skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think this paints an overly negative image of Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I'm a big fan of the first game and a big fan of HR and I have played through both of them many, many times.

I would never call the Detroit and Hengsha maps "small". There's a huge amount of nooks and crannies to explore and plenty of optional side missions to undertake.

I would actually recommend that players new to the series check out HR (director's cut) first as it's a great Deus Ex experience and its graphics are holding up pretty well. I would also recommend playing HR with developer commentary on as it reveals a lot of details that you might otherwise miss. The original game, while still awesome, is really looking dated at this point.

FWIW, I don't think anyone is called Deus Ex: The Fall "Deus Ex 4". It was initially a mobile-only spinoff of HR (same aesthetics) that was later released on PC as well. It feels like a quick cash grab.
Mobile Apps: Why Colours Matter
I see a little cognitive dissonance here. If part of the role is to "Evaluate and identify appropriate technology platforms (including web application frameworks and the deployment stack)" why require Rails instead of experience with web frameworks generally?
> What's interesting to note is that Dynamo/Cassandra usage was killed at both Amazon and Facebook

IMO, the only way use, or former use, is interesting is in understanding why a specific company moved to, or away from, a given technology.

Specifically, what was the original use case that was the basis for original use?

Why did the company choose to change technology? Did the use case change? Did the technology fail to satisfy the original requirements? Did a new technology with substantially better capabilities emerge? And so on?

Simply stating that company X uses Y (or company X no longer uses Y) does not provide a lot of information that other companies can use as the basis for their decision.
First look at Steve Jobs biopic released
How right you are. I have a friend whose been on Suboxone for years. First thing she does when she gets her prescription is sell it or shoot it. I have no idea how to help her anymore (as if I ever did). Her ex was the same way.
I think that's a simplistic analysis. What you want really depends on the workload characteristics. If you want an immutable data store with high write performance but infrequent reads the Dynamo model works quite well. Writes can be fast with a small quorum (you don't need to persist to disk immediately as you're relying on multiple machines not going down) and read consistency is not usually a huge issue for analytics tasks (who really cares if you miss an event in your processing?) and if it is you can usually afford to wait for quorum reads.
If you need to be forced to learn to touch type, many community colleges have keyboarding classes, some of them free as part of workforce development. The classes at my local community college run for 2 hours a day, two or three days a week, for three weeks. If you spend this much time practicing, you should get at least a start on touch typing, although developing speed will probably take longer.

As for whether it is a worthwhile pursuit, I think the main advantage is that you can type without having to look away from the screen. You can focus on getting your thoughts into the machine without the distraction of looking away from the screen. Increasing your typing speed is also useful because you can type as fast as you can think. Imagine if you had to dictate your code to someone else who was a hunt and peck typist. Image how frustrating it would be to wait for them to type your thoughts.
Fun with fish, frogs and fortunes: https://gist.github.com/montanaflynn/04246fc5da998d15e713
Touch typing isn't "designed" for anything, it's not "designed" at all really. It's the idiom/phrase we use to describe typing without looking at the keyboard.

And yes, it's extremely useful for developers of software. Not all developers use an IDE by the way, and even if they did, autocomplete is not same as knowing how to type properly.

I find OPs consternation a little bit odd though. When I realized I was still hunt-and-peck typing at a point where it was a little bit embarrassing as well as being a hindrance to my daily activities, I just stopped looking at the keyboard. Problem solved in about two weeks.
I used http://publicwhip.org.uk here because it was easier to get rebellion data.
Nobody's claiming the answer is to simply accept bad laws along with the good ones. That's absurd. It should be pretty obvious that the only sensible answer is to get rid of the bad laws. We're just talking about what to do in the interim, since that process is not going to be instantaneous - scoff at whichever laws you personally disagree with, break those laws and accept the preposterous consequences as a form of protest, or follow them even though they're stupid. If you don't see the first option as a recipe for chaos, I don't know what else to say to you.
I'm not sure and can't do any quick research as I'm at work. I'm generally interested in traditional pharmacology but have to admit that opiates don't interest me very much compared to other naturally occurring psychoactive substances.
Really it doesn't matter and your point only goes to show one of Cassandra's flaws. When either a network partition or a server failure happens Cassandra starts reshuffling data amongst multiple hosts and filling network pipes. Contrast this with a setup where you have a static partitioning of hosts to partition and a leader per partition. Then you only need to (possibly) elect a new leader and carry on.

This is especially relevant when you need to do these things because of unexpected load increases or the loss of hosts in your cluster.
True. If you aren't doing interactive workloads you have a much freer hand.
The story missed the original purpose of the Dow with was a leading economic indicator... watch prices of the industrial giants to see broader market moves ahead of the market, at least optimistically. Not a terribly bad idea although info theory kicked in and once everyone knew and applied the theory the price results got baked into the cake of the prices themselves so it was no longer a money maker. That and changing the company mix from industrials to "big whos who mix of services and energy companies" pretty much eliminates the "industrial" part from the dow jones industrial average which makes it a useless leading indicator.

Another anecdote is in the 20s and 80s there was a lot of grown in mutual funds or I think the 20's term was stock cooperatives or whatever, the point is its "semi-unusual" for most equities to be owned by the equivalent of internet link aggregators, so other than index fund owners the dow doesn't really mean anything. My grandfather owned railroad stock, real railroad stock. Not a fund that owned a fund that owned 50 railroad stocks. You don't see that so much anymore. Diversification is good other than the immense parasitic load, which worsens at low return rates obviously... anyway investment has been abstracted away from the public, both by mutualization as per above and obviously by the destruction of the middle class (a stereotypical factory worker in 1970 probably owned some stock, at least in a retirement fund, but a stereotypical American of 2015 only gets minimum wage McJob or Walmart worker no benes no retirement savings at all therefore has little/no skin in the game anymore and no reason to care). So the public literally has no reason to care. Its not like they're going to startup and IPO and neither is their megacorp employer anytime soon. Equity markets are broken, don't matter much anymore. And with SOX compliance they suck for fund raising. We have a lot of capital sloshing around blowing bubbles and no legal way to apply it anymore.

Finally it was invented pre-central bank, and our equity prices now mostly represent central bank interest rates. Lower rates mean you get a lower return from riskless .gov bonds means equities need to return less, means in a constant dividend world, the price will explode once return rates around zero beat sticking the money in a mattress or .gov bonds. The PE ratio of our stock equities are controlled by the .gov centrally controlled interest rate, more or less, at least on a very long term. So obviously a multi-generational low in interest rates results in a multi-generational high in equity prices. How could it be otherwise? The market isn't going to tolerate a P/E ratio of "4" when the fed is only paying 0.25%, capital is going to flood into equities until you get a P/E ratio "similar" like maybe 100 or so.
> This doesn't surprise me at all. It is trivial to run a site on app engine that can handle hundreds of requests a second continuously without leaving the free tier.

Really? The free tier comes with 28 instance hours per day. That'd mean your app would have to serve hundreds of requests per second, meaning each request must take substantially less than 10 ms, on a 600 MHz, 128 MB RAM machine.

If your request do any work at all, I doubt you can handle them in <10ms on a 600 MHz CPU.
Interview: Martin Ford, Author of 'Rise of the Robots'
Why would that be? The maximum PoW can depress the price is the inflation rate. Nobody will pay $1 for electricity to generate <$1 of bitcoin. And the inflation rate of bitcoin is set to drop below that of any large currency like dollars, euros, yen.

In other words, the money supply that causes inflation (downward price pressure of currencies) is by design lower than fiat currencies. It's one of the key things supposedly we're not ought to be concerned about with bitcoin, so far I see no reason to think otherwise.
If nobody knows what purity means, then what are all those tortured discussions on whether Haskell is pure or not about? ...

Anyway, I'm a bit unhappy about the requirement of full evaluation order
independence, because even the purest of pure languages (e.g. the
untyped lambda-calculus or PCF) don't have full evaluation order
independence. I guess you mean evaluation order independence modulo
termination?

My intuition is	that pure means	that all language expressions M can always be
evaluated locally by just looking at the meaning of all subterms of
M. In terms of Hoare logic (for total correctness) that would mean
that the pre-condition speaks only about the termination of the free
variables of M (sorry for being so terse, I think this can be made
formal).
Alternative Vote is a single member constituency version of STV, that is therefore not proportional in any way.

It is perhaps the only form of democracy that's typically less proportional than FPTP.

I support electoral reform wholeheartedly and I voted for AV only reluctantly.
Google never had an advanced search that was as useful as altavista where I regularly (daily!) searched for things like:

("term1" and "term2") not ("term3" or "term4")

and whatever tiny "power user" features that google had, like "allinsite:term term term" or '+' don't seem to work at all now.

Google is not optimized for finding things. Google is optimized for ad views and clicks.
A healthy distrust in profilers is a good starting point. Having decent external measurement and using it to test with/out profiler attached is also recommended. Some profilers are less intrusive than others. In this particular case the issue should be visible in GC logs, which should always be monitored.
That's not a limitation of the hardware; castAR has cameras and IMUs, and it could orient itself via any identifiable reference point, which need not be the mat. So this is more a problem of software than of hardware.
Chef Grills Steak, Volcano-Style, with Molten Lava
It's been many years since I've use zsh, so I won't pretend to know what's state of the art with it. I will say that one of the reasons I use fish is it's incredibly easy to customize. My old bash config just came along with me from years of use. Some of it I understood, some of it was just culled from the Internet and kept working, so I kept around (see: prompt customization). But, other than simple aliases, env var setting, and the occasional function, I didn't bother much with shell customization. I find fish simple enough that I can write a new function or tab completion and not have to spend a day figuring out the bash syntax again.

Writing tab completions in fish is really, really simple. It's the thing that initially sold me and it's kept me hooked.

The history is more powerful than bash, too. Although I find it sometimes works against me. E.g., since it tries to guess your command, things you type in lowercase suddenly turn to uppercase until you manage to disambiguate from a previous command.

If you're looking for plugins, there's oh-my-fish [1]. Years back, the term "fish-nuggets" was popular and you'll find repos named that on GitHub with other configuration. I use a couple plugins, but for the most part I don't need them. I think part of that is because fish is featureful out of the box and part of it is because customizing is so easy. I'll usually just add what I need myself rather than trying to find a general purpose plugin.

Anyway, not a direct answer to your question -- apologies for that. Hopefully something in there is of use for you, however.

[1] -- https://github.com/bpinto/oh-my-fish
There is a constant arms race between GPUs and CPUs to be faster. What is faster today on one, might be slower tomorrow.

GPUs are very good at doing lots of floating point math. Historically, CPUs have been better at dealing with branching, multiple instruction issue, out of order execution, integer math, and really pile on the cache architectures. CPUs have SIMD too so they are no slouch for lots of floating point calculations either.

Since memory (I/O) is now one of the largest bottlenecks for both GPUs and CPUs because memory bus speeds are much slower than both, this will often be your dominant factor. Since most of your data comes from main RAM, your CPU often lives closer to the data and tends to have aggressive cache architectures (L1, L2, L3 caches) to help, thus giving the CPU an advantage when data is not local.

I don't know if it still holds true, but NxM matrix math used to be faster on CPUs for very large values of N,M because for cache locality, the CPU had an easier time keeping values that needed to be reused in the matrices in cache. But GPUs tend to be really good at 4x4 matrices since that is what graphics primarily uses.
Damn, the OST was so good. I'm glad he's working on the sequel as well.
The Friend
> what are good arguments in favor of high pays for CEO

The mine worker is never going to make decisions that generate billions of dollars of revenue. That's one argument.

Another is that the pool of potential CEOs is small.
Towards axiomatic morality
Ethereum isn't using proof-of-stake quite yet, that's planned for a later version in a year or so. They're starting out with a proof-of-work algorithm that's designed to be ASIC-resistant. (It's heavy on memory bandwidth, which is already optimized in GPUs.)

Not that this makes any difference to your point, of course.
Hyperpolyglot's typography, colors, layout and simplicity are beautiful.
How does the Heroku team use Ember?
I was surprised when I found out about the Countrywide Loans guy[0], he was buying congresspeople for low 5 figures!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countrywide_financial_political...
This is probably the most honest article I've seen, ever, regarding how much QA/testing companies at various stages need.

I'm impressed, because there's a real tendency within QA culture to say "the ideal is all the things all the time, we're the gatekeepers," which has forced quality into a bad all-or-nothing situation. We all know intuitively that it's not all needed a lot of the time and the success stories are clear, so the trust in any of it is undermined. So then you get a dev culture saying "QA is unnecessary, we can handle all of it," which is generally true at the beginning but can send your company off a cliff if you don't manage transition.

The sad part is that even once quality processes get around that, the all-or-nothing attitude leads to a pyrrhic victory. Quality teams still end up only doing what can be afforded (because math) but everyone thinks they should be doing more. That leads to the pervasive opinion of ineffective quality teams. And, unfortunately, the scramble of trying to do everything at once (and therefore mastering none of it) often makes that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And I love that it stresses that QA is about hedging bets. Bugs get out, period. The gatekeeper attitude is what leads to the do all the things attitude in the first place. "At any cost" is generally a bad way to strategize.

As for this chart, I'd have added exploratory/informal to seed B2C--exploratory is biggest bang for buck for finding new bugs, and incubating products are -all- new bugs--but I suspect they're lumping what I'd have recommended under dogfooding.

So yeah, very nice. Of course, the best thing to do in any situation is consider the context of your company, product, and market. Think about how maintainable it really needs to be and what would cause the most damage: losing customer money, leaking their data, embarrassing you in the market, eroding their trust. Are there only a few customers to lose or are you mass market and can afford a round of sufficiently obscure failure?

Those are the things to prioritize when you start picking your battles. But this is such a great set of guidelines for where to start that conversation.

(Edits for typos only)
The hubs weren't too bad. I think that both Detroit and Hengsha were pretty fleshed in, and felt pretty lively.

My biggest complaint was that the central high-brow concept they pushed--"is augmented man not man", "are we playing god", et al.--was just woefully underexecuted. I felt more empathy for poor Gunther in the first Deus Ex worried about being phased out than I did for anyone with or without augs in DX:HR.

As presented, for example, augs were strictly the better option if you could afford them. There wasn't any downside to piling them on, nobody in the game gave two shits whether or not you were man or machine. No quests really changed if you were really chopped up. It just felt phoned in and handwaved.

Even the gameplay and combat itself didn't support this--there was no real "Oh no, they've got augs, ruh roh" to speak of, except maybe the boss fights. In the first game, for example, you go up against a fellow with augs as blinged out as yours, and it really really shows. The somewhat augmented humans are a bit harder to fight.

However, in this one, augmented humans or not can all be effectively one-shotted during stealth. There's no real feeling of "Oh, watch out, some of these troops are notably better"--contrast with, say, how in Dishonored or Bioshock you could run into enemies with similar abilities to yours.

And the ending...oy vey.
Typing Master used to be good a long time ago. I'm not sure how well it stands up now.

EDIT sorry, forgot the link! http://www.typingmaster.com/

Cover your hands with a tea-towel or other small lightweight cloth. This prevents you looking at the keyboard.

Learn the homekeys. Start slow but with steady rhythm. Some people find using a metronome useful. Work on slow steady accuracy, then build up speed.

Be careful -- some people find that touch typing starts to hurt. RSI is not trivial. Make sure you have the ergonomics worked out and stop and change things if it starts hurting.

It is totally definitely possible!
It is a generalisation but a good one. "Getting clean" is a loaded term. Most (not all) people who have "drug" problems actually have police problems. The drugs do them very little harm (impurities are a different story, but not as common as people think) but the police and legal systems do them untold damage.

Making the drugs available is by far the best treatment for most forms of drug addiction in the vast majority of cases. The simplest way to do that is to remove criminal sanctions from drugs and make prescription for addiction legal.

Addiction is a complex beast and demanding that people deal with the chemical dependence before dealing with the other problems in an addicts life is usually a cruel approach and ineffective.

This is something a psychiatrist should know.
Software for reproducible science: let’s not have a misunderstanding
It reads like a lightly-edited press release. By far the biggest mis-step in the company's history and not a word.
It's not a Hoax, they're the real deal with very solid co founders, top ranking VC backing and a top of the line board. All mainstream stuff. For example their CEO, or one of their backers in Andreessen Horowitz.

The whole mining idea is complete rubbish. I have no clue how these two facts are compatible but they are.

It's very very strange. I can see how a hardware wallet on a dedicated chip is important, and how blockchain authenticated devices with unique private keys has use cases. But you don't need mining for that. It's still a mystery to me what the idea is.
An autopsy could reveal medical malpractice. As such, I could see that there might be a benefit for a life insurance company to cover a more detailed examination of the cause of death.

After all, the insurer has been harmed to the extent that between the actual demise of the insured and the statistically predicted time of death, they can no longer collect premiums and interest. And the insured has been harmed by being deprived of life during that same span.

But given that many doctors are covered by malpractice insurance from the same company or family of companies, that would be a case of taking from Peter to pay Paul. And it would probably line the pockets of lawyers and medical examiners to a greater extent than those who suffered the harm.
Court agrees Samsung copied Apple, but tosses some damages
When I get to a PC I'll try it out. But basically instead of using IComparable directly (so you'd just have a single function call), it used to do something far more complicated first, but still end up calling the same compare function.

For equality I'd expect it to inline a check for null before calling the full equality check. Then a later optimization pass or the JIT could fix it up to be just the null check.
Thanks again. I didn't know Z3 could handle formulae with real numbers. I will take a closer look at it. :)

On the network firewall rules (at multi-tenant Azure, I presume), what were Z3's runtimes look like?
St. Louis Federal Reserve Suffers DNS Breach
Bug Bounty Program for Airlines May Be Detrimental to Customer Safety
Far Cry 1 had AI that legitimately made life difficult, especially if you weren't stealthing. They also were annoyingly accurate with their weapons.
I don't understand the question, as I don't know what "instruction" means in a portable way. AMD/Intel chips have instructions like LZCNT and CRC32, that don't exist as an instruction on R700-Family Instruction Set Architecture (nor other GPUs?).

Even if two functions do mostly the same thing (eg, multiply two floats), doesn't the Intel architecture have more complete support for the optional alternate exception handling of IEEE 754? If so, then they aren't really identical.

So, which instructions do you think are equivalent enough for your comparison?

Performance is driven by economics. Find where the economics between GPUs and CPUs are different, and you'll likely find where the performance inversion is.
Lessons from Erlang VM [video]
I think they make sense for the case of resources that need explicit deallocation, when their lifetime is not tied to a scope (e.g. multiple owners).

An example is a Lock object that wraps a pthread_mutex. It's unreasonable to demand that every object that has a lock explicitly dispose of it; it's simpler to equip the Lock with a finalizer that can dispose of the underlying mutex.