skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Catch is, MPAA don't serve interests of the publishers anymore. They serve their own Lysenkoist interests. It takes some guts for publishers to ditch them though.

> In this case, they're arguing for not changing the copyright laws of the other countries.

They are perfectly fine with changing those laws, as long as they make them worse (lengthen the copyright term, more DRM anti-circumvention idiocy and etc.). They obviously don't want to change them when it goes in the different direction. However it has nothing to do with economic unpredictability.

It's pretty simple. They support what gives them (MPAA) more control, and they oppose what reduces their power. However their control has no positive effects on economic benefits of the creative community. If anything, it hurts it, since they stifle innovation, lock up culture and are acting in backwards thinking and crooked manner in general. MPAA are parasitic, but always try to come up with new ways to justify their existence in the eyes of the actual creative community (because more and more people there understand that their existence isn't justified).
I'm tired of being spammed by hosting providers that don't care about security. Hostgator, clean up your act, please.
We're sorry, but this video is not available
in your region due to right restrictions.

What's it about? Anyone got a summary?
The talk was given to a packed room at ETAPS, a European computer science conference leaning more on the theoretical side (I suppose everyone was curious how optimizing compilers were dying). All in all, the audience did not bust out the pitchforks, although one might say that "domain-specific compilers" is basically the direction academia has already been heading. I doubt any of the people in the audience who were working on compilers/JITs are planning to stop working on them, though it did make for some fun dinner discussion.

There was one mid-talk exchange was one professor asking djb upfront whether or not he thought, in ten years, Mike Pall (author of LuaJIT) would be out of a job--after all, JITs are basically optimizing compilers. Well, the original question was more diplomatic than that, but eventually he pushed it enough that he got djb to not deny that this would be the case.

The talk was somewhat marred by a very large digression into an undergrad level primer of computer architecture (it probably would have been better served by an extended Q&A session), although the sorting example he finally built up to was pretty cute.
I write all my articles as plaintext. One reason the author didn't mention is longevity - I don't have to worry about .txt files becoming unreadable. As long as computers exist, they'll be able to read .txt files.

I then mark up with ddoc, and the result works just fine in [github](https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org).
>If they have to raise prices above traditional cabs (highly unlikely)

I don't think you realize how much it would damage their business model's profitability to have to pay payroll taxes on all their drivers. It's not just about offering a better service to consumers; Uber/Lyft would emphatically not have this many backers if their business model weren't insanely profitable. If profit margins shrink, poof, there goes funding.
GitLab CEO here, I though that that was the most interesting part as well :) I started working with GitLab because developing git collaboration software in the open seemed the way the world should be.
The explanation for any strange behavior by a Microsoft program is almost always "to maintain compatibility with legacy applications." It's not entirely unique to Microsoft, but they're pretty obsessed with not breaking things.
Won't have to drive as far to get to the beach.
If people (politicians, and public) would just get rid of their prejudices and we could just develop a nuclear reactor for outer system exploration and be done with it...

Fuel would not be such a pain to manufacture, there'd be oodles of more power available (more bandwidth for communications, nuclear electric propulsion for faster travel times), and the reactor would be just as safe, if not safer to lift to orbit (unused nuclear fuel is not radioactive, Pu-238 is, although it's so well sealed that it's practically impossible to free it to environment on an accident).
I've heard (think it was from the BBC Life series) that human evolution has sacrificed a lot of jaw muscle and other skull-related ruggedness as compared to monkeys, making room for bigger brains. Since this was obviously not a worthwile tradeoff for chimps etc. in the past, why should it be now?
Reactive REST: Jafar Husain Explores Falcor, Netflix's Data Transport Framework
This isn't really news. I remember seeing an article about chimps hunting bushbabies with spears at least five years ago.
You make a distinction between restrictions placed by the semantics of the language and the compiler not performing an optimisation.

This isn't a practical distinction for the end user. In both cases, no amount of money thrown at the optimising compiler will help, and the user will have to rewrite their algorithm.

I'd be very leery of replacing arbitrary algorithms. In particular, the user can make the optimisation unsafe so completely so quickly, just by adding debug statements or whatever.

Also, the examples you gave are all of specific classes of problem, which are probably quite easy to dedicate resources to because they affect many, and because optimised assembly exists.
Yeah, OP here. It really almost gave me a heart attack ;)
From the insides of a compiler, imperative and procedural have little meaning. C turns into a purely functional programming language called static single assignment form very easily.

Actually, when you start thinking about everything like your compiler does, they stop having meaning in real life too!

If you want to make a language easier to optimize, you need to reduce runtime decisions the program might have to make and incidental details about the program the compiler has to preserve[1]. That's "it". I think the closest languages for some problems would be Julia, array languages, OpenCL, etc. Not so much Ruby…

[1] Like function signatures, structure layout, error behavior on bad inputs, memory aliasing, dynamic method calls, integer overflows, array overflows, stuff like that.
This times a million. I love helping people to learn C, for example. And the thing I do most other than basic instruction is helping to keep their spirits up and reminding them that refactoring is the most important part of coding.
There is speculation that the baby sling did. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/prehistoric-...
Futurama also

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfellas
I suppose there's a difference between when you're working with someone versus showing off to other people. If I'm doing a Show HN or I email a friend to check something out, sure I love flattery and compliments as anyone. It's within the technical scope of working together that I find it obnoxious.

And it's not really self confidence[1]. It's more of an extension of principles of coding. Anyone can write a system that does X. But doing X when things go well, and doing it in the face of errors, edge cases, and other faults - that's what it's all about. For me, anyways, when I'm writing code "as an engineer". So I don't find it particularly notable that something works. Of course it " works ", or you wouldn't be telling or showing me in the first place! Likewise if I ask for a review and your only comment is " file buffer is too small " I'm gonna guess the rest is alright else you wouldn't bother pointing out smaller things. If I'm unsure about something, I'll ask about it explicitly.

Outside of a feedback system like a code review, it is important to let people know you appreciate their work. And it's to my detriment that I don't let people know, honestly, when I appreciate them. But that's separate from mixing it in with criticism.

1: I've low confidence in my self confidence. On one hand I know I have a fairly good error rate and I'm objectively better than a lot of other developers. Yet, especially here on HN, I can plainly see I'm nothing special. But this doesn't really assure me that any particular piece of my work is good.
But you're just describing a notation, and the notation works OK because of the convention that in any given key you only use 7 of the available 12 tones. But why 7, and why those 7?
Killing sharks for their fins is also normal in several countries, that doesn't not make it an abomination.
> "WTF is, generally, acceptable as not excessively vulgar in social contexts"

Which social contexts? Social contexts where people don't know what "WTF" expands to? It's not even a "minced oath".
Here are some more links.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html
http://video.pbs.org/viralplayer/2365464997/
http://video.pbs.org/widget/partnerplayer/2365464997/
I've been using "sudo !!" (which I pronounce as sudo bangbang in my head) for a while now, mostly with vim for editing stuff in /etc. It's very nifty.

Another nifty tool is vi editing mode. You run "set -o vi", and now your shell takes vi modal editing commands. That along with Ctrl-r for reverse history search has made life in the shell so much easier. Bash has a ton of little stuff like that built in. Zsh has a few more.
The outage affected Europe and Asia during their trading day, which is a very big deal, wouldn't have expected Canada to see anything since they are 5-6 hours behind.

Bloomberg runs some of the most reliable technology in the world, and is one of the best at running distributed architecture, so the fact that a problem like this wasn't more contained is surprising, if not shocking.
Here's the description.

> Join NOVA on a mathematical mystery tour—a provocative exploration of math's astonishing power across the centuries. We discover math's signature in the swirl of a nautilus shell, the whirlpool of a galaxy, and the spiral in the center of a sunflower. Math was essential to everything from the first wireless radio transmissions to the prediction and discovery of the Higgs boson and the successful landing of rovers on Mars. Astrophysicist and writer Mario Livio, along with a colorful cast of mathematicians, physicists, and engineers, follow math from Pythagoras to Einstein and beyond. It all leads to the ultimate riddle: Is math a human invention or the discovery of the language of the universe?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html
I think balabaster's point still stands, and your points (though good) only serve to illustrate. also, its important to keep in mind that not everyone is as good at switching. this could be because only some people have the time and inclination to do what balabaster suggested and dig in and learn the ins and outs of both systems, after which its "really isn't that difficult".

i've worked in both (Win/Nix) on a daily basis for a while doing dev in perl. as long as i was active in both switching wasn't hard, though i found myself feeling out of water in nix whenever i ventured outside the boundaries i was used to. i'd run into a situation and just not know where to even start looking in nix for a problem, whereas in windows i could usually guess at the right place to start investigating.

also, the transition and learning was made easier because i had really smart and helpful people right next to me to answer my questions.

I had the same problem with Mac/Win when doing photo/video editing. I could get around in a mac fine, but found certain ui and organisational decisions frustrating.
Well, this is more like "the door is open, people are walking in and looking around... why don't I just take some photos and post them online, so that others won't need to queue to go through the door?".
Same thing with notes. I used to use fancy formatting in OneNote...then Microsoft screwed me with an update that shifted, moved & changed everything.

Kick that crap to the curb and swore never to use anything more than bold/underline/italic for notes again. Plus checked export options on everything...
On Guard – 1956 – IBM film about military computers
This is simply not true. Many companies in the world (including on this list) do use brand new software that they had no hand in creating. Classic example is in the Big Data space. There are plenty of very early adopters to most of the Hadoop stack e.g. Spark. Or look how many companies started using Nginx or Go even though less shiny solutions have existed.

And not sure if you've worked for a large company but they largely comprise lots of little startups sized teams. The same principles apply regardless e.g. spiking technologies out, managing risk etc.

What I have an issue with is these stupid generalisations. Less shiny = good, Shiny = bad. The merits of the architecture and technology seemed to be completely ignored.
> Snowden isn't a whistle blower. He didn't report any wrongdoing to his superiors

Yes he did[0].

> Whistle blowing is seeing something wrong and reporting it

So, like Snowden did?

> not pulling as much information as you can get and handing it off to reporters

After following the internal process failed multiple times.

> Regardless of whether or not you think there was benefit to the NSA leaks, what Snowden did is not whistle blowing.

According to your own definition it is. Also he received the biennial German "whistleblower prize." The New York times described him as a Whistleblower and talks about why contractors aren't granted the same legal protection[1]. He also appears on Wikipedia's "List of Whistleblowers[2]."

> Joe Darby

He wasn't blowing the whistle on the US Government. He was blowing the whistle on other soldiers. Not comparable to someone going against a large and powerful organisation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#NSA_contractor
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opinion/edward-snowden-whi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers
It looks to me like they use bleeding edge solutions or develop their own when "standard" tech isn't doing the job well enough. And they start slow and use it in non-critical pieces of software first.
Google who? Oregon cities want their own fiber networks
>Let the downvotes ensue.

Can we not have this reddit-ism take hold?
You don't want to make the compiler itself interactive. Compilers have a well-known interface: either they spit out an output binary and exit cleanly, or they spit out an error. This is a case where I'd imagine the compiler could just spit out an error: something like "not 100% confident on the correct way to optimize the following lines: [...]" (this is oddly reminiscent of INTERCAL's "please" directives, actually.)

What the compiler would be expecting, would be an "optimization annotation file" to exist alongside each source file, that it would take as batch input. If said file has all the answers it needs, it compiles cleanly; if it doesn't (because the program changed, or because it doesn't exist yet) then it'll error out.

The important bit is that an IDE can read such an error, and transform that into some form of semi-interactive process to create/modify the optimization-annotation file. But to the compiler, everything stays a pipeline, like usual.
I found this pretty good for sharing to people, if you're targeting Linux: http://linuxsurvival.com/

Parts of it are a bit dated (no longer typically used features), but it's a pretty good overview of how Linux works for end users.
The README on github provides a little more information:

https://github.com/gocircuit/circuit

I too am having a hard time trying to figure out exactly where circuit fits vs. other technology.

It wasn't immediately clear to me if circuit launches the apps, or if it can start new instances if the current ones fail, or if it can grow the cluster if demand is the current utilization is too high, or what.

How does this help me vs. writing a script in (the shell, some other orchestration tool, etc)?

How much of the configuration does it handle? Does it replace etcd?

Those are questions I could ideally answer myself by exploring the documentation links on the main page.
Where / how does it store its own state?

Edit: There is a comparison with Consul on the wiki:

https://github.com/gocircuit/circuit/wiki/Circuit-vs.-Consul
There is something about the amount of usage, though.

50% of all communication between Chrome and Google sites is now through a path that is not standardized, nor on track to standardization, and is just special to the combination of Google's browser plus Google's sites. That sets off warning lights for some people, and for good reason.

I totally get that to experiment with a new protocol, you need real-world data. Definitely. So if say 1% or 5% of that communication were non-standard, I really wouldn't have much of an issue. But when the "experimentation" is 50%, it's on the verge of being the normal path; it doesn't seem like experimentation. Perhaps they could continue the experiment and go from 50% to 60% or 80% - there isn't much a difference at that point. In fact, if the new protocol is better, it would be almost irrational not to - if 50% is considered ok ethically, and moving to 60% saves costs, then why wouldn't you?

I'm not saying that there is something wrong here. It's not even seriously worrying, given Google's positive track record on SPDY. Still, it's very close to the edge of being worrying. That worry of course is that they expand beyond 50%, and are slow to standardize or never do so - in which case things would clearly be wrong. Again, Google has a good reputation here, given SPDY. Still, I'm surprised Google feels ok to move half of all communication to a non-standard protocol, apparently unconcerned about that worrying anyone.
What's a bit unusual about Python is that it tries all three environment variables on every OS. I would have expected that it would only try TMPDIR on Unix-like machines, and TMP/TEMP on Windows-based machines. There's no compatibility expectation that Windows environment variables would work on Unix-like OSes, or vice versa.

FWIW, TMPDIR was part of standard Unix practices before Torvalds wrote the first line of the Linux kernel. For example, 4.3BSD-Reno came out 1990 . If you grab the tape from http://sourceforge.net/projects/bsd42/files/Install%20tapes/... and page through it you'll see the man pages were "Printed 7/27/90" and contain things like:

If the environment variable TMPDIR is set, the string
denoted by TMPDIR will be used as the name of the directory
where the temporary files are created.
-- yacc(1)

The environmental variable ``TMPDIR'' (if set), the argument
dir (if non-NULL), the directory ``/usr/tmp'' and the direc-
tory ``/tmp'' are tried, in the listed order, as directories
in which to store the temporary file.
-- TMPFILE(3)

Python comes out of the Unix heritage (van Rossum contributed the glob() routine to BSD Unix in 1986), which is likely why the first commit of tempfile.py, Nov. 12 1991, mentions TMPDIR, though it didn't actually support the environment variable until Jan 14 1992.

OTOH, it didn't gain TMP/TEMP support until Aug 12 1997. Even then, the file says at the top:

# XXX This tries to be not UNIX specific, but I don't know beans about
# how to choose a temp directory or filename on MS-DOS or other
# systems so it may have to be changed...
I'm not sure how what you describe is any different than focusing on the critical parts of the program. If a function is short but is called many many times, that could still be a hot spot.

It's also worth noting that even then, it still may not matter if you're stalled out on something like I/O or whatever (while still keeping in mind other constraints like battery life, CPU throttling, etc).
Vishwa Bandhu Gupta Explains Cloud Computing [funny] English Subtitles
Solving the Vinyl Comeback's Big Problem, One Antique Machine at a Time
They surely work... under X. But what are they doing to support Wayland for example? Or MIR? If it weren't for the nouveau drivers there would be absolutely no way to test these new technologies with nvidia cards.
I was just thinking about this issue in the last few days. I'm working on a side project, due to the nature of the data model, converting back and forth to fit into a relational database is kind of annoying, so I was looking around for other databases.

Right now, the situation with database is that we have to convert our internal data structure into a representation that fit the data model of the database we're using (ie rows for relational, document/key for the NoSQL group). I can see the reason the data model has to be that way for scaling, distributed etc... But if I'm happy to scale my database up, and would prefer to have the database storing the data as close to the memory data structure as possible (similar to object databases -- albeit with a boarder definition of "object"), is there any database that could do that?

Otherwise, is there any suggestion on how I could get started to build one?
I'm not sure we've read the same article.
This may be what you are driving at, but in case it isn't: The impression that chimps are suddenly rapidly evolving may simply be a consequence of us watching them closely. We may simply be noticing behaviors that have been present for much longer.
Svg street art animation
/dev/null is pretty darn fast, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs
> we actually put the threshold for discovery at 5 sigma - p<0.0000003 - which sometimes gets us ridiculed by statisticians

This says more about the sillyness of statisticians than that of particle physicists.
I really like the conversation with the compiler approach. I had the good fortune to write some code for one of these: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray_XMT which is a multi socket TB-scale shared memory machine with 128 hardware thread contexts per socket. It has an autoparallelizing C compiler that attempts to parallelize mostly for loops where it thinks it can (really quite a clever thing), but you can also tell it where to do things and give it hints through compiler pragmas. The compiler infrastructure will print out annotated copies of the code that tell you where it did and didn't parallelize and why. The effect is that you have this conversation with the compiler in which each of you tries to tell the other how to make the code more parallel (which in the case of the XMT means better and faster). It's very simple but the result can be orders of magnitude improvement.
Show HN: Liri – Mobile first messaging with unified cloud search and annotations
Now I see going to threads-->Search-->keybase

there are a number of articles links to websites detailing his topic.

One three titled:
"On Keybase.io and encrypted private key uploading"
https://blog.filippo.io/on-keybase-dot-io-and-encrypted-priv...
has a link to the users website where he displays his secret key and explains why it is safe to store private key online.

If you are aware of a security bug (or have a proposal/implemention of a "zero day" attack), notifying keyless admins privately is in the interest of all users. They can then discuss it post-mortem. To reach Admins privately, please get their public keys here:

https://keybase.io/max
https://keybase.io/chris