skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Partly, yes. You can just state that your app is design led. A large part of medium's selling point has been superior design.

Paper sole existence is an original, better interface to Facebook.

Design, as in usability has always been important. The question is, who is able to provide this? Are people who studied design at school good at providing usable designs or pretty designs?

One of the major problems in this debate is that a designers role is sometimes the person who comes in at the end and paints everything to look pretty, and sometimes it's a person who designs the entire user experience.

The danger is if too many desginers can only make it look pretty then management might start to rely on engineers ability to design instead of having an actual, dedicated focus on the design.
If accounts and HR do not have the figures of what employees are paid already in a spreadsheet somewhere, in a form that is easy to run statistics on, then you have larger problems than producing reports for government.

And given you have not answered, why do you think that publicising employee compensation would reduce employee compensation?

You seem to be using the logic that the government tried something once and it did the opposite, so therefore all government policies do the opposite, rather than engaging with the potential outcomes of this specific idea.
I always wondered why Linux can't just use the same thing as windows for DLLs: Instead of PIC, a big tables of places to patch with the final position.

It looks really terrible to lose one precious register and have all this PIC overhead.

I don't use mono's ahead of time compilation because it also creates PIC. The JIT has one register more available. But I haven't measured it yet
I usually post the VandenBerghe link too.

It's basically advocating the ML subset of OCaml, Haskell, and now Rust. Those languages all feature algebraic data types and pattern matching, which were pioneered in ML. Rust is basically a cross between ML and C++, with C-ish syntax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language)

(None of C, C++, Java, JavaScript, Python, etc. have those features, and thus they are all suboptimal for writing parsers.)

A good clue is the name -- ML stands for "meta-language". It's literally a language for describing languages.

ADTs and pattern matching are basically two sides to the same coin -- data vs code. ADTs are how you describe variants in the data. Specifically, "sum types" are essentially type-safe tagged unions (if you are a C person).
And pattern matching is how you describe variants in the code. The compiler checks that you have considered all cases.

This helps you tame code with nested conditionals. Nested conditionals give rise to the state space and code path explosion that I mentioned.

Here is more recent explanation:

https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2038036

Take a look at the OCaml vs Java code snippets.
Interesting that Judea Pearl's work on inferring causality from data is not mentioned. http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-99/book-toc.html
Acknowledging that I have obviously thought about it a lot less than this guy, my experience of switching to Py3 hasn't been that bad. I've been using Py3 exclusively for about 3 years now. Everything I want has been ported, except one or two packages which have Py3-compatible successors. I have been thoroughly enjoying the improvements of Python 3.

http://caniusepython3.com 's count is misleading because it appears to include almost all packages hosted in PyPI. Many of these haven't been updated in many years and many were never very serious projects. https://python3wos.appspot.com is much more fair, cataloging 200 widely-used Python libraries. Only 17 of these don't have a Python 3 version yet. I remember when 80% of that wall was red.

I use Arch. Arch shipped Python 3 as the default Python in 2011 iirc. It was bumpy for a while, but now I scarcely ever have problems with it. I think the most important step for Python 3's adoption is to get RHEL and Debian (and their respective downstreams) to promote Python 3 to the default. It's time; the old arguments that it's an inordinate amount of work to support Py3 as the default don't really hold anymore. RHEL and Debian have huge cultural influence by deeming a version "enterprise-ready" and making it default.

Here's to Python 3. We're on the cusp of killing off 2 for new development. Let's not backslide.
IMHO, what this article boils down to is that "Design" cannot be your product's key differentiator.

Design doesn't really solve a "real problem" for the user.

Design ONLY solves an important problem FOR THE COMPANY. It enables users to navigate the product the way the company wants them to.

So does it deserve a seat at the table? Yes
Does it deserve to be the king? Nope. Sorry. No really big problem solved.
Shopify Files to Go Public on Q1
Unique CSS Sliding Background Buttons
> Instead of PIC, a big tables of places to patch with the final position.

Among other things, because that means the text section has to be writeable, and can't have a shared mapping across processes unless it's mapped in the same place in every process, which breaks address-space layout randomization (ASLR).
A tip for any photographers out there: When you're shooting food, don't do the wide aperture no-depth-of-field thing like this article. Get the entire plate in focus. Otherwise the food just looks kind of weird and dizzying.
People are always going to whine about any change. The Python community should have been more adamant about dropping 2.x updates. Spreading out the pain doesn't make it easier...more code is still being written in 2.x. Ugh, I think I said this 5 years ago. Imagine the tens of millions of new 2.x code that's been written in the last 5 years. Oh well, good luck.
As a programmer who unfortunately is suckered into doing devops at times, the more I get to just update the openssl library instead of the whole OS whenever a security flaw in openssl is announced, the more I'm convinced that dynamic linking was very well worth the trouble.

Funny how perceptions change depending on the angle you're looking at a problem.
They're not. Or rather, you have a very narrow definition of "everywhere". And even if they were, that doesn't make them true without evidence, quite the contrary, that makes them especially suspect (groupthink etc.). Also, if you're so sure they are universally accepted, why the need to argue them at all? And of course, if they are so universally true, it should be trivial to actually come up with actual evidence, which hasn't been the case.

Something to think about. Maybe.
> Van Rossum suggested that someone create an informational PEP to start working on the problem.

At this point it may require more leadership than an informational PEP. They let the community take their time adopting it, and it still doesn't feel like there is any rush to adoption. And that create a split in the community, fractured module dependencies, and 5 years later it still doesn't seem to have found majority support. And for what? Most users probably won't notice more than Unicode strings, a few syntax changes such as the print function, maybe the exception handling. It didn't change any of the language fundamentals, or address any common criticism of the language such as speed, concurrency or the type system. There are nice changes in Python 3 under the hood, but I'm starting to wonder if the cost was truly worth it.
It's American English. For Americans, the word we just stole means whatever the fuck we want.
Anyone else on the West Coast, who's lived on the East Coast, feel a void in the sandwich shop culture there? I've been living in Santa Monica / LA for a while now and there is basically nothing. People go nuts for this place called Bay Cities but it would just be a 'meh place on the east coast. I'm talking humble sub shops here. Of course there are some good artisan food trucks and jewish delis, but nothing much better sub-shop-wise than chains like Jersey Mike's or Subway. I guess this article made me hungry. And sad. Good night.
Well, sure. But we can't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Wow.. Am I the only one that actually likes using LT? I don't always write Clojure but when I do, I use LT. I dream of creating ClojureScript single page apps with OM in LT nearly every day.. :)

I find the insta-RPL to be absolutely fantastic. I wish F# had insta-repl instead of just repl. I wish everything had insta-repl.
Smartphone holograms can diagnose cervical cancer
I do agree that if we see RHEL go to python3 as the default that would usher in major changes. However, Red Hat does not like to break backwards compatibility for its customers, and shipping python3 as the default would do that. This isn't an issue for Arch, as they do not rely on enterprise support contracts for their business model. However, this is part of the reason you don't see mission critical infrastructure running Arch. Also keep in mind that important operating system tools in rhel/fedora/etc rely on python, such as the yum package manager.
I always liked the music in Wipeout. It gives speed to the game.
For those interested, check out Tim Wright (http://coldstorage.org.uk)
> The Unicode support that comes with Python 3 is "kind of like eating your vegetables", he said. It is good for you, but it doesn't really excite developers

Saddly I agree with that. There needs to be either a big stick (Python 2 being really bad, but it is actually pretty good) or a large carrot ("Oh look 3x performance improvement!").

Something like a carrot was presented during Pycon and that was gradual types (optional types). These reduce some cases covered by unit tests, make code more readable for new developers, help with IDE support, and of course assist with general static checkers. According to Guido 3.5 should start having a partial support for it.

But in general I would have liked either one of these instead (some are contradictory, arbitrary hard, or downright impossible):

* At least 2-3x performance improvement

* No GIL

* Merge greenlet library in the core (to make eventlet or gevent work)

* Some kind of an ahead of time compiler that bundles just the needed interpreter library parts into an executable

* Firefox and Chrome agree to add browser suport for it

* Mobile support (native Android support or Apple ditches Swift and uses Python instead).
Rosetta's Philae probe could be awake within weeks
Millions of DC volts next to a steady stream of cars and trucks?
Python developers would almost all upgrade in a single minute for 30%+ better performance.

It's interesting that performance wasn't a topic at this rump session as reported; I moved over to Go about a year ago, and while I miss Python's expressivity at least once a week, I'm just not willing to slow down all my programs by 5x.

On the other hand, if Python could double in speed, I'd likely try to rework it into our workflows. Well, maybe. I really dig Go.
I've come across employees who start off as new hires fine for weeks or months before settling into a permanent negative attitude... difficult if not impossible to spot during an interview. A probation period could be the best option, at the end of which either party (employer or employee) can decide to not continue.
I am not anti-nuclear, I am just anti-nuclear (of the type that is useful for enriching for weapons) for the global solution to electrical power, given that for a general solution you need something that politically, you don't worry too much about your enemies having.

Look at the situation with Iran for instance. Any development of nuclear there is viewed with extreme suspicion, even while we are trying to reduce global oil dependence.

If Iran was rolling out solar and building silicon foundries, we might get into trade disputes over it, but we are not going to be that paranoid about them purifying silicon as it generally does not go boom.

edit - anyone pro-nuclear power who is not pro-nuclear power for Iran should really think on this one. A solution for electricity generation that you are scared of people having is not a good general solution.

edit 2 - I am not meaning to dump on Iran here, is just that the Iranian situation with this has been making the most news recently.
Python should institute "migration" notices on all of the 2.x documentation, making it clear that the intent of the community should be to move to Python 3. I know they plan to support Python 2 for a while longer, but no reason they can't make the statement that everyone should be using the latest versions available.
You are right. Lack of it will be the next wave of security problems
Enigma of Alan Turing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

The enigma is really WHY did the government chemically castrate Turing? At the time they welcomed contributions from Nazi rocket-scientists with open arms. Turing was never a Nazi was he? Surely the race was on against Soviet Union so Nazis were welcomed with open arms but Turing our greatest war-hero was driven to chemically-induced suicide. Why? Could it be because Turing didn't like collaborating with Nazis?
User interaction and industrial design are two different things. Here are some of the icons of industrial design:

- The Electrolux Model 30 vacuum, 1937, by Lurelle Guild.[1] This is the iconic vacuum cleaner of the 1930s-1950s. The streamlining dates it. It was a good vacuum cleaner; many survive and parts and bags are available. The computer equivalent is Pac-Man in console form.

- The Honeywell Round thermostat, 1953, by Henry Dreyfuss.[2] Still for sale, and the world's largest selling thermostat. The Nest is a clear derivative of the classic Round.

- The Olivetti Lettera typewriter, 1963, by Marcello Nizzoli. This is a classic in portable typewriters. Olivetti in the 1960s produced some beautiful typewriters, calculators, and computers. They didn't keep up on the electronics side, but their machines looked great. The computer equivalent is the original Macintosh.

Now, all of those were good, working products. There are other design icons that didn't.

- The S1 locomotive, 1938, by Raymond Loewy.[4] This was a case mod for a steam locomotive, apparently based on spaceship designs from Buck Rogers comics. The link shows locomotives with and without the decorative sheet metal. As an add-on, it was a huge maintenance headache, making access to the working parts harder. It ushered in a whole era of "streamlined" steam locomotives, many of which lost their non-functional sheet metal during WWII. The software equivalent might be console video game user interfaces with lots of pretty but marginally functional shiny things.

Loewy did better with the GG-1 electric locomotive. His main contribution was to insist on welded seams rather than rivets, providing a smooth exterior. This worked better on an electric locomotive, where all the important parts are inside, not outside. The software equivalent might be the Windows Aero theme. As it turned out, though, the future of locomotive design was to ignore aesthetics entirely.

- The GP7 locomotive, 1952, by Richard Dilworth and John Markestein.[5] This is a classic for a completely different reason. It's an ugly locomotive. It was designed to be ugly. Dilworth: "I wanted to make a locomotive so ugly in appearance that no railroad would want it on its main line or anywhere near their headquarters. But they would want it out as far as possible in the back country, where it could really do useful work." The GP7 is a long narrow box with walkways on both sides and a bigger box for the cab. Everything important is easily accessible from doors all along those walkways. No need for ladders, no need for lifts, easy access for maintenance. The GP7 looked like no locomotive before it. Every Diesel freight locomotive since looks a lot like a GP7. Like Craigslist, it's brutally functional and works.

[1] http://www.theelectroluxman.com/
[2] http://yourhome.honeywell.com/home/Products/Thermostats/Manu...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivetti_Lettera_32
[4] http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2013/nov/05/...
[5] http://www.american-rails.com/gp7.html
I don't think any of the things proposed will really drive conversion from Py2 to Py3. I don't think developers need to be excited about it, it just needs to be plausible. Python 3 has some significant momentum now (these talks seem overly negative about it). Developers are waiting for the signal from the enterprise Linux distributions that Py3 is "truly stable", i.e., they're waiting for it to be made the default Python. Once this happens, any remaining holdouts, which, again, are not that many of the actual libraries that people regularly use (cf. https://python3wos.appspot.com ), will stop their moaning and finally catch up.

I think if someone hasn't moved to Python 3 yet, no iterative change is really going to get them to do it. It's OK if old software is resistant to breaking changes; this is about building a good ecosystem for the software to come. If it was about making things easy for people who've already written their software, Python 3 would not have been released in the first place.

Honestly I don't really see why anyone cares about whether Mercurial is Py2 or Py3, since it's not a library and isn't holding up new development. Mercurial can use the Py2 interpreter to its heart's content and it shouldn't have any effect on the prosperity of Py3.

The Python community needs to get serious about pushing adoption of Py3 by the distros, and then we can put this navel gazing to rest and move on with Py3 finally realized as the standard.
In Singapore, direct debit is known as GIRO[1], and practically any large organisation supports or prefers it as a payment option. Companies of all sizes take cheques, fewer take cash or NETS in person. Credit cards and one-off e-banking bill payments are often supported by the larger companies but not always. In fact, my insurance company outright refuses to take credit cards, and tries their very best to push customers onto GIRO. [2]

GIRO authorisation ("Direct Debit Authorisation") until recently was fully paper, often on carbonised forms with manual signature, but some of the banks have started offering electronic authorisation recently.

People here tend to fall into three camps: the cash/NETS (local debit card) folks who queue up at the post office or AXS machines to pay, those who do one-off bill payment on e-banking, and those who use GIRO/credit card. It depends on how comfortable people are with technology and e-banking in particular, as well as how skeptical they are of the billing organisation automatically charging the right amount.

[1] http://www.abs.org.sg/financial_giro.php

[2] http://www.aia.com.sg/en/customer-support/premium-payment-ch...
They are crazy fast

Do you have a link/citation for that? I always thought they were asymptotically linear due to the memoization, so comparable to LL, LALR etc, but in practice much slower due to the overhead compared to those more traditional approaches.
On Windows, one can decide a default position for each DLL and if one is lucky, there is space available in that area of the virtual address space. Otherwise the loader needs to do the relocation work and modify pages and make them writeable temporarily.

If multiple processes load the same DLL and the default location happens to be chosen well and there is virtual address space in every process, then the linker can simply share the DLL.

That's how I think it was before ASLR came around.

I think Windows removes the writeable-flag again after relocating.

For the area I described (Mono's JIT vs. Mono's ahead of time compilation as PIC .so-file) I personally don't care that much for ASLR, because it's a managed language and because of specific circumstances of that project.
Ikea’s Newly Designed Refugee Shelters Are a Game Changer
Terminally Ill Man Willing to Have World's First Full Head Transplant
Microsoft and iPhone
It's challenging. On the one hand, you don't want to break what is working (Python 2.x), so you'd like to support it so that community can continue to be productive. On the other hand, you don't want your braintrust split across two different versions, and you don't want the confusion that comes from having two major versions.

For example, the (Epic) Learning Python 5th Edition by Mark Lutz, had to be written for two simultaneous audiences, 2.7 and 3.3. There are all these disclaimers noting where things are different between the two versions, and there is a lot of cognitive overload trying to read a book can't assume you are on Python3.

In the best case world - people would treat this like a y2k situation, and realize that if they didn't get with the program, and migrate over to Python3, they'll end up like Perl, with some other newcomer that isn't so bipolar charging forward and winning mindshare.

Unfortunately, their are a lot of Python2 people who are happy with Python2, and we're in the situation we have today.
Oddly enough I was thinking about openssl updates specifically. Did you remember to restart all your long-running clients? (I'm a sysadmin who occasionally gets roped into doing development...)

Dynamic linking makes security more difficult to reason about, which is a Bad Thing. It has many pluses, but also many minuses. And with symbol versioning it gets very problematic to actually figure out what your real code path is to begin with.
This is incredibly easy to prove. Count all the good stories that have happened, and all the bad. Compare the ratios to different publications.

Of course, it is a lot harder to prove if you are saying something different than the truth.
Ask HN: Presenting IT Security to College Kids
I have an opportunity to talk to college students on Security next week. The idea is to excite them about building a career in IT security. I am looking for pointers, suggestions to help me prepare.
How about a DRAM interface? That is both necessary for sufficiently complex applications, and damned hard. An FPGA can do it, for some frequency (though many FPGAs come with a hard DRAM interface to save area and improve the frequency.) This thing? I rather doubt.

Also, "implement an SRAM interface" - perhaps, but not one particularly easy to program against, I believe.
He told me to not buy land near oceans.
I'm not even talking about it at that level, because I don't fully understand it. :)

The reason I said that is because I visualize it like this:

enum maybeValue { NOTHING, JUST };
typedef enum maybeValue MaybeValue;

struct maybeInt { MaybeValue maybe_value; int integer };
typedef struct maybeInt MaybeInt;

MaybeInt just (int x) { ...; m.maybe_value = JUST; m.integer = x; return m; }
MaybeInt nothing (void) { ...; m.maybe_value = NOTHING; return m; }

MaybeInt chevron (maybeInt a, maybeInt b)
{
if (a.maybe_value == JUST)
if (b.maybe_value == JUST)
just(a.integer + b.integer);
else
nothing();
else
nothing();
}

/* Just 5 >> Nothing >> Just 6 */
chevron(chevron(just(5), nothing()), just(6));

Which is why I said that (>>) ("chevron" above) combines two functions, just() and nothing().
Not really, Ruby ON RAILS became the shiny new thing, and was released in 2005.
One of the main reasons for dynamic linking has become irrelevant, I believe: the availability of disk and memory space has grown faster than the size of the binary objects.
Good to see that someone agrees with me for a change.
If the Perl6 rewrite is validated by it having a larger user base than Python 3 in 5 years' time, part of me that has died will be reborn. Unlikely, though.
Agreed. Also, as I'm from Chicago, I feel that there is a severe lack of decent pizza out here.
An enum/symbol makes more sense,

Xhr.open(type, url, Xhr.ASYNC);
> "Is it an insult or a plea for reasoning?"

The former. Possibly also the later, but definitely the former.
It seems you are being downvoted by Go monkeys who drank the static linkage kool-aid.
Nokia agrees to buy Alcatel-Lucent for $16.6B
For the next time you decide to use CodeMirror
Here are a crap ton of themes:
https://github.com/FarhadG/code-mirror-themes

Demo:
http://farhadg.github.io/code-mirror-themes/