skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Honor harrington series, i really enjoyed that. Im not sure how well they would go at turning it into a tv series though.

I have the feeling it would be better as a high quality animated series.
This is really cool work. There is a lackluster theano feature which allows you to print a flowchart figure for the "computation graph" corresponding to the symbolic representation of your model.

@ajtulloch's library provides what I imagined the feature would be at first glance - a comprehensible, elegant graphical representation of your NN model. And on top of that, all in Haskell, with Haskell DSL for running torch - so cool.
I see things the other way around. The generic white males are constantly berated and ridiculed in the mainstream media. People are constantly getting in trouble or losing their jobs for saying the wrong thing, e.g. Satya Nadella for not knowing the "right" response to the issue of women not asking for raises.
Let's work through your points.

Starting with your point number 1: Yes, perhaps Zionists stress the Jewish connection to Israel. But that's what makes them Zionists in the first place. Zionism is the belief that the Jews should return to the land of Zion--Israel (in Latin, Palistine). And it is also true that there has existed a strong desire to return to Israel in the Jewish people from the begining. Leaving Egypt, one could argue, was about returning to the land of Israel. A little more concretely, I suggest you read the book of Lamentations. Lamentations is a poem about returning to Israel after the Babylonian exile. After reading passages such as "If I forget Jerusalem, I will forget my right hand," it is evident that a passionate desire to return to Israel is not a fabrication by modern Zionists, but rather an integral part of the identity of the Jew. You then proceed with a non sequitor. Why does the existance of other people living in the land of Israel lessen the Jewish tie to the land of Israel? Finally, the website that you link to is officially recognized to be anti-semetic, so don't count on impartial information from it.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at in your second point. Are you saying that the Palestinians have their own identity? I'm sure they do. It just isn't clear to me how that backs up your argument. I'm genuinely curious.

As for your first point number three, I don't see its validity. There was no such thing as a nation until the rise of nationalism--far after 700 C.E.

Next, in response to your second point number three, going into the Diaspora was not a choice for the Jews. They were forced out. Do they lose the right to return after being forcefully evicted?

Finally, we can argue about political theory all we want. The bottom line is that Israel exists. Even if you do not agree with its policies, you should not advocate for its destruction. Israel is a sovereign and democratic nation (not to mention a center of growth and innovation) and by virtue of existing, it deserves to exist as much as any other nation does.

Thank you for reading
Do you mean to note that these numbers are not inflation adjusted?
All it takes is a taxpayer subsidized highway to move out. How much do people want to live in the suburbs? Enough to pay their own way to do so? Including the highways as well as the efficiency cost of eg, electricity and plumbing?
Thanks for pointing those libraries out. I am much more familiar with Scala so those were very helpful for me.
Very true, and such charity doesn't help the discussion. Insisting on the polite path, "I don't understand" instead of "your comment makes no sense" wrongly assumes that all comments written on forums are carefully considered and fact-checked before posting. It's taking the long way to resolution of that point, and you might never get resolution if bogged down in overly-polite discourse for fear of being "negative".
You're kidding yourself if that is what you believe.

I think OP is speaking from a medical perspective, and from that perspective I believe OP is correct. You could live a long time without complications taking a medicinal dose of heroin.

To be clear, if you abuse alcohol you get cirrhosis of the liver, if you smoke your more likely to get cancer, emphysema, etc. You don't have those types of complications just from abusing heroin.

So instead of arguing against a straw man, lets try to understand each other.

Is it your belief that heroin use causes medical problems or do you agree with the claim that heroin is relatively benign from a medical perspective. If you disagree, maybe elaborate on the what you believe are the health consequences. (Note: I'm talking about medical heroin, as was the OP. Injecting contaminated substances and sharing needles causes all sorts of health problems. I stipulate that the behavior that typically goes along with heroin abuse is unhealthy).
Copy Video to DVD
Yup! To give you insight from my end. I'm doing typically ~$200 baskets at anywhere between $3-10 per conversions.
If that was the case they would have eliminated Sniply at the first round. Also, judging from the last batch I don't see many Unicorns.
Glad to have an unheated discussion about it. ;)

But I mean it when I call his use of the term 'safe spaces' unfortunate. Both of the interpretations you gave revolve around how to interpret his use of the term. Leave it out completely, is my advice.
Yes - the rush of private equity, hedge fund, mutual fund and sovereign wealth fund money has been massive. These unusual suspects have quickly become almost 1/3 of the investment $ into private fast-growth companies.

The full 121 page report referenced in the Yahoo article is available here for download.

https://www.cbinsights.com/research-venture-capital-q1-2015

note: CEO of CB Insights
>>The person who did the disclosure is alternatively viewed as a hero or a villain, but the thing is people are talking about the issue.

This is what I have concerns with. It's this "ends justify the means" argument that disregards some important consequences.

There are many ways to breach these topics. You can go to the FAA. You can go to the individual companies. You can post on mailing lists. Ultimately, it may be a grind. But going the press route with inflammatory statements has consequences that exceed your own experiences with law enforcement. The legislators want to regulate infosec. It won't be pretty when they do.

We need people to understand that a successful disclosure doesn't require headlines in arstechnica. You have to be empathetic to interactions with large organizations. Flashy press may get attention to your issue, but it can also have disastrous consequences for the rest of the community. Is it worth it?
You'd rather write unncessary Javascript and/or three nested HTML elements (table > tr > td) instead of two divs and some simple CSS? Man, I'd hate to be one of your clients since you don't really understand front-end development.
It's surprising, to me, that the author seems to equate the people who use the term "safe spaces" as being on the other side of his calls for liberty. In my personal experience, "safe space" is a term used by activists almost exclusively...and those activists are almost universally, vocally, and visibly, opposed to: Drones, mass surveillance, TSA, DHS, perpetual war, the drug war, the war on terror, etc.

The people I know who use the term "safe space" are the same folks I consistently see at rallies and marches and direct actions related to all of those issues (and more, that you never see the white "liberty" guys show up for; women's reproductive health access particularly among poor women of color, immigrant detainment issues, murder of people of color by police, etc.).

The term "safe space" has a specific meaning, which has nothing to do with free speech. It is a term used to define a space that people opt into, and generally the use of force is not considered part of the process of achieving a safe space. It isn't about whether you're free to say something. A safe space is something one chooses to be part of; a specific community or conversation, which, as a group, has decided to not be assholes to each other based on race, or gender, or sexual preference, etc.

It's interesting that in a conversation alleging people are demanding they never have their feelings hurt, a lot of white men are demanding they not have their feelings hurt by anyone asserting that white men sometimes say/do racist/sexist/misogynist/homophobic stuff. The privilege tantrum is truly a thing to behold. It never ceases to amaze me, no matter how many times I see it...and I see it all the time.
+1 more reason to avoid web development whenever possible. ;-)
Show HN: A Guide to TDD'ing React Components
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
i use this waty to solve my center problem,truly it works,but it lead other problems,like this:<div>test test <span>test test</span>test test <span>test test</span></div> the flex will ruin the layout of the div,so how can i solve this problem?thank you
This is the sort of thing that makes me conclude that the right way to teach oneself html+CSS is to read about the basics and then just find 100 increasingly-difficult layouts to implement and grind through them.
Clarification of Einstein's explanation of inertial mass and gravitational mass
Thanks for the post; very helpful. You might consider sharing the link via your own product; this way people will see how it works ...
"...to sit at a desk in a big, trendily-decorated room..."

I think that sounds more like a team room and not an open office. Team rooms are awesome.

I value spontaneous human interaction very much. I just don't value being aware of the spontaneous human interaction between 40 different people around me.

The key to understanding why open offices suck is that the amount of disturbance - statistically - is relative to the number of conversations that can spontaneously happen.

If we take n people then the number of spontaneous interactions is (back of the envelope) k * n * (n - 1) where k is some scaling factor.

It looks like this:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...

The point is, the more people there are, the more disturbances there are - exponentially. It's totally different to work in a space with 10 people than with 20 people - in the latter there is a 4 times more likelihood there is a disturbance than with 10 people. If we compare a room with 4 people with 40 people then the room with 40 people have relatively 130 times more disturbing events despite there are only 10 times as people around.

This is of course a ridiculously simple model but I think it essentially captures the fact that very large rooms have different dynamics than just large rooms.

And I want that people communicate and ask things spontaneously! But I don't appreciate the fact that without walls people like me need to suffer from noises coming from four different teams. And I don't mean suffer in an aesthetic sense, but in a very gut wrenching, unhealthy, "I cannot concentrate on this algorithm and it pisses me off like no other thing in this earth" way.

"...they get bored and demotivated when the office is quiet."

Do you mean you get bored and demotivated or are you describing how someone else feels specifically about their job?

Could it be rather that their job is just not that meaningful to them? If that is the case then I would hold that as a point against open offices - give people tiny meaningless jobs and remove all the walls so they are peer pressured to perform. I'm obviously exaggerating here to make a point.
How many times you had issues running software on Windows compared to Linux?

Even with "consumer friendly" distro's like Ubuntu compatibility is an issue and you can easily screw up co-hosted software and even the entire OS due to the current dependency mess which plagues the F/OSS world especially on Linux.

Back in the 90's and maybe maybe early 2000's you would get silly error messages like .dll XYZ or cannot find ZYX .ocx on Windows but today? I don't think so, other things like configuring network sharing, backup, more advanced network setups are still considerably much easier on Windows than Linux.

And it's not just the UI both Gnome and KDE have offered pretty much 95% coverage of anything you can configure on Linux (core service only ofc) in the UI but their UI is still sucky.

I haven't used Windows server since 2003 jumped into 2012 and could find everything and any new features were self explanatory, trying to make OS changes in Gnome, meh i rather just find the config file and edit it manually.

Linux needs to get It's shit together, and hopefully one day it will, because ATM even with all the nice and user friendly package managers at best half of your software will come in archives which a basic consumer user doesn't know what to do with (nor should they) and at worst comes completely uncompiled forcing you to /MAKE it on your own machine hoping you got all the dependencies and the header files you need.

And for the software you can get from your distro's "app store" you still holding your fingers hoping one application wont cause all of your other ones to brain fart because the dependencies it uses are of a slightly newer or older version.

I've worked for a Company that tried to switch their desktops to Linux, and I've heard plenty of stories of people who encountered similar cases, it just never bloody works just like everything else and then they panic hire an entire new IT department who still doesn't manages to get everything working properly for everyone and scarps the entire project 6-8 months down the Line losing probably several orders of magnitude more than they would ever have gained from reducing licensing costs across their desktops.
Funny, because you say he's in luck and yet, that isn't at all what he wrote. At all.
Is it surprising that there is no mention of ad fraud in the discussion?
Right, because you can't do anything via Amtrak Wi-Fi. It's far too slow to be dangerous, or, indeed, useful at all.
Your team will still be producing 20 days of development a month. The whole idea behind a manifesto like this one is to introduce a new kind of task into your pipeline.

What does "20 days of development" really mean? Does it exclude unit tests or integration tests? Does it exclude writing developer docs? Does it exclude performance tuning?

All those are development tasks whose purpose is to make your product better in different ways. This manifesto posits that working on the open source software your product is based on will also make your product better. To me, your question indicates that you haven't yet decided whether this proposition is true.
I agree that some type systems are infuriating. They demand highly verbose code, and offer almost no protection in exchange for your effort.

However, not all type systems are equal. Haskell (for example) almost never requires explicit type annotations. It has a type inference system that is sometimes frighteningly good. You can express a huge amount of logic through the type system and enforce very non-trivial constraints.

I've been writing Ruby for 7 years, and I've loved every moment of it. It's a wonderful language. That said, I usually have to spend quite a bit of time getting my code to work correctly. In Haskell, by the time I get to the point where the type checker approves of my code, it usually works as I intended the very first time I run it. It's a wonderful feeling.
It is as simple as agreeing to listen. The concept of safe space is reasonable within the assumption that there is a dominant culture that is free-speechified(variously politicized, highest bidder, protectionist, victimized). Within the college spaces it tends to swing towards naive radicalism, engaging in the dominant narrative as a "counter" force without questioning the ideology that creates that context.

Or to put it another way - you stand a much better chance of experiencing safe space within a group of trusted acquaintances who agree to the agenda, than in a broad-based organization . The latter is there to employ you in a war.
Algorithm able to identify online trolls
Thanks for sharing ;)
I never would have posted this if I understood it they way you did. Being a long time reader of the blog I didn't pay too much attention to the term 'safe spaces' because I already knew what he was referring to to. See my other comments in the thread if you're interested in my interpretation but in general I think he should not have used that term.
Data Is the New Middle Manager
Strongly agreed.

> const

I don't have to worry as much about iterator invalidation with containers, because I've documented that I'm not going to change it. Bonus points: I know the documentation isn't lying like it usually is. (Caveat: Someone const_cast<>ed it away, and my trust is forever crushed ;_;)

I don't have to scan for side effects to figure out if this const variable is an alias for "the initial size of the container" or "the number of elements remaining to process, which just happens to start as the initial size of the container".

It's clearer if the vector normalization function is "mutate in place" or "return a copy". I've seen enough code that does both that I can't necessarily rely on eyeballing the return type.

I can slap it onto existing, likely side-effecting code, to help make sure I don't miss anything when refactoring to an immutable style, because e.g. I'm preparing for multithreading.

That it helps catch accidental mutation is merely a happy side benefit.

> protected/internal

These are worth it just to unclutter my intellisense, which is how I read most of my documentation on some projects. Because it contains all the documentation, or because the API is straightforward enough that it contains all the necessary documentation.

> static

I've had this both help and harm. I'm typically using C++'s anonymous namespaces instead. I have collisions frequently - localized log methods, error tables, local module allocators, etc.

This is less about "I want to prohibit external calls" and more about "This is throwaway local code that I don't want to painstakingly disambiguate from every other possible chunk of throwaway local code." - I see frequent enough collisions with local log methods (which annotate before calling global log functions), error tables, shorthand aliases to specific allocators, etc.

And now to quote from the article instead:

>> What all of these fine-grained controls have done is to put the focus on software engineering in the small.

I'll certainly agree that fetishizing these micro tools to the detriment of larger system issues is bad. That's more along the lines of "insufficiently wide paranoia" than "the wrong kind" though.

>> There's an architecture used in video games for a long time now where rendering and other engine-level functions are decoupled from the game logic, and the two communicate via a local socket.

You can overcouple via RPC over a socket just fine. Like module level protections, it's a mere speedbump against making a bad decision. There's no panacea.
I don't know much about Ruby, I will admit.

But dynamic typing is terrible for large code bases. The only place I allow it is at the very edges of our system, where we are transforming the proper types of the internal system into POD-objects to be serialized and returned to the JS/HTML front-end. I'm not willing to give up the compile-time safety of breaking the build if someone inadvertently assigns a string to a number, or an object to a primitive in code that they check in, in place of unit testing that, odds are, will be incomplete or otherwise broken and won't catch the problems that static typing catches.
Might be more like a "technical jubilee"
I like your description of your journey through school but your anecdote is a bit odd:

> As an example of what we do this year the first project we worked on was to recode the malloc function in c [...] after some research i found that the projects at harvard cs61 are very similar [...] so i used the book they recomend there Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective. I read the relevant section

So you used the materials put together by the teacher responsible of CS61 at Harvard, and you read the book recommended to the class

You say Epitech and 42 are similar and it describe 42 as: "This French tech school has no teachers, no books, no tuition"

Yet to succeed in that case you used the Harvard teacher information(maybe some lecture notes, slides?) and read a book.(borrowed from the library? or 'found' a pdf online)

Also on a side note: you had to be able to read and understand that book so your English level had to be at a good working level, level that you do not really have when you're straight out of French high school, does 42 expect their students to be proficient in English?
hi formulaT. I was just giving the Israel-Palestinian debate as one example of a bigger issue. No need to hijack the conversation in that direction.
When I worked there I was told that the average checkout was something like 7-8 big items, so almost everyone would checkout in the 'express' (10 items or less) lane if they had one.
The inevitable bubble chatter will pick up steam again. There are many reasons to believe we're in a bubble and in our view, stronger reasons to believe we're not.

Here are several in support of a bubble.

1. There were 9x as many $100 million private financing rounds as there were $100 million public offerings. People are starting to call these private IPOs which is a bit of an oxymoron but the point around private market money being plentiful and even providing some liquidity to founders and early investors is happening even in some private transactions.

2. In the first 3.5 months of this year, there were 16 new companies that raised money at a billion dollar valuation or higher. There were 15 in all of 2013.

3. All sorts of new money is flowing into the market, i.e. private equity, hedge funds, mutual funds, corporations and sovereign wealth funds.

Why we are NOT in a bubble.

1. All of the US unicorns combined are worth less than Facebook

2. They collectively are worth 3.5% of the Nasdaq 100. Of course, notable tech companies like Twitter are also on NYSE so the % is overstated.

3. The public markets have not lost their mind. In fact, they're fairly hostile to new issuances which despite VC bellyaching is a good thing for VCs and in maintaing the current climate. When retail investors get burned on tech, the bubble will quickly pop. But right now, that's not the case as just calling yourself tech doesn't guarantee a high valuation. The market, while still far from perfect, treats companies with crappy or suspect fundamentals with skepticism (see Box).

4. There is no mechanism that will force a quick contraction. A bubble is typified by rapid expansion and contraction of asset values. The expansion part is happening for sure.

5. But there is not scorecard to provide the contraction. When companies are publicly traded, you have that daily scorecard to force it, but right now, it's private money going in and the beauty of the private markets is you can bury your dead very quietly. In essence, the opacity of the private markets enables investors to point to any failing investment or investor and just say "they were dumb money, we are different". And so there is no event that will pop it.

Notes:

A. I'm the CEO of CB Insights. We track private company financings and exits.

B. A crazy exogenous factor like a disease pandemic, terrorism, a China meltdown, war, etc are not considered in the above. If I could predict those with any certainty, I'd be doing that.

C. I gave a presentation at the Quebec Venture Capital and Private Equity conference this past week on this topic "Bubbles, Unicorn and Our Crazy Private Markets". It may be of interest if you're interested in the data behind some of the above bullets.

https://www.cbinsights.com/reports/tech-bubble-unicorns.pdf