skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In concrete terms, imagine Foo looks like this:

private T value;

void test(Foo<T> f) {
f.value = this.value;
}

You could then assign anything to a member that should only hold a String.

This is the same reason why arrays should not be covariant (even though they are in Java). This compiles:

Object[] arr = new Integer[2]; // This should be a compile error, but the language spec allows it
arr[0] = "abc"; // This blows up with an ArrayStoreException at runtime
Both lists should replace python-ldap with ldap3. The former is abandon-ware and will never (probably) be upgraded. The latter already works great with python 3 (and is a better library all-around).
Sounds like a good time for you to volunteer.
I Assume I am Below Average:

https://sivers.org/below-average
Right, but the verbosity here is primarily due to your co-worker, given that the guy at your work would likely have used %(name)s instead of {name}.

Regarding logging, the docs suggest that setting your own LogRecord factory is the way to go if that's what you want.
As kyboren says fpga compiling is crazy intensive. This is because we are mapping physical resources and things have to physically fit instead of just being able to arbitrarily jump somewhere else in the program. It becomes a huge constraint satisfaction problem, there is no 'correct' answer, and many times FPGA compilers will produce different results when run multiple times because they often use randomness to start the process if there are too many options.
> I find it odd that medical treatment insists on being so causal

Actually the IOM says that the best practice is to try different treatments first, and then try to figure out the cause later. (You can see this in their report on pain management.) But the government continues to pass new laws to criminalize the suggested best practices of its own top doctors and medical researchers.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13172
That makes sense. I think in the '90s there was more of a difference in how people thought of "the military" overall, vs. the special forces specifically, which is where you'd get the dropping-in-somewhere-from-a-helicopter-and-shooting type action. The special forces were definitely a fascination for many, but I think more of some kind of theoretical fascination. I'm not sure I know anyone who seriously pursued it, in part because it seemed pretty unlikely as a career path, like becoming a "black bag" style CIA spy or something. More of kind of an idle fantasy than a serious source of indecision. (Obviously some people did, since special forces existed.)

The ones interested in the "regular" military I remember thinking of it as more like a kind of adult boy scouts: a good place to develop some self-discipline, physical fitness, ability to work closely with teammates, etc., and maybe gain useful skills depending on your specialty. All the while doing some kind of vaguely patriotic duty deterring China simply by existing and maintaining/flexing some advanced technology. But going to an actual hot shooting war wasn't really the goal. The idea was to do your tour of duty, get honorably discharged, and then either get a job, or go to college on the GI bill. Either way a military tour probably would look good on the resume. Some people also had more specific interests, usually having something to do with technology (but maybe this is because of who my friends were), e.g. if you want to work on nuclear-powered ships or advanced jets, the military is where they are. The recruiters really played up the tech angle when visiting my high school, almost downplaying the "military" aspects. I guess they have probably changed their pitch in the intervening years...
I remember reading his blog [0] on Scala 4 years ago, it might be the flavor of the month at that time.

[0] http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=328540
So far, there are three comments, each with links to further reading. C'mon, guys.

TL;DR: TL;DR
A16z Hires Former Facebooker Ted Ullyot
I certainly didn't truncate "games" from the title myself. Did HN do that on its own?
I'm booked through August, unfortunately. It's an interesting problem, though.
Well, to begin with, you are off by a factor of 3 on useable energy, and perhaps by a factor of 2 on the energy density of best batteries of today (Wikipedia stated 0.95 MJ/KG for best Li batteries), so achievable range should be ~380 km to begin with. I'll also note that the fuel tank itself has weight (though I do not know how much it is).

Next, the Stationair is a really old airplane, the basic design is over 50 years old. If we take the 2004-ish Cessna 400 instead, which has a 60% greater maximum range than the Stationair... perhaps we can claim that 500km+ is achievable, without calling upon radical new designs or further technology improvements.

And an airplane with ~500 km range is pretty sensible. (frankly, long trips in small planes are a bit of a trial, though probably less so in a smooth and quiet electric plane).

OTOH, you do need to consider reserve range, that does not work in favour of electrically powered aircraft. But the effect might be limited to having to add some battery capacity, sacrificing some performance along the way.

In conclusion... It does not even matter if the first commercially available electric airplane matches the petrol airplane on range. It would be nice to have a useable range, but ~500 km is enough for many applications. The electric airplane does not need to dominate the market from the start... just enter it.
Of course you can. Language is intensely rich, there's such a tiny subset of stuff that we're now starting to recognize rubs people the wrong way/excludes people/makes us sound like cavemen.

I don't at all get what benefit there is to being able to say "manly-man programming," either from a communication or a social standpoint.

I don't get what's lost when we replace "manly-man programming" with anything less stupid and awful.
necessary cached version http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8JznPXU...
I think what you say makes perfect sense. And I agree completely with the question of "how do you decide what to test?" But in that respect, are the two approaches outlined in the article really at odds with one another? Would it have contradicted the "German" approach to use epidemiology to lead you towards hypothesis?

My main point is that it seems the real problem wasn't so much one approach over another, as one side having an unjustified commitment to bacteria/virus as a root cause.
There isn't really a good reason. The compiler just isn't sophisticated enough to support it.

You could always write a generic method to do it for you:

static <T> void testFoo(Foo<T> f) {
f.test(f);
}

static void boom() {
Foo<?> f = new Foo<String>();
testFoo(f); // works just fine
}

So the problem isn't that what you're doing is fundamentally unsafe, it's just that Java has no syntax to capture `?` except through a generic type parameter on a method or class.
A good question.

I assumed the OP was submitted as a parallel to the (possible) connection of some mental illnesses to inflammation and infection, just seen on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9388176

Both feature doctors noticing weird chains of causation that accidentally cure mysterious ailments.
I have felt no pain on my i5 Surface Pro 3. It outperforms the decent rig my office provides. I run multiple instances of VS, leave stuff open all the time, massive Chrome tab abuse... The fans only come on while streaming video AND compiling, etc. It doesn't hiccup or grunt.

I wasn't 100% sold on the price/value ratio when I bought it, but now am totally happy I did. Great machine.
Sure he is. I for one look forward to when we drop these asinine phrases like "manly-man" from casual conversation and start speaking with a better, broader, more meaningful, and richer kind of vocabulary.
My general sense of the revised partnership doesn't really surprise me. On an open webinar a while ago a Yahoo! rep seemed particularly passionate about the Gemini platform and its room for growth while (IIRC) rather vague in response to questions surrounding Bing ads vs. Gemini. Gemini's early integration with tools like Marin Software also indicate a strong interest in driving use of this product.
For sure. I wouldn't be surprised if they had 8K scans of some things, too. I would be curious how much compression their archival system does on top of whatever original format was used.
I wonder if it would have been possible for AMD to receive a portion of the expensive fines against Intel that EU levied.
I waited for it for several years before switching (and switching my clients) to slack.
This is all I know: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9387929
>It's usually 1 or 2 analysts per feed.

there is no way they can put 1000 analysts on a small operation like kicking rebels out of a village :)

Another example - Russian anti-ship missiles attack in a "pack" where they automatically identify and assign targets between them.

The point is one way or another the "human in the loop" is just temporarily and very limited configuration, and it will be gone once we start to see real mass application of drones, especially when by multiple actors, as like in CIWS systems humans just can be fast enough and wouldn't be able to manage an encounter between for example hundreds of drones.
Your example presents zero unsafety for the usage presented by eridal. The only reason it's considered unsafe is because the compiler isn't sophisticated enough to compare captures of wildcards, and in this case, might not be sophisticated enough to know that `f` isn't being reassigned.
Whoops, sent it when HN went down and didn't think it had posted.
I think paying for writing would be a giant mistake. There's a big psychological difference between working for intrinsic rewards and extrinsic rewards; the former gets you much better work. There's also a huge problem with paying some people and not others; my guess is a lot of volunteers would quit immediately if other people were getting paid for similar work.
If anyone is curious about this, from the FAQ:

"Assignment to a field of the "unknown" type is rejected because the compiler cannot judge whether the object to be assigned is an acceptable one. Read access to a field of the "unknown" type is permitted, but the field has no specific type and must be refered to through a reference of type Object ."

http://www.angelikalanger.com/GenericsFAQ/FAQSections/Techni...?
To call it "offensive" may be a bit strong (though I'd say it's offensive to those of us who enjoy good use of language ;) ), but exclusive? Sure. It links superior programming and masculinity.

You're sitting in a conference room full of women who are developers, and you start saying, "So let's do some manly-man programming and get this done," what are these women supposed to think?
The problem with rust is that it has been around for nearly as long as Go, yet is nowhere near stable or production ready in nearly every aspect.

Go has been ready for years.
I understand the covariance bit, but I think I just fail to understand the Java type semantics more broadly. I'd have to just study it and become more familiar
I know Junger more from his books -- The Perfect Storm, Fire, War. His style is gripping, with little details that bring the story to life, and the chapters often end with an emotional punch. He has said he is following the pattern of author John MacPhee, who could make any topic interesting. Junger also critiques his own work ruthlessly, cutting out anything that does not hold his attention when he is tired, fatigued, or tipsy. Only what is left is used, and it shines.
Why do people find that type erasure is a problem? I'm happy, for instance, writing in languages wherein type erasure is the obvious right answer.
I have to wonder how many of these people are running around the industry right now. I'm sure it's more than one.
HTTP 'pings of death' are spewing across web to kill Windows servers
What is it that makes Java style generics valuable to you? Many other languages have, ah, generic generics.
Does anyone know how common it is to finance high-risk startup companies with the kinds of debt described above?

Risky ventures and investors losing money aren't news, but I'm trying to understand if this story is unique because of the type of financing.

EDIT: ...other than, of course, the dishonesty.
I think there's something to being a soldier and obviously masculinity that is universal. I would argue the American military experience - especially the modern American military - is fundamentally different from those that preceded it though. We don't claim tribute, we're not an honor society (at least not universally), we are building an empire, and ostensibly the wars of the country are the will of its citizens. Why Americans fight and American terms of victory are something different than any historical counterparts.
I wonder if Takaki would have had more success if he marketed his solution in the terminology of the dominant paradigm. For example: "Barley seems to contain some kind of chemical that kills the germs that cause beriberi."
I for one look forward to when language can be used in a way that the original author sees fit and without having to pander to every gentle sensitivity or taste.
Well, once you compare both languages you can see why. Hint: inovation/complexity (not that either is a good or bad thing). Anyway, that's only one possible reason... I think Go is actually 2 years older.
I think, going to war has much to do with the construction of the male gender. (We're talking seldom about the male side in the gender discourse, but we may be allowed to do so in this context. Please read the following cum grano salis.)

In most cultures and societies males start life on the female side along their mothers. They are special, they are beloved, they are cared for – but they are also objects. When entering adolescence and adulthood, males are essentially losing their identity. They are no more special or unique, they are disposable (as in "women and children first") — and they have to accept this insult. They have to redefine themselves. Moreover, there are some preconditions in most cultures to becoming eligible as a subject. Some of these are related to inheritance, but it really goes a bit deeper than that. So, if they are not born rich or not the eldest son, they are asked to prove they were eligible for being a valued member of society. One way to do so is founding and supporting a family, but there are also preconditions here. To most, the final proof is showing their willingness and to prove being able to "burn themselves" (sometimes literally as in the trenches of war) for societies sake, to accept disposability. (Staying up late coding is yet another way of burning yourself, while not that drastic.) — This may be underpinned by an institution known in some cultures, the institutions of "sworn virgins", where women would enter the male side on the precondition of never returning the realms of female definitions. Ever thereafter they are part of the male side and accepted as males, but they also have to adhere to the socials contracts related to this definition. — Following to this, war is a major means of regaining identity and uniqueness – and becoming an eligible member of society. Small wonder that this often connected with pride.

In my humble opinion, these patterns are also to be observed in the discussion of gender diversity in IT and other male dominated environments. Most of the objections and/or insults against females are rather pretexts or symptoms for a basic mistrust against members who do not adhere to the laws of disposability. (Problems often evaporate as the gender-definitions are crossed by "sworn virgin coders". But this isn't a solution to the problem at all.) In this context, the presence and acceptance of "real females" is a real threat to the construction of these environments. This isn't just a show. It's more about accepting that these are not protected realms of males joined in their attempt to become eligible to the honors of society, accepting that these environments are rather part of society themselves. (So, is coding war? Swallow your pride. Nobody should be forced to burn. Does this align with the structures of business as we know it? No. – Hint: Businesses are not only burning money.)
Disclaimer: I am not a UAV operator. I am basing the following on information from mostly documentaries, but various other sources as well.

I believe that is correct, current UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) used by the US military always have a human operator that is controlling the vehicle. If I understand correctly they do not control the flight of the vehicle in real time, but rather they give commands along the lines of "circle above this area" or "track/follow this particular target on the ground". The vehicles is semi-autonomous in that it figures out what it needs to do to fulfill the operator's command (ie. adjust yaw, pitch, roll, thrust, etc). I believe to actually engage a target the operator must manually trigger it.

However, this is not the same as the new swarming drones this article covers. Most do not consider UAVs currently used by the military to actually be drones (which implies a high degree of autonomy), instead they are typically thought of as remotely controlled. In contrast, it sounds like these drones are fired once with a target specified ahead of time and these drones are completely autonomous from that point on, swarming, swarming around and firing on a target all on their own. These drones are probably small and they probably dont have a video feed for each one for people to monitor.
Actually, I agree with you.

What I meant is that ID used an inappropriate methodology for what it purported to do, but the same methodology might be appropriate in other contexts such as social engineering.
Is This the Dawn of the Sexbots? (NSFW)
of course, if you're interested in rust's memory safety, performance, low-level control, and expressive type system, then in a very real way, go isn't ready at all.

it does have some marquee names behind it, though. I suppose if you squint, that can make up the difference.
Go hasn't changed much from its initial versions, iirc rust is unrecognizable compared to early versions. Rust didn't know what it wanted to be from the start.

I wanted to give rust a crack years ago, but I am glad I didn't because it would have required constant updates for anything serious.
Glide – Beautifully Simple, Professional App Creation
You don't need to use Google at all. This would be a 20-minute project using the HN API.

Twilio is a whole extra level of cruft. Any machine can send an email, so unless you want a voice call to tell you someone mentioned you on HN it makes absolutely no sense.
Java was notoriously dog slow way into the early 2000s, when the JIT and Hotspot appeared. Before that, criticism about the JVM's performances were completely justified.
Like this: Λ ;)

Windows: Alt+x 03BB

Linux: Ctrl+Shift+u 03BB (still pressing Ctrl+Shift)
I have a laptop from mid-2009 that's still good (it's a white MacBook). The only problem I've had has been the battery bulging and Apple replaced them under Applecare with no problems. The last I had replaced out of warranty for no charge. It's slow, but everything still works. I used it for my main machine until late 2012 (when I bought an i7 Mac Mini) and was my portable machine until late 2013. My Mac Mini has been pretty heavily used since 2012.

Everyone in my department at the university who switched to a Mac has had good longevity, most lasting about 4-5 years until they decide they want a new machine (but the Mac still works). I had two Mac Minis in the lab, one a G4 Mac Mini from 2002 and the other a first-gen Intel Mac Mini (it came with 10.4, I don't recall the year). I used the Intel Mac Mini until I graduated in 2013 and had no problems at all.

So, anecdotes are just that. My department consistently has been moving to OS X. Probably about half the professors have switched when there was just 1 professor who used it in 2007. Even my supervisor didn't switch until about 2010. He's still using the same iMac he bought then. The labs mostly use Windows because of the data acquisition software only runs on it as they tend to have specialized equipment that only wrote Windows drivers.
I don't see how this is an issue of context. Yes, it's a little misleading for them to show an iPhone. But the comment I replied to said "they should have used some Lumias and Android phones" - which is exactly what they did.
For what it's worth, the US has already deployed weapons that pick their targets autonomously. [1] These artillery-launched UAVs just seem like a fancier version of the same idea. Whoever gives the go-ahead to fire it will just have to weigh the importance of the target against the extent of the collateral damage.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon
That's true. And if you care about this issue, you could try appealing to Apple executive leadership (emailing tim cook, or running a PR campaign designed to get Apple executive leadership to see your arguments).
His livelihood is about presenting at conferences and writing books. It's basically his job to dig up new technologies and fake excitement about them. Without that, he's out of a job.
WikiLeaks republishes all documents from Sony hacking scandal
I think you confused everyone with your terminology in your parent comment - "guest OS" is VM speak.
See Twitter through the eyes of famous investors and entrepreneurs
Go hasn't changed much from its initial released version, or initial internal version? As I understand it, Go was released in a much more final state, whereas Rust was developed in the open from very very early. Rust has always known what it wanted to be, it has just taken a while to find the best way to actually fill that goal. That isn't really a fundamental problem with the language (in fact, I see the constant iteration and change as a good thing: the language was developed empirically, removing features that didn't work/pull their weight, adding ones that did), although it is definitely a good reason for people to have not used Rust historically.

In any case, this discussion seems like a non-sequitur: whether Go is boring to hanlec or not is orthogonal to whether Go is more stable than Rust or not. The fact that a language has been stable for years rather than only just now approaching stability might be something you value highly, but clearly hanlec has a different utility function.
Go performance is going to converge on C performance with new optimization's being written after go 1.5.

Any gains from rusts expressive type system are lost by all the memory lifetime annotations imo.

I still think rust is probably going to be the best language for embedded software like router firmware, as they need to be fast, low overhead and secure.
You do realize that a full unlock via IAP is basically the shareware approach?

Just because something has IAP doesn't make it bad. One has to look at how the app uses IAP instead.
Slack is good but it's nothing revolutionary that would merit the valuation. My main argument against their crazy valuation is that there's no lock in so it'd be easy for teams to move on to the "next big thing." Also, see http://getkaiwa.com/
Is that a valid variable name? Would that mean Λ is unicode?
User's Guide to MPI (1998) [pdf]
Go hasn't changed much, because it is the natural extension of plan9 C and other languages from the past. If you look at the project layout of the plan9 source tree, it matches the Go project layout now.

I think plan9 C even used CSP channels in the form of a C library for most of the servers. They just took what they already knew worked, and tried to polish it and add garbage collection.

Rust is trying many things at once then letting things die off as they prove useless.
I don't know how the original author intended it, except that they seem to equate programming ability with masculinity.

If that's what they meant, that's a pretty retrograde attitude.

If that isn't what they meant, maybe it's time to update their vocabulary.