of the old mess of X11 IMakefiles. Apparently nothing has really improved since then.
This San Francisco handyman earned $14,000 in the last 30 days
Radiolab just had a story on another aspect of Cuban life most outsiders might not know about, "Los Frikis," metalheads and rockers in Cuba:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/los-frikis/
I like to differentiate between 3 kind of ideas:
- Fun ideas: These are ideas like the tiny dog firing catapult that you just throw around for fun and for the kicks. Not a lot of people appreciate them and some take them too seriously and call you stupid.
- Good & Simple Ideas: These would be achievable and simple ideas. Characteristic of them is that they are exothermic and have low energy barriers. Things like Windows, Google etc would fall into this. They were not super big or super ambitious and were logical progressions but were achievable. Finding one of these that someone is not already working on is hard.
- Great Ideas: These are ideas that are highly exothermic but require high activation energy. If you try this without already being successful you're going to have a hard time sleeping.
I scrolled to the bottom of the comments because I knew some people would have made jokes and been downvoted for it. Just thought I'd let you know that _I_ laughed, so thanks.
The first three rules are fine, but the fourth ("No subtle -isms") strikes me as rather hypocritical given the Recurse Center's policy of offering financial support only to favored minorities. They write [1]

We want the Recurse Center to be a space with as little bigotry as possible in it.

and yet their financial aid policies are explicitly discriminatory [2]:

The Recurse Center is free for everyone, and we offer need-based living expense grants for women and people from racial and ethnic groups traditionally underrepresented in programming.

In other words, poor white and Asian men can attend, but they don't qualify for any extra support. This is an "ism", but there's nothing subtle about it.

[1]: https://www.recurse.com/manual#no-subtle-isms

[2]: https://www.recurse.com/diversity
I think true criticism is treated well (for example, discussing validity of walled garden in app store). It's the trollish comments, like calling Apple users sheep or ignorant hipsters that thrown money away, that are problematic.
In the context of my discussing someone's motivations, that was intended to be an example where those motivations were on topic and in particular not those of another poster.

For instance, discussion of the motivations of Sam Altman in creating this suggestion-guideline: is he lashing out after the negative reaction to his bubble essay?

That's insulting! It's also fair game!

You can argue that as a statement it's inaccurate, given what you know or believe, but I hope you understand that that kind of statement is exactly the sort of negativity this thing seems designed to prohibit.
But, are you disagreeing or agreeing with me? LOL, j/k. Things are always so subtle with human communication. It is always fun to watch/see people put down rules to manage the psychology of communication (referring to original thread). But following rules, or have conscious awareness of the least minimum rules (etiquette is a better word) is always so important in having a reasonable environment.
That is already a mature technology. I prefer to use a heavy pack but cell phones are also a popular technique.
You'll have to trust me when I say that what I'm about to write isn't personal. I have no idea what was going on in your head or heart when you wrote it and don't want to invent a story about your motivations. :)

> The first link is a low-quality comment / ad hominem, the second link is off-topic / ad hominem. Both of those were already against the rules.

Although I wouldn't call this comment "gratuitously negative" or even "negative," I do believe it exemplifies one of the major root behaviors that lead to negativity (gratuitous or otherwise): failure to fully digest the conversation plus a reflexive desire to make a point.

First, as @dang pointed out elsewhere, this comment's point was anticipated and addressed directly in the original 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.

Even if the point were worth making, it was already made by @sama. Why assume the grandparent comment wasn't written with that very paragraph in mind? If you didn't read all of the original essay, why jump in to comment on whether the examples were appropriate or not?

Second, even if that paragraph weren't there, comments like this add absolutely nothing constructive to the conversation and risk starting an irrelevant debate over the semantics of "gratuitously negative" vs. "ad hominem" vs. "off-topic". Much more constructive would be, "When @sama said 'gratuitously negative' I was thinking more of comments like: <links to some comments>. To me these are different from the examples you listed because <reasons>."

Don't have any examples in mind? Don't have time to go look for them? That's fine — don't comment!

Honestly, I'd bet money that @sama added that paragraph specifically in an attempt to head off pointless top-level comments like, "Isn't this already against the rules? Look, here they are: Rule 3, Rule 14, and Rule 78(b)! Does @sama even read the rules of his own site? UGH."

All of these things pile up, leading to people responding reflexively to other people, who respond reflexively in turn, leading to...etc. etc.
You can. SVG Filters are supported.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/10/14/svg-filter-eff...

Edit: to clarify, the image would need to be moved into the SVG (which could be a simple DOM manipulation of the original <img> tag).
> Okay, extrapolate this to a weapons system. You can't expect a company to come up with their own version of the F-35 (which is extremely advanced) with the hope that, if you are satisfied, you'll buy 100 or so.

There have been a few instance of advanced weapon systems designed by firms at risk with the hopes of winning sales, but the history of many of those is not conducive to firms repeating the efforts (e.g., the Northrup F-5G/F-20.)
Thanks for sharing that list.
Sorry for missing this!

Right now, it is up to the student to make sure they abide by the rules set forth by their landlord for subleasing. Typically this is just filling out a form telling them who will be living in the property, and in some cases, an additional fee. We would prefer to keep the legal responsibilities on the student, but will work towards making it as easy as possible to facilitate transactions and contracts with the subletter online.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
"Own" is just clickbait here. They don't quote any automaker who says you don't own your car. They do quote automakers referring to "owners" as the people who paid for and drive the cars. There are other items I can own but cannot modify in certain ways, such as firearms.
Tomorrow: This reporter was shocked to discover what happens with your garbage. They throw it in man-made heaps!
You are implying that the rest of the review, which we haven't seen, was useless and shallow. However, the author himself said that the reviews were actually "helpful and constructive". I agree that cases of bike shedding exist, but there is no evidence that this was the case here.
You know you can apply for jobs at google, right? ;)
I'm genuinely curious because, as far as I know, none of the
major languages were designed to be usable...

I think that's a little narrow-minded. Of course languages are designed to be usable. "Usable" is almost meaningless on its own, as every language is intended for use by developers to solve problems (toy languages notwithstanding).

As for your specific goals, "package management, interoperability, docs, and error messages," I think there are in fact major languages designed with very specific goals in those areas. Node.js for example was designed to leverage the immense popularity and familiarity with JavaScript, and it has a clear story for package management that has enabled an enormous ecosystem. Go is a language that from the get-go was designed with a coherent story of how to build large and maintainable systems, encompassing package management and the module system, language features chosen for their simplicity such as interfaces and the lack of generics, and a canonical source formatting tool to attempt to make the whole ecosystem more readable and understandable.

Rust of course has its own answers for usability. They too have a package system that can enable a thriving ecosystem. Their approach to memory management is a naked attempt to make their language "usable," an attempt to make programming more user-friendly language in contexts where interpreted languages, bytecode and even garbage collection are untenable. Their docs are coming along nicely, their error messages perhaps less so.

To say that no major languages are designed for usability is laughable. In fact, I would say that every major language since and including x86 machine code has been designed with usability concerns front and center. The more recent wave of languages especially -- practically no one is trying to beat C and C++ on technical capabilities. They are trying to beat them on ergonomics.
I find the "gratuitous negativity" a bit vague; i think thats poor wording choice, and something more descriptive should be developed. But I agree the principle is is good.

Its ok for people to be dumb, and for ideas or products to be shit. They exist / will keep coming. But if you want to actually contribute to the discussion, ask questions instead of belittling them. Try to steer them in the right direction instead of trying to get them to jump off the tracks entirely. Building stuff is hard, presenting things to your peers is nerve wrecking. Armchairs are comfy to speak from, but they don't move anything forward.
Intence – a new UX concept supposed to replace the scrollbar
"move fast, break things" is not a viable approach to aircraft design.

Lead times on hardware is years. That helmet - how long would it take you to make one? You can't just tell that team don't sweat it, we are going to change requirement on you every two weeks. And you can't tell the jet team wait 3 years for this helmet, then start designing the system.

Military development is so far outside the realm of agile that it make so sense to compare (source: I've done both). The things agile people struggle with I just scoff at. Building large, physical, state of the art systems require planning, requires schedules, requires rework, requires huge teams, requires reams of documentation, and so on. You can't agile your way through that stuff.

Planning doesn't lead to unbounded schedules. It leads to compromise. We have 3 years, 85 million dollars. We need an architecture (assume, say, a flight system for a helicopter, something I have done and delivered). I'm sorry, but very early in you have to choose your processors, distributed network (you need to be fail safe, so multiple redundancies are needed), and more. Then you can buy that, or simulate that; either has costs, but your engineers something to work with. Many have very strict environmental concerns - limited weight, has to fit in this bay, needs radiation hardening, and so on. I can't wait until the last 3 months to make this decision, sorry. Somebody has to build these, deliver them. They need to design and build out the logistics chain - how do I retrofit the existing fleet? HOw do I do repairs? How quickly can I spin up my factory line if you need spares? Do we buy 3x the units you need now, or plan on JIT. This is just one tiny nit of a tiny detail that needs to be decided and tracked. Don't forget instruction manuals, plans to train the maintaince workers, training the workers, training the pilots, building a school for the next people coming through in two years.

I have a meething. I could type for several hours. There is nothing agile about this problem.
Such a problem could always be solved by phrasing your response as a question.

"No, it's actually this way" vs "Have you considered the possibility that it's this way?" carries the same information with drastically different results.
Wells Fargo gave me a fake $100, during my anonymous bitcoin experiment (I tried to buy btc truly anonymously to see how feasible this is). I didn't realize at the time, and processed to spend the bills to get change (a bank can easily record the serials on all cash withdrawals, thus linking my btc purchase). During this whole time, I used several sets of disposable gloves.

When I tried the fake $100, which I didn't know was fake, it looked highly suspicious - buying a $2 tea with gloves and a $100 bill. Fortunately the shopkeep was cool about it. Wells Fargo wasn't. They refused to investigate or refund, and suggested I was lying about the bill and had inserted it.

I'd guess the downside to using just fingertip covers is that while you hide prints, you increase the possibility of leaving DNA via skin cells. Probably not an issue when spending cash, but more of an issue when preparing a package. (Though you need more than just simple gloves; I used a jacket and made sure my forearm was covered, as well as not using any surfaces I previously used).

(Result of my experiment: it's extremely difficult to get Bitcoins anonymously. Opsec is very tough, and LE must be thrilled about stuff moving online and into BTC since it's so easy to get wrong.)
I'm assuming you are a developer of said enterprise software. Talk to your support engineers and operations folks who run this software on a day to day basis. Ask them what their pain points are. You may find they have plenty of ideas that may inspire you. You may also find they have built their own projects that they use for managing and supporting the software.

Source: support engineer / operations folk who spent many years running enterprise software on a day to day basis
When have laws ever stopped bad actors?

In San Francisco I saw someone start to cross an empty street at an intersection, who then saw a police car cross the street two blocks away. The pedestrian stepped back onto the pavement and waited for the lights to change.

This was one of the most trivial crimes possible - jaywalking on an empty street - and it was stopped by a law.
yup. personally i feel that being able to receive unfiltered, honest feedback on the internet is a feature, not a flaw.
I had a period in my life where I suffered from so called Exploding Head Syndrome as well as sleep paralysis. I'd definitely attribute it to stress/anxiety and insomnia or the medication used to treat those problems. Exploding Head Syndrome seems like the auditory equivalent of a hypnic jerk and never bothered me too much. Sleep Paralysis is extremely unpleasant though.
I agree. The primary benefit is not to establish objective decidable rules, but rather to remind people to try to be genuine and fair.
If you want to see something a bit more dystopian, perhaps have a look at the oilsands tailing ponds on Canada (which they are admittedly trying to reduce in size).
Ultimate set of free Material Design icons for web developers
> Shouldn't Bitcoin have given him magic immunity?

No, why do you think that'd be the case?

> All the people who transacted on Silk Road, do you think they should sleep well at night?

Probably not. But certainly not because the FBI will track them through the blockchain, that's just ridiculous. There's absolutely no way to prove someone owns Bitcoins unless you get access to their wallet.
Another idea is to make down voting cost karma. Stackoverflow does this.
I was thinking along these lines the other day. Maybe stock market is unpredictable without outside world insight, but algorithms probably are.

A second order predictor may benefit from it, giving less gains more reliably guessing algorithm behavior instead of stock trends.