skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I tried it with Opera Android and I get a cursor in a white page. I can type but nothing else. Is this a desktop only editor? I sometimes use this tablet to type or annotate Google docs files so there is definitely some space for mobile editors.
My list of "things I hate about C" is about 4 pages long now, after many years in embedded development (and a few in scientific computing prior to that). As soon as a viable replacement for it comes, I'm going to get drunk, ritually burn K&R's "The C Programming Language" then get drunk again. But I've been waiting for that day for a long, long, long time, and there's still no sign of it, not even with Rust (maybe with Go but we'll have to see).

I cannot think of a single systems programming language that has not vowed to put an end to all this buffer overflow and dangling pointers mess. The ones I tried so far (I think there's a dozen...) failed because of at least of one of the following items:

* Some of them mainly achieve safety by forbidding any unsafe read or write -- and then when you have to do a read or a write, they implement that by cleverly eschewing a protection mechanism or by isolating everything in an unsafe area. The former is disastrous because you can have bugs that eschew the protection mechanisms, too (see Heartbleed -- which can be perfectly replicated in Rust or Go); the latter, while useful in most application software, is next to useless in my day to day activity, where I have entire modules that consist of nothing other than unsafe reads or writes. At that point I might as well be using C.

* Others mainly achieve safety through a complicated system of annotations ("this parameter must not be NULL") or a type system that makes certain guarantees ("these parameter can never be NULL"). The end result is a system of annotations and/or types which you can describe in about as much space as The C Programming Languages takes to describe the whole language. Barring the fact that my memory is limited after ingesting C++, real life experience shows that "more complexity" is how bugs get introduced, rather than resolved. Except that the new problems don't arise because a pointer is pointing where it shouldn't, but rather because 1 == 1 returns False for certain types of 1 or something.

* Aaand some of them simply delude themselves through clever sandboxing and protected writes, ignoring the fact that the sandboxing back-end is C all the way and can be exploited. Except it's so mind-boggingly complex that fixing it is incredibly complicated.

Historically, there have been many instances of operating systems written in high-level (ish) languages. Hell, there are operating systems written in Common Lisp. It can be done. People haven't flocked towards high-level languages despite 30 bloody years, if not more, of operating systems written in high-level languages because it turns out you usually can't do it unless you turn most of those fancy protection features off. At which point you end up with C, only with a more complicated syntax, and why the hell bother?

The key to writing secure software that doesn't crash is still in correct programming. Tooling can help, but no language, no matter how fancy and hand-holding, is going to compensate for that.
This is making me think of the buttonless trackpad Lenovo tried for a while. Everyone at work who got one totally hates it.
Wonder if it occurred to someone that Apple could simply buy Samsung...
Microsoft Edge scores better benchmark results than IE11, Chrome, and Firefox
Tyler Cowen on inequality, Canada, and the state of global superpowers
Kinda crap title. They don't want to get rid of it, or even move it, just incorporate it into the touchpad.
What surprises me about this article is not that worldviews change, but how quickly these experimenters got it to happen. "When we surprised subjects by switching the language of the distracting numbers halfway through the experiment, the subjects’ focus on goals versus process switched right along with it."

I would have expected it was a much slower process. It makes me wonder if we could observe similar effects in multilanguage code bases.
Agree, better shout out would be Rust. Also referring the complete interview[1] which the TC article quotes, which seems to be favouring Rust.

[1]. https://www.codementor.io/rust/tutorial/steve-klabnik-rust-v...
> uncovered some things

Those were problems with the rust compiler or the binaries it generates?
Boeing 787 aircraft have been in service for longer than 248 days (entry into commercial airline service was in 2011), with zero confirmed encounters with the bug in the wild. This suggests that your "always on even when off" theory does not hold up.
Tips for Startups to Survive the Current Turmoil
Why men won't get married anymore
Exactly. It doesn't matter what the average college grad makes, what matters is what eke average developer college grad makes. And "this woman" was getting screwed, so the attempts to disregard that are real hollow.
Is Remote work arrangement possible or not?
> 10. How long will the ACLU keep information we receive through Mobile Justice CA?

> The ACLU may delete the information you send.

What's with the non-answers? This is their FAQ. If you're not going to answer a question you published, why publish it in the first place?
Paraguay vieta aborto a bambina di 10 anni violentata dal patrigno
That's what a realtor is. =)
I really like the promise of Rust. I mostly like its design.

But, for myself, I notice this: Writing Rust programs (vs. writing C programs) correctly is hard!

N.B. This might be an old dog new tricks thing.

I automatically structure my programs (be they rendering engines, or computation/numerical simulations or even agent-based simulations) where allocating and freeing memory from/to pools just isn't that hard. I don't really think about it. I just throw together my code, compile it and run it.

Of course, I make many (many!) silly/stupid mistakes during the course of development, but failing to free a pointer is rarely one of them.

Now I loop back to your point. (Sorry I took the long way)

> Everyone already knows what the problems of C are, what they need to know is what the alternatives offer and how in the end you are not giving up too much.

I know what the problems of C are. I am aware of the alternatives. But the problems of C don't seem to be overwhelming enough to bother throwing away and constructing an entirely new tool-chain and support system on whatever your platform is.

That was a pretty bold statement, and I would invite a response.

I would like to think that we, as an industry, are not just implementing new language ecosystems because we can't be bothered to free our pointers...
I would like to speak to the developer or company of this link.. please respond with contact info
I am looking for a newsletter that covers sales funnels, content and landing page design. Does anyone know of such a newsletter?

I currently subscribe to:

Closing Call on sales http://closingcall.co
Go Weekly on Go posts http://cooperpress.com
Web Operations Weekly on devops posts http://cooperpress

I just found the http://hackingui.com and http://sidebar.io on this post, thanks
Three things so far. Two in the parser, one in generated code:

- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/24276

- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/24275

- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/21889
>I can't speak for any of the three but I don't think any of them are utopians;

Well, in the context of media awareness and public perception, it's not if they truly __are__ utopians insomuch as other journalists and pundits call them that. Yes, RK, KK, MA, and others like Tim O'Reilly and Dean Kamen may prefer to call themselves the blander title of "techno-optimists" or "tech-progressives". If the outsiders like journalists choose to exaggerate "optimists" to "utopians" for dramatic effect, it sort of goes with the territory of being in the public eye. (Like Michael Jackson the "king of pop", or 1970s babies the "X Generation". The subjects of those labels didn't give journalists permission to call them that.)

The other side of techno-utopians would be tech-cautious writers like Tom Standage (Economist editor) and Evgeny Morozov.

In terms of how public figures are viewed, I still don't think Peter Thiel is in the same category as the other people I mentioned.
Cubase Pro 8 Crack and Keygen Full Version Free Download
Schopenhauer's Camera
Clothing also alters the way people treat you, obviously. That changes the way you perceive the world, even if you're mindful of the effect.

I've never been one who minded rolling my sleeves up when needed, but I can recall several instances of both: Why it is an advantage to be dressed "nicely" and, why it isn't.

Working in a field service position (attendance at the office was required) at a medium-sized company where much of the manufacturing was done in-house, I noticed that if you were the nicest dressed technician, that you would rarely be recruited for any dirty jobs that came up.

Working in the engineering dep't for the same company, if you dressed well and kept your work area neat, salespeople would often parade clients through your area, disturbing you.
What do you mean? There are tons of comments in that class.
I don't think I would join a startup that wasn't founded by people with some kind of technical degree.
Having a build process tied to a specific package manager is a big problem.
Jon Evans, master complainer. C could be improved, but the amount of important C code out there (Linux...) militates against adopting a new C. Is someone going to pay to switch over the code base?

Ultimately if a newer, tighter, safer C is going to arise it must come fron the GCC or LLVM people.

Go: owned by google so it's a no-go.
> There's no perfect language.

Reminds me of cultures. Differences between groups times themselves over the years and will mostly diverge from each others (not necessarily).

Each linguistic specificity will lead to different idioms, libraries and landscape; also fitting to different domains.

Some times, Lisps or algebra-based FP (in my inexperienced eyes it could lead to safier code too) makes me think there a way to reunite all this under the same roof though.

ps: I agree with your post. Maybe language matters to a certain extent only; good system design is language agnostic.
I had a similar reaction to you but disagree with you on a few:

>> 13. Speaking at conferences is tightly controlled

> What? Are you talking about OPSEC procedures or travel limitations or what exactly?

I spent a good deal of time working for the US Feds and it wasn't just travel limitations. Due to the fact that we couldn't accept "gifts," I wasn't able to accept the speaker package (flight+hotel) that was offered to every speaker so my supervisor could make the budget argument.

>> 16. You measure your hiring process in months

> Your freaky fast startup is what...5..100 employees? Come on, an agency (while can be small) is part of something much much larger. Also many agencies require a full background check and/or security clearance.

This is a straw man. Many agencies require a full background check for no particular reason. Further, a fingerprint check with IAFIS and even a National Agency Check can be done in a matter of days.

Regardless, to hire people in a field in demand, months is ridiculous. And it's not just the length of the process but the lack of information. The last time I was working for the Feds, I applied for a new position and waited ~30 days until they acknowledged the application, another ~30 days for the first call, a couple weeks for the first interview, and then another ~30 days for the followup. In the meantime, I joined a company and was deep into my first project.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy[1]. Also, please do mentions books which you have read, so as to avoid any recommendations.

[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the...
Two things: First, I'm on the core team, so I obviously have bias. I try to remain as objective as possible at these things, but still. Second, that interview was from October. Not a lot has changed, really, but it is an eternity in Rust-time.
Ask HN: How do you monitor your docker containers?
There exist different solutions for monitoring a docker environment in production (cAdvisor, zabbix or any other generic monitoring system, collectd+graphite..; as well as SaSS as serverdensity, scout, datadog, etc.); what is your choice?
Do they really continue calling you out even if you're not checked in and have not checked in any luggage?

I've heard (but have no sources or anything to back it up) that they ditch people without calling them out if they're not checked in and haven't checked in luggage.
That's why I'm looking at Nim http://nim-lang.org/ - it generates C code and compiles through GCC
And if you ever want to learn C++ later (C++11 specifically), you'll have a big chunk of the work already done. Rust's move semantics are very helpful to understand C++ smart pointers, for example. Also, lambdas/closures. You'll also miss how you were babysitted (in a good sense!) by the Rust compiler, whereas C++ does not care if you mess up with dangling references!
Rather than "death to C" a better viewpoint is: minimize our use of C and anything that looks like it. We don't need a better C, in which to write mega-projects.

There is a parallel here in assembly language. Once upon a time, programmers extended the viability of assembly language by building smarter assemblers with powerful macros and such. None of that is necessary if you minimize your use of assembly language, so that all you have in your system that is in assembly language is a few atomic instructions, some context saving/restoring code, interrupt dispatch, and a speedy memcpy and whatnot.

Going from C to Rust (or Go, or C++ or whatever) is kind of like trying to use a deluxe assembler to write large assembly language programs with better reliability.

If I'm going to leave C behind for some task, it's because I want to get away from that sort of semantics---any version of that semantics.
"Windows Millennium Edition" was the worst.
If you are a c leaning c++ hater, as I used to be, I would encourage you to look at some of the more recent techniques and standards in depth. Some examples I can probably not do justice towards in a short post: stl giving you inline-able data structures, functors (and now lambdas) giving you inline-able callbacks, raii for making C's "goto cleanup block" idiom more automatic, rvalue references getting rid of a lot of the unnecessary copies of "old" c++.

There are a lot of warts in the language and a lot of people in the community writing bad code. But there is a good language emerging, and plenty for low-level hackers to appreciate.
SecuringPHP - http://www.securingphp.com

That's the only one I ever read. I've probably been subscribed to others but I never bother to check them; they're insta-junked.
Performing a startup premortem
It's slower than Chrome on my 2011 Macbook Air. Which is disappointing, considering it doesn't yet implement the same features.
A two space indentation level isn't enough for my tired old eyes.
uint64_t thisVariableIncrementsByOneEvery10msSoItWontOverflowForAReallyLongTime

(then you'd know it was safe)
>There are no profitable 30minute episodic

By episodic TV I mean drama, comedy, traditional TV format. Stuff that people are prepared to pay for (see netflix et al.)

Broadcasting sports is super cheap, and has little value for anything other than tier 1 events. (the expense is the rights management, something that games broadcasting has yet to really encounter.) Also note that like I said, its a niche thing, which limits its profitability. Niches always exist.

Also note the profitable. Channel4 in the UK used to deliver its catchup TV via youtube. Despite the heavy promoting it failed to get more than a few hundred thousand views across the entire library.
MISRA is a bloated mess from the accounts I've seen, no doubt to encourage paying for it. If u remove all the filler and padding the substantial part may be 40 rules.

There should be a new C that obviates the substantial parts of MISRA.
> Especially considering that the majority of law enforcement are there to do the right thing for the right reason

Let us suppose three categories of police officers:

a) bad cops

b) cops who generally act good themselves but who will lie and cover for bad cops

c) good cops who will arrest bad cops when they see them doing bad, and testify against them, and otherwise act against them, despite peer pressure not to do so

When people say "most cops are good", they are saying that group a) is small, which for the purposes of argument I will agree with. But the fact is, there are almost no cops in group c), and whenever one is discovered, they are pushed out of the police force as quickly as possible. And I consider group a) and group b) to both be "bad cops". There are lots of cops in group b), who consider themselves good, but who should be considered to be part of the problem.

> assumed potential for wrong-doing in every person with a uniform

Why would a uniform eliminate one's potential for wrong-doing?
I absolutely agree. I worked with MISRA C back in 2001. I point to that as a move in the right direction, but not the solution. C must be revamped and ideally a number of subsets will then disappear.
And don't forget viewing comments on YouTube. With this set-up I will be missing out.
Platzi (YC W15) Conference with YC, Reddit and More from Mexico
What is it able Go being owned by Google that makes out a no-go?
Most of these people (not all of whom are MBAs) just want to be bosses, not entrepreneurs. Their goal is to be executives ("big picture guys") shouting orders, not worker bees, but they don't have the social resources to make it happen in an existing company so they drum up some seed funding and hire some engineers (usually, scraping the bottom) and try to kick something together. It doesn't work very often.

"I want to be an executive" is a pretty fucking lame vision, as it were. I'd rather be around people who have concrete ideas of what they want to build, and who'll lead when appropriate and follow when appropriate. People who say, "I'm a leader" but don't have a good sense of where they want to lead, are annoying. What they're really saying is, "I think that, based on some linear combination of pre-existing socioeconomic resources and inflated self-image, I have the right to a job where I tell other people what to do."

I don't think that all MBAs are douchebags. I know plenty whom I like a lot. Unfortunately, the culture of business school and especially the elite business schools is one of entitlement and position-seeking. When that type of person founds a startup, you get a lot of the same toxic big-company behaviors and formalities and political structures, but in a small company that can't afford the inefficiencies. Now you have the worst of both worlds between small companies and big ones, and a high likelihood of failure or, if the connections are there, Knewton-esque mediocrity.

Oddly enough, if I had a child I'd recommend that he go to the highest-ranking business school out there. Harvard is going to open doors that are just ridiculous, whereas the #20 school is probably educationally equivalent, but isn't going to make you a CEO at 30. On the other hand, if I were hiring, I'd be extremely skeptical of the Harvard MBA and less skeptical of the Booth MBA and even less skeptical of the UWash MBA. In most educational divisions, the correlation between prestige and douchebaggery is nonexistent, i.e. Yale law students aren't noticeably douchier, or less douchey, than students at middling schools; in MBA school, it's clearly a positive correlation (although Stanford is probably worse than Harvard, though less prestigious, for obvious reasons).
Something I found very interesting was Peter's comment: "You try to hire people you could become friends with." I contrast this with Zuckerberg's approach to only hiring people that he would work for (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2015/03...).

It's probably not fair to put these side-by-side due to context, but Peter's approach resonates with me now. Here's how I reconcile this: Peter's "friends" concept is about the long-term effect on yourself (and your team around you). Mark's "work-for" concept is about putting the very best people around you to build and operate a company. They could certainly co-exist, depending on your personality.

Mark's approach (for me) makes great sense on paper, but Peter's approach comes with the value of been-there-done-that. Both have their place, but over the long haul, I can really appreciate what Peter is talking about.
In order for a language to replace C, it has to do two things:
1) be able to write an OS kernel competitive with Linux in this language.
2) get its compiler(s) ported to new architectures, including the Top500 supercomputers, where I work.
Note that these two help each other: you make a new architecture, you either code a custom OS in C or port Linux, both of which start with a port of a C compiler.
If your language can't do the OS thing, C will remain out of necessity, and be too tempting and stable an alternative.
Only one http://caesuraletters.com/

A daily devotional for life-long learners, critical thinkers, mindful questioners, and other hopelessly inquisitive people.
That's Jon Evans' specialty FYI
> they have runtimes

Go has as much a runtime as C or C++ [0].

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crt0
> There's no perfect language.

> I'm sure someone is already rewriting the Linux kernel and all of the Unix-y tools in Rust or Go or whatever. I won't hold my breath.

You're right, man. Nothing is perfect and we can't start with a blank slate so we might as well give up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solutio...
I took a psych class in high school and one of our assignments was to dress up on Fridays for 6 weeks and record how we thought about ourselves on those days and how others treated us.

All I remember about it now is getting a lot of compliments when I wore a tie.
> you can be kicked out of your own home

Tenants do not own the property - the landlord does (or the bank that provides the landlord's mortgage).
There was a similar issue in the Linux kernel in version 2.6.32 where the kernel would crash after 208 days: http://www.novell.com/support/kb/doc.php?id=7009834

This was a serious problem in some storage systems too: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/blogs/anthonyv/...
OK, I had in mind the JITed HipHop VM that they tout now (later development it seems).

Still, how does the original version of HipHop as a transpiling compiler invalidate what I said?

I said (check my original comment): unless you do it badly, transpiling to C gets you to run faster, because it lets you translate most operations to straightforward and fast C code.

And that's exactly the logic they followed and what they achieved: they transpiled PHP to C, as opposed from running it with PHPs runtime interpreter, in order to make it faster, and it worked.

That they skipped some parts of PHP runtime behavior/semantics, which if they didn't it would slow things down, doesn't clash with what I said. In fact it's already covered in my comment: "it let's you translate MOST" (not all) operations to fast C code.
My guess also, looking at the number of farms-turned-to-subdivisions, parks and green areas along the East Coast, is that better logistics and transport has further improved the efficiency of distributing goods from megafarms in the midwest, making the need for smaller and less efficient traditional colonial-era farms obsolete.

At the same time, the midwest, especially the great plains area, were always tree sparse.