skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The CMB argument around the big bang is misunderstanding what is being witnessed. It's not the start of the universe that it's revealing information about, but rather a perpetual cycle. The universe regurgitates, it does not begin or end.

Compression, release, distribution, re-compression.

An actual true beginning requires an ultimate creator, an entity that can exist outside of all that exists. I disagree with that premise for many reasons.

Much like science missed wildly in estimating just how small the micro world is, it has missed wildly on the macro scale. What is thought of as the universe (the total assumed sum + ~13.8 billion years), is just another very large collection. It goes through a constant cycle, the actual universe does not. I think that within perhaps 20 or 30 years we'll be able to prove that what we think of as all there is - the "universe" - is just one in another very large collection.

The big bang theory is going to fall apart in the next decade. That process is going to upset a lot of people that have bet their entire professional lives on it. One thing I've always come to expect when discussing the big bang theory as being potentially false, is that I will be drenched in every possible argument (rational, emotional, ad hominem, etc) by its devotees. There is an incredibly intense emotional attachment to that theory.
If you only need versions in your distro's repos then this is usually fine - although often the more obscure stuff is broken in e.g. Ubuntu repos. If you want a newer version? Things break fast.
As a novice I find that when the compiler starts telling me do to things it will go one of two ways: either what the compiler tells me to add will quickly propagate until it's happy OR it will propagate until lifetime arguments have spread through the entire codebase, turning everything into token salad. The hard part is having a mental model of the data so you can reason about lifetimes. The compiler may help you to get it formally correct, but what would be really cool would be if it would help you find the "inversions" or "isolations" that you will need in order to not end up with lifetime soup.
Strigi desktop search (2006) implementation was very powerful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strigi). It was possible to search through an compressed archive inside an compressed archive - in a memory and space efficient way -> "streaming". Strigi uses the Jstream C++ library which allows for deep indexing of files. See this slides from 2006: http://www.vandenoever.info/software/strigi/akademy2006.pdf . The CLucene (C++ port of Java Lucene) also uses the Jstream library (http://sourceforge.net/projects/clucene/). Jstream works similar to the Java "InputStream".

Given the discontinued status of Strigi and CLucene, it would be great if one would maintain the Jstream C++ library. Or take its ideas and implement it in zindex.
The argument that you'll always hear from police in response to your points here is that they shouldn't have to de-escalate because if the subject would simply comply nothing bad would happen.
I'm already familiar with those (which is why I mentioned it). Maybe you are just linking it for other people, in which case, thanks.
I think you kind of missed the point of my post (which was a bit tongue-in-cheek). The original code fragment had the tick duration embedded in a comment, so changing a global variable which defines it something other than 10ms is going to cause all sorts of problems in maintaining that code. (Leading possibly to the very problem Boeing had).
3 MacBookPro's (2x15" and 1x13") seem all fine. Nothing out of the ordinary. Mac Mini's fine as well.
I experience the same difficulty focusing. Often the new ideas are in fact great ideas, and sometimes they become crucial parts of my work. Progress for me is very organic and sometimes seems random. It is also very difficult to force progress - even when I have specific work to do, sometimes I just can't focus on it no matter how hard I try. That usually means I haven't figured out how to do it, but it also happens when the task is related to things I'm worried about, like failure.

When I need to describe to people where it will go, it rarely works well. I seem to have determined that the direction my mind takes me tends to be good though, and I should trust it. Some things didn't make sense for a year and then finally clicked once other things fell into place.

I'm speaking as an entrepreneur. The article describes me well. I also keep many, many tabs open.
You're confusing the remnants of an event for the start of the universe. It's nothing more than a part of a perpetual cycle, rather than proof of a beginning of existence.

I have no inherent respect for something because it's claimed to be the best model. I believe it's a false idol, worshiped with a near religious fervor because so many have staked their scientific livelihoods to it. Dogma is extremely common in science historically.
Ask HN: What do you personally consider to be useful or innovative?
I was reading the comments on this recent post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9476398) and there was a debate on which companies are considered innovative or useful. So my question is: what do you personally consider as innovative or useful? Please don't limit yourself to just companies, feel free to mention technology or ideas as well.
First, I already addressed the main salary point in my original post. I don't need to respond to every random who wants to poke holes. I will address a couple issues you brought up in your reply. Just like I don't presume I know more about software engineering than my candidates, I trust you'll defer to someone who knows recruiting.

--I've yet to see 'reverse headhunting' where you submit your resume to a recruiter and they then go out to find the best possible position for you.

Yeah, this exists - they're "agents" for software engineers (for example). But it's rare and not sustainable.

---In the long term your loyalty has to lie with your repeat customer, the corporation that hires you. Since you are not going to get any repeat business from the individuals that you've placed (unless you're willing to risk that long term relationship, but there are plenty of other recruiters that will be more than happy to play the game again).

You forgot one thing: reputation. If you do best by your client AND candidate, then your candidate sends your referrals, eventually comes to you when he/she becomes a hiring manager, etc.

---I don't particularly care about what you call it, to me it felt more like interacting with a class of buzz-word wielding vultures trying to make money from placing people based on an extremely limited understanding of what makes the tech world tick.

I've heard this before, usually from less level-headed software engineers. Like I said, sales is a different business - we do different things than you guys. I have repeatedly watched as techies have tried and failed to transition into recruiting. There is an extremely low correlation between tech savvy & recruiting success. Recruiting is a people business.

The underlying theme here, again, is that you're lumping every recruiter into your personal bad experiences - like I already said, some are good. That's not a valid approach in this situation.
Kaggle: Restaurant Revenue Prediction has a submission with zero error
I guess so! And that's a good thing. ;)
Because Ada programmers were too expensive (i.e., there weren't that many of them).

At least, that's what I remember hearing---can't really vouch for it and I'd be happy to see someone else weigh in.

Also, my understanding was that Ada was basically forced on the defense industry by the Pentagon, and then there was eventually a backlash, and they dropped it. It may have had more success if it had been adopted voluntarily all along. In fact, it may yet have a resurgence. I know there is at least one serious Ada vendor out there still.
Why is gun ownership almost always brought up in such discussions? I'm from a country with high gun ownership and low crime - yet I really don't think the crime rate has anything to do with the guns people have at home (mostly military rifles), since the crime rate is mostly the same as in other European countries with low gun ownership. So, just to be clear, I'm pro liberal gun laws (for different reasons), I just think crime and police brutality are not going to be solved with gun laws in either direction, it's a separate issue.
The problem that the author describes is that we can’t discover who’s naturally immune and thereby develop cures if we always halt the natural immune process with treatments. I don’t know how scientifically valid this is, but it seems at least a valid ethical concern: if we could eradicate a deadly disease by sacrificing a few people, should we?
Like pavlok.com?
You didn't explain anything, you only provided a cryptic analogy.
In other news, there are trolls on the internet and they select words, terms and language based on what the victim will perceive to be most negative. In other words, they know their audience and what buttons they can push for that audience. The same language wouldn't be used for a different audience because that language wouldn't be appropriate to push the buttons of that different audience.

bigot - someone that uses derogatory and hateful language based on what they believe and how they feel.

troll - someone that uses derogatory and hateful language based on what their victims believe and how their victims will feel.

Without knowing anything about the victim, the assailant or the motivation, the language from both groups looks remarkably similar. Motivations between both groups are wildly different.
Looks like internet explorer after an axe attack.
Are you really suggesting that it's not possible for you write an independent implementation of an algorithm from the version you once read? Is this sort of "clean room" approach typical? It strikes me as absurdly cautious.
Peak car
That's true. However, it doesn't really negate my point, it complements it.

In this case, Apple could have a "test" that is: install the new OS under test on a machine, and see if performance degrades on other machines on the same network.

You could have 10 people test it with 10 different networks. It's expensive, but Apple could heat their HQ by burning cash if they wanted.

Admittedly, some things will still get through due to tests that you would only think to do in hindsight. But once you have the test, they won't get through again.
BY which time we'll know if it is really so bad or if it is actually an improvement.

I doubt Red Hat (which has to actually sell it's OS and still flogs a load of Red Hat 6) will carry on pushing it if it really turns out to be a turd. (Yes I know where the main author works).
That's actually how speech works.

The First Amendment isn't a shield. Any one of us may entertain any advocacy we see fit. Others see it and may see merit, or think it's crazy, or offensive.

The answer?

More free speech.

If we are to say money is speech, then the dynamics of speech should apply. Anything really worth supporting is going to see some shaming, but it's also going to see support, robust debate and competition too.

Not having disclosure creates a shield where there should not be one, and it invites corruption and the inability to even understand what is happening in politics.

"Initially unpopular"

There are a lot of things in place today that were initially unpopular, yet they happened anyway. Free speech is how we got a lot of them done too. Wasn't pretty, but it works, and it's just.

The First Amendment doesn't have a shield in it so that we can find, debate, and get past our differences, and deal with abuses. We can't really debate anon type dollars as speech, though it happens somewhat indirectly which isn't really the same, nor can we really understand abuses, and even crime.

I absolutely want the same rules for my opponents. If I'm actually engaging in speech that really does have basic merit problems, their counter speech is going to bring that out, and the balance of all the speech is reason. I really might be impacted by shame, and it actually might have a basis in reality too. That is a good thing.

There are people putting lots of dollars toward causes that would be painful to express directly today, and those causes can impact people, who really don't know who is attempting to buy law / policy targeting them. How just is that really? And if they are doing that, and it really does lack basic merit, shouldn't they actually experience real shame? I think so. That's how the First Amendment is intended to work.

"initially unpopular" might actually mean "wrong" or "unjust" and in those scenarios, people should feel some shame. Those counter arguments would actually have merit and we actually benefit from that dynamic.

And "initially unpopular" implies some greater goal or end state having sufficient merit to overcome initial issues.

That's a sales job, and selling it in private basically means buying law, getting around the interests of our peers and having our own way for having dollars, not that it actually got sold and that we pursue that policy out of any real consensus.

Seems to me, where we lack a meaningful debate and we allow very loud voices to dominate without actually having to own their speech like everybody else must, how can we really understand the merits were vetted and those greater states or goals have the worth associated with that initially unpopular policy?
I agree with you - the moment you learn another language, you step outside the borders of your own culture, metaphysically, and are able to see things from a different perspective than what is normal. That's the value - and the liability - of language, in my opinion.

The world would be a better place if we all spoke more than just our mother-tongues ..
Exactly what I was thinking. It could be a simple app that you take a photo of your itemised medical bill and it decodes it for you. Although after reading this, I think an app that does this automatically would fail as itemised bills do not seem to be the norm and even when you ask for one, nothing makes sense and there appears to be a lack of standardisation.

I think insurance companies should offer this as a value-add. A broken down, item-by-item explanation of what you were charged for and what it means.
In my experience it's useful to add a little more documentation/comments to your code. It makes it a lot more readable for anyone else and more importantly, a lot easier for yourself when you're writing updates a while from now.

I like to have a little comment above every function that explains what it does at least. On top of that I usually put a single line above every logical block of code. Something like "Loop trough list of someobject." It seems obvious but it does make it a lot easier to read back code later.
Always. No ebook can beat a paper book. Browsing and comparing a phisical book is orders of magnitude easier.
Anyway, ebooks are good for casual reading.
Are you a contributor (code? money? documentation?) If so I'm sorry to see you go. Otherwise no worries enjoy...
Obvious Always Wins
Ubuntu 14.04 is not using systemd...
You don't even need a new theory to predict the universe has no beginning. Since in general relativity time slows down (from our reference frame) as the universe become denser and hotter, if the universe starts as a singularity then an infinite amount of time must have elapsed between the initial singularity and now. This is just another way of saying that the universe has always existed.
I had a look at your code and at a first glance it looks quite good to be your first Swift project. As the others already said, you're missing tests that makes refactoring a bit hard for someone who's new to your code.

Other 2 points I noticed is:

1) You're using CocoaPods but you included SwiftyJSON, Alamofire and a couple of other libraries as plain source code. Why not submodules at least? This makes it hard to update the source of the external dependencies to the latest version

2) You're doing way too many casts in your code. This means that something could be wrong on an architectural level. I would like to help you (I already cloned your repo) but I'm using Swift 1.2 (btw your code is still on Swift 1.1) and I didn't manage to migrate because of point 1).

Apart from that, good job on shipping your app! :)
Though they had lost all power at the time when they picked this career. So they did not get the new position of wealth through any existing position power, but through hard work and confidence in themselves (and luck, of course).
To illustrate, here's something I wrote not too long ago:
https://gitlab.insomnia247.nl/coolfire/pfsense-ident-proxy/b...

It's a little quick-and dirty but it's the way it's commented that makes the point I'm going for here.
Interested in seeing how this will develop.
This sounds like a totally positive experience compared to how it could have gone. Not to mention, a giant waste of money.
> Undoubtedly, the most exciting kind of alien life would be the intelligent kind

But intelligent non-life would be even more exciting! Note that SETI is the search for ET intelligence, not ET life.

I mean, read this:

> As robotic space probes continue to explore the solar system, visiting planets, moons, and asteroids, they're finding watery environments where microbial life could grab hold

If robots are better than life for exploring the solar system and visiting remote planets, why are we looking for signs of life, instead of signs of robots?
I never said it was perfect, or even that I was optimistic about it. I just said the forces are there.

Government doesn't have any external force keeping it in check. All of the "checks and balances" are other parts of the government or controlled by government (Eg: who counts the votes? Government. Who decides which two candidates get on the ballot? Those currently in charge.)

Companies can be naughty, for sure. It's just when they do there are consequences.

Government never seems to suffer from the consequences of their own actions-- in fact, when government screws things up they always have a scapegoat and use it as an excuse to take even more money and power.

Look at what happened after 9/11-- more money, more power, more wars.

Look what happened after snowden? No reforms, more expansion of spying. Hell, spying grew under Obama and the Patriot Act was made permanent. Which means the travesty enacted under Bush wasn't even weakened by giving the democrats control over two branches of government!
> ... lots of Git usage patterns have evolved around creating garbage and then throwing it away rather than having an explicit and safe delete operation that is rarely used

Any delete operation in Git is safe. At least compared to delete operations in other vcs's (hg strip comes to mind).

> may not be possible on hosted repositories

That isn't Git's fault though, but the hosted repository. You could say the same about Mercurial bookmarks.

> And even when you've made it safe, you still cannot have unnamed branches or multiple checkouts.

I don't understand why this would be nice to have. Mercurial had the former, which to me was completely useless. Should I ever want to go back to a previous unnamed branch, I would have to actively search for it, which on a large project would take forever. I always keep my branches named, after the issue number, for this particular reason.

I don't really understand what multiple checkouts are for (a quick google gave me nothing). I would assume it would be something like having multiple local repositories, but I assume that is not what you're getting at?

> a fairly deep understanding of implementation details

Which takes literally fifteen minutes to teach (at least the way I did it), and after that it becomes a lot easier to explain what the different commands actually do.

> it's relatively safe when commits are regularly mirrored to a network of contributors, not so much when they don't.

A network doesn't provide any more safety (except from a computer crash), as you don't push garbage.

> is to protect developers against their mistakes

To a point. To be completely safe we would have to auto-commit on fixed intervals, like a traditional backup system. Instead, the user is empowered with the decision to decide what gets stored. If the user wants to remove something entirely, or re-write history to make it more readable or whatever, he/she should have that power too. A default 30 days of full history is, IMHO, quite reasonable given what the user can do. If that doesn't meet your requirements, then there are other, better options out there.

> they cannot be expected to have a deep technical understanding of the tools they are using

They don't need one. Have someone teach them git add, commit, push, pull and merge. Then teach them to NEVER rebase. Done.

We could probably go back on forth on this a lot, as we're unlikely to change each other's position, I'll call it quits. Thanks for a fruitful discussion :)
> if that were the case, we should see evidence of entities within the universe that also "exist without cause", and we don't.

Why don't quantum fluctuations count?
...well, then my irony-detector is broken ;-).
Even the HN app is pretty piss-poor... (and yeah, I'm not looking to get Y Combinator's funding)
It's not simply best practice - it's necessary to maintain your code.
How would knowing the meaning and even the average cost for a given code change your behavior? It's still basically impossible to get even an estimate of cost for even the most basic medical procedures before having one.

Also, the bills are much more complicated than what they print out and mail to you. The amounts can vary based on many different factors, such as BMI, alcohol/nicotine dependency, and other risk factors that make you more risky to provide care for.
Feelreal VR Mask and Nirvana helmet let gamers smell and feel the action
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZk--oZdQk
Every once in a while I'm troubleshooting why connection is slow again. With pings to google reaching 7-8 seconds. The offender was always an iOS device declaring itself king of the network. Finding the culprit is fun at times since some syncs stop once the device becomes active (e.g. iCloud backup, but not always).

Worst of all it's easy for redundant syncs to happen. "iCloud backup" on default config backs up the entire device, including your Camera Roll. "My Photo Stream" also uploads every picture as well as "iCloud Photo Library". This turns 5GB of pictures into 15GB. (Edit: wrong info see post below)

The most fun I've had a few days ago with "WhatsApp". They introduced their own backup capability via "iCloud Drive" which also doubles their backup requirements if not configured properly. Default iCloud backup already backs up all of WhatsApp. WhatsApp's iCloud Drive backup then saves everything again.
In my case WhatsApp backup got stuck and was indefinitely uploading the same file. Turning backup off in WhatsApp-settings did nothing. I had to rip out iCloud Drive access for the app to make it stop.

This was on my sisters device. Given that WhatsApp is heavily used for image sharing as well this meant that WhatsApp was (trying to) backup 2*2GB of data. Not possible at 52KB/s upload speed.

Bonus points: WhatsApp also saves all images to the Camera Roll so the image gets backed up once more.

Fun times.