skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In my experience, maths grads can be really good at very specialised engineering problems like digital signal processing. Beyond that though they tend to produce poorly structured code that will be difficult to maintain. If their problem requires a sizeable amount of code and they have no experience with software engineering best practices then it's best to pair them up with someone that has.
The Phantom time hypothesis
Here's my 10.6.8 Snow Leopard MacBook Pro laptop:

sh-3.2# uptime
11:28 up 117 days, 19:13, 4 users, load averages: 0.91 0.98 0.95
Constraints for the actual universe we live in?
it depends on what you'll be engeneering
TL;DR: "They have launched a startup, Julia Computing, to provide services such as support, training and consulting services for Julia, for a fee."

Basically, consulting and services. For all those who're getting worried by this, I don't think there's any inherent problem. After all, this is exactly what Red Hat has been doing with Linux for years.
I don't think anything about running Fedora applies to the general population at all! :P

I'm sure I'm not a typical user, but I've definitely had more Linux VMs than I've had native installs. Even if it's not a majority, I don't think it's uncommon.
Looking at you Ember. Ugh!

var controller = this;

Every time!
5) Cost of a normal bike path with ordinary solar cells of equal area next to it
> If you already know what code you want to write, this makes sense. But how often does that happen? I suppose you could work out your ideas on paper first, but that eliminates the much of the value modern editors provide.

What would be ironic is if this semantic editing would force us to sketch our functions/modules/program with pen and paper before we are able to actually input them into this semantic editor. An editor that tries to go beyond the "archaic" textual interface, and ends up forcing you to use the even more "archaic" pen and paper.
Read the NDA a Comcast customer was told to sign to get a $600 refund
Neither. Experience makes better software engineers.
In an applied sense. But you are definitely right in general!
You can choose not to use the React component abstraction at all and just re-call React.render(makeElements(state), el) at the top level each time your app changes (using pure functions to generate the tree). Our plan is also to support pure functions directly for components that don't rely on state.

You can also use the component abstraction but choose not to use getInitialState/setState -- but our goals are to provide a component abstraction that is flexible enough to meet people's needs while still being restrictive enough for us to build higher-level optimizations around them.
Not exactly. Frontier will launch 2 weeks after code freeze, which should happen when the milestone here reaches 100%: https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/milestones
Define "soon" haha. With the speed of adopting ECMAScript 6 this "soon" could become really long.
The best ever approach that worked for me is after i solved a problem - write a blog post about it.

In fact I am doing this again right now.

In fact I am dedicating the whole weekend to it.

Why? Because my past blog posts landed me serious consulting requests and serious job interviews.

Outsourcing or writing fluff and fillers never worked for me.
https://bitbucket.org/djarvis/world-politics/wiki/Related

Jump to "Government Tracking" and "Education" for more related links.
Hm, how did they get the initial funding? I want to do the same thing for Octave, for which I'm sure a similar market exists, but I have no idea where to get the money to get started. This isn't a startup that just grows indefinitely. It's not a build once, sell infinitely often kind of thing. Each contract requires constant labour and upkeep.

So how did they manage to attract a hedge fund? And are they losing any autonomy in that? Also, will this distract them by making them work on customer-specific software and installations instead of working on Julia itself?
That's the wrong 6 months though, since it's including the whole winter and none of the summer. Looking at the graph, April accounted for as much power production as the other 5 months combined.
Sorry, this is beyond silly. Do they actually have any scientists with some command of mathematics working on this project?

Other than to screw ignorant government morons out of lots of money I could not imagine any reputable scientist or engineer not falling to the floor laughing uncontrollably when presented with the idea of putting solar panel on a sidewalk/bike path.

The whole thing is so utterly ridiculous that the only possible explanation is someone is making millions with this project.
short answer: people who don't have the scale of amazon/google/fb.
You love seeing people fail? (At least according to your own logic?)

There seem to be plenty of preppers who actively garden, probably more than you do and I bet you would enjoy learning something from them. Of course if you've made up your mind about all of them based on "every one [that you've] met", I guess it's time to just ignore the subject, since you're done learning about it?
Really? On their website[0] they claim their glass surface doesn't require snow removal because the heating elements melt it and as such asphalt roads have a cost of snow removal that apparently comes for free with these.

However, it takes more energy to melt snow than to push it to the side[1] which they simply ignore and that makes me question what other things they're leaving out in order to tell a good story. I'd really like to see the numbers crunched for how many snowy days a year will cause the system to consume as much energy as it produces.

[0] - http://solarroadways.com/snow.shtml
[1] - https://what-if.xkcd.com/130/
“Socket activation is a messy mixture of three different things”
Yes, Voevodsky works in Coq. Some other people in the "univalent foundations" project that Voevodsky started have also done some developments in Agda.

Apart from Voevodsky's work, there are several other big math formalization projects. Perhaps the biggest ones are the formalization of the Feit-Thompson theorem (done by Georges Gonthier and his collaborators, in Coq), and the proof of the Kepler conjecture (done by Thomas Hales and his collaborators, in Isabelle/HOL and HOL Light).
Around 1 million lines of Angular code is very interesting...

Does this product also support iOS and Android? How's rendering the performance there?
Sure, how about you link the draft then, otherwise stop spreading your lies.
It sounds like they actually reduced the overall power requirements significantly, by only delivering power to a subset of the drives at any one time.
In my experience even a CS degree is not a very good predictor of how good a software engineer someone is, I've met recent CS grads who could not build a stable piece of software to save their lives. Past experience building actual software however is generally a good indicator.

With that said this question really has no answer, some math grads are better, some CS grads are better and some beauty school dropouts are better.. as with anything that requires learning and applying a skill those who work harder or are blessed with a talent in the subject tend to be more successful.
While mathematics has for the most part been built up using 2-valued logic, that isn't how humans perceive the world, which is why someone will say something like "you are technically correct", or they'll say "technically that's, but...".
If you end up with a giant ball of hidden complexity, that's a strong indication that you're dealing with that complexity at the wrong level.

Both PulseAudio and systemd seem to have the "throw everything out, start from a beautiful abstract interface and work down" mentality, which is a recipe for the mess that they've ended up as. Sometimes the best thing to do is pass the ugly complexity one layer up - which is, I think, one of the things that Unix does mostly right.
Never used Google Ads, but you should be able to do something like

var GoogleAd = React.createClass({
getInitialState: function() {
return {
id: makeUniqueId()
};
},
render: function() {
// Since this is always the same, React won't try to change the contents
return <div id={this.state.id} />;
},
componentDidMount: function() {
googletag.defineSlot('/1234567/sports', [728, 90], this.state.id);
},
componentWillUnmount: function() {
// Clean up the slot and any other resources here
}
});

and then not worry about it.
Show HN: I made a lightweight SoundCloud player
What can people do about secret backroom deals?

Honestly very little or just about nothing unless you have more money and influence than the mega corps who want this deal passed.

No, what people can do is just ignore the law and defy the government, not like the government wields legitimate power anyway.
Would love to hear some thoughts on that too. I remember watching quite a while ago some really fascinating documentary movie on Fujimori. Really interesting situation, e.g. highly corrupt but without the public questioning their support of him.
the problem with using it even when you don't have falsy values is that, eventually, you're going to forget that you can't use it when you do have falsy values. You're going to get too comfortable with it, and it's not general-purpose enough.

Can't wait for ES6 to no longer be 'experimental', as I'd much prefer to use 'for..of' loops
From everything I've read I'm pretty sure that if it's a complete rewrite in another language then it's legally "divorced" from the original project. You can own (and ergo license) an implementation of an idea, but you can't own or license the idea itself. Same with patents - you own the how, not the why.
Theresa May to revive her 'snooper's charter' now Lib Dem brakes are off
Could this be the missing link to make electric cars winning the battle? No need for plugs at gas stations, inductive charging [1] while driving on the road will do it.

Am I being too futuristic?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging#Electric_veh...
I found a mistake in one of his proofs in his book "On Numbers and Games" using computer verified proofs. It was only a mistake in the proof, that is, the proof was easy to correct and the result was still true, but it shows that noone is above mistakes. So using a computer can certainly drastically reduce the probability of an error.
There are probably some cases where the answer is yes, because a math major who is now a software engineer has had to put in the extra effort to learn the computer science, and the computer science major never needed to do quite as much practice working with abstractions.

Most people who go into software without a CS degree learn the practical side of things quite well out of necessity. I expect math majors are more likely than most to pick up the theoretical side even when self-taught, since the level of math involved is what makes it difficult for most people.

But regardless of the greater level of self-teaching, the math major is unlikely to have had as good a survey of CS ideas as the CS major.

Edit: I agree with everyone else who says that major in school isn't a very good predictor of software engineering ability. This is just my opinion on the direction of the small part that does come from major is.
Both are using the same tools! So it is not only a similar issue, it is the same issue.
I believe PUC-Rio does something similar for the Lua language as well.
Your education in school has nothing to do with your efficacy as a software developer or engineer. There are so many other variables that have nothing to do with how much you know or how fast you are. Soft skills are way more important.
Agreed. By creating this thread, we were trying to attract both job seekers and recruiters/direct employers.
You seem to be confusing communism, a form of economy, with totalitarianism, a form of governance. There are many non-totalitarian examples of communism.
6.) CO2 and energy saving.
The fast track, that is taking congress a year to sign, is the process of not then needing congress to sign anything after. If it passes, the whitehouse will be able to then sign details of new trade agreements without congress. It is not not the initial process of getting congress to agree to fast track.
This is the real problem that TPTB dont seem to grasp. If you make the rampant lawlessness visible to the people, the people will stop respecting the law. That is how societies fall apart, when the rule of law is a farce, you can expect nothing but strife.
Better how so?

Faster? Math grads might be able to use some mathematical trick to dramatically speed up the code.

Better modularity? Version control? Tests? Experience with SDKs?
> The behavior of Number, Boolean, String, and Array is well-defined, it's safe to call them without new.

ES6 is packed with weird but well-defined things.

The problem is that calling a constructor function (a PascalCase'd function) without `new` looks like an error because it generally is an error. To make matters worse, without closely examining that function, you cannot tell if it's an error.

I do know that `Number()` happens to be one of those constructor functions which not only work without `new`, it also happens to behave differently when `new` is missing. It does not return an object. It returns a primitive.

Someone who doesn't know about this unusual secondary function will waste some time if they spot this apparent mistake.

Now, to defuse this time-wasting trap, you could either add a comment... or just do the sensible thing and write it in a way which does not require a comment.
Yeah, this might offend some aesthetic sensibilities (people wanting no corporate flavor), but the mechanics of this surely would not even offend RMS.
No, what makes you good at software engineering is experience, determination and knowledge. How you achieve any of the above does not matter, especially if you consistently work on improving yourself.
Makes sense.

But I think the real question is should you pay $100K to Netapp or $3K/month to Amazon and store your data on S3.

At least newer tech companies seem to strongly prefer the latter.
Preview release of duse – Distributed Secrets
Duse is an API driven system to securely share secrets. It can be used to share secrets such as passwords or SSH Keys among participants. During the whole process, the API is never able to tell anything about the secret. Right now there is only a CLI written in ruby to use consume the API, more to come.

Essentially what it does is, it encrypts the secret with AES256 with a random key. Then the key is split into shares with Shamir's Secret Sharing and each part is encrypted with the participating users public keys always containing a special server user. All of these cipher texts are then stored in the API. When a user wants to read a secret, the server's share is decrypted and encrypted with the requesting users public key. Once the user receives the encrypted shares, she can simply decrypt the symmetric key with her private key and decrypt the secret.

I am excited to release the first preview of duse. It has been developed as part of a paper I had to do at university, which will also be published, however, it must be graded before I can publish it. It contains descriptions of possible attacks and how to prevent them or at least minimize risks.

I am not a cryptography expert, so I would be glad to dicuss my implementation with more knowledgable people.

My goal is to release the first production ready version later this year, but wanted to start spreading the word and possibly find contributers :)

http://duse.io/

https://github.com/duse-io
What prevents a malicious actor from scraping the Flickr new photos feed (for example) of someone else, and registering & selling that other person's copyrighted work?

Or a malicious actor posting their own photo to Flickr, then registering it on ascribe, selling it through ascribe, and then repudiating the transaction, claiming they weren't the ascribe user?

Unless ascribe.io is the first place something is ever published, or they have some way to verify initial ownership (not just possession), I don't see how this works.
You are not very smart sir.

Stanford, MIT, they re-invest their utilities in their infrastructure. And that, is allowed in Chile.

You can have a private Universtiy, but to be a real Universtiy, the money should be re-invested in the institution. (That's the ideal)
5 Things Every Stoner Hates
USA: Where the Poor Live Dearly
Still, financial industry has lots of high paying jobs as well as bonuses to neglect it.

Would you resist making 140K on a base full-time? Keep in mind benefits and bonuses too.
Your third point is the current case in Chile, but you still have to pay to study in those "public" Universities (U. Chile, U. Católica, U of Santiago, Concepción, etc.)
In the video they explain they use a bike lane to learn before going to real roads. Bikes are much lighter than cars and trucks, and they want to learn what materials work best.
One area I’ve seen math and programming interplay is quantitative finance, i.e., quant-developers attached to trading desks in Wall Street. In this microcosm, the people I see rise up in the world are those who started off with solid finance theory skills (which is applied math), who then taught themselves programming to be just good enough to implement their ideas. This seems doable.

The reverse OTOH seems more challenging. I’ve seen many CS graduates who tried to self-study their Black-Scholes, but rarely do they achieve anything more than a superficial understanding of the underlying theory.

[I’d except HFT from the above. That specialty seems to reward programming skills more than math skills.]
5.1 Cost of a normal bike path with ordinary solar cells on top of it (providing shade, and shelter from the rain, with presumably greater efficiency)
"technically, functions are just objects that can be called"

How can you create an object which can be called like a function, but will respond to 'typeof' with 'object' rather than 'function'?

What happens when you try to call an object - what's the error? Try it, in a few of your favourite javascript interpreters:

({})()

It seems clear to me that functions are more than "just" objects in JS. You can't start out with a random {} and turn it into a function. JS functions are a subtype of JS objects, but they are a distinct type. You can't substitute an object where a function is expected - you get a type error - but you can substitute a function where an object is expected.
>>So I wonder what he thinks of this new univalent foundation.

The Homotopy Type Theory (HoTT) book[1] puts forth a possible interpretation of Conway's thoughts about univalent foundations in section 11.6 (look at the bottom of the page for the following very selective and paraphrased quote):

"[...] Conway's point was not to complain about ZF in particular, but to argue against all foundational theories at once [...] One might respond that, in fact, univalent foundations is not one of the "standard foundational theories" which Conway had in mind, but rather the metatheory in which we may express our ability to create new theories, and about which we may prove Conway's metatheorem."[2]

[1] http://homotopytypetheory.org/book/

[2] http://www.math.ntnu.no/~stacey/documents/HoTT-online/main12...

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Voevodsky's definition of "Univalent Foundations" seems to be used interchangeably with the term "Homotopy Type Theory", but in Voevodsky's mind there is a sharp distinction[3]. Voevodsky tried to make this clear in an HoTT Google Groups email thread with the following statement: "HoTT is the study of the type-theoretic approach to the meta-theory of the Univalent Foundations."[4]

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homotopy_type_theory#Univalent_...

[4] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/homotopytypetheory/z...
Download Cydia iOS8.3 via TaiG Download – iOS jailbreakiOS Jailbreak
How is the presence of asphalt underneath an issue? The deciding factor will be whether the marginal cost of a solar path over an asphalt path will be greater or less than building an equivalent solar facility. That seems like it could go either way.
> This is so much more interesting than it should be.

Is this a sibling expression to "I laughed harder at this than I should have"? It's okay to find things funny and interesting, even superlatively so.

Like zombo.com says, the only limit is yourself.
My experience is that what you did at university (or whatever else you did to get your first programming gig) is far less important than what you did afterwards.

I have met many programmers. I have met many new grads. Of the new grads that I have met who learned programming at school, I don't think I have ever met one that was a good programmer right out of the gate. Certainly many can code and make things work. None of them are good enough for me to look at their code and have it influence me in a positive way.

That's not to say that I haven't met good, young programmers. It's just that all of the ones I've met had been programming regularly for 10 years or so before they went to university... Some of them didn't go to university at all.

I should say as well that I have never met a really good programmer that has less than about 10 years of coding experience, either. I've met lots and lots and lots of people with less experience who thought they were great programmers, but that's different, isn't it?

So, from my perspective the answer to the question is "No". Working with great people and devoting yourself to improving makes better software engineers than either doing a math or CS degree in university.
Devil's advocate here:

- America already has low tariffs (hence our lust for imported goods). The rest of the world has higher tariffs. US goods producers stand more to gain from TPP than foreign goods producers.

- Average wages for traded/export industries, such as Kentucky bourbon, are higher than for local industries, like hospitals. The more the US can focus on traded industries, the more wages rise in America. Germany does a great job of this. We don't but TPP would help.

- TPP still has to get approved by Congress. Fast track just strips Congress' ability to amend or filibuster the deal - two tactics that favor special interests over majority interests.

- Special interests are always powerful in trade negotiations. Limiting their power is crucial to passing equitable, long-term focused deals.
The issue is available online, if you want to read it:
https://archive.org/stream/kilobaudmagazine-1977-02/Kilobaud...
Larry Ellison Killed Aaron's Law (2014)
That's not true. Link to the draft section?

This is also helpful, and is non-partisan congressional research: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf

What people don't get is that we've had TPA since the 70s:

"""""
For more than 30 years, Congress has granted the President TPA/fast track authority, agreeing to
consider trade agreement implementing legislation expeditiously and to vote on it without
amendment, provided the President meets certain statutory negotiating objectives and
consultation requirements, and the implementing bill contains the necessary and limited
qualifying provisions. TPA strikes a delicate balance by clarifying how Congress chooses to
exercise its constitutional authority over a particular aspect of trade policy, while presumably
giving the President additional negotiating leverage by effectively assuring U.S. trade partners
that a final agreement will be given timely and unamended consideration by Congress.
""""
ProfilePress
The economics of solar panels in roads are horrible, given current technology.

Here's an excellent engineering analysis of this exact project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOZBrHqTJk4