skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I suspect you're being down voted because most of your claims are false. It's not hard to find counter examples for all all of them.

And also because web developers made their own bed. It was web developers who decided it was a good idea to cram everything into the browser and make web pages into "web apps." They could have said, "Hey, this is dumb, doing this will be slow and inefficient, and here are the other technical reasons why it's a bad idea," but they never did that. Instead it's always, "Hey, look how I can make a low quality Doom clone in a browser that runs slower than original Doom did 22 years ago!" and hack after hack to get things running at a speed comparable to regular applications.
Good job man!
A very simple mechanism to do digital signature verification for documents leveraging the blockchain.
In theory if you could place a second bank of receivers behind your head and had an accurate distance between the two you could simply the problem to just requiring line of sight.

It also sounds like they have a multiple device fix available, the only question being can they devise a way to synchronize two of the devices without requiring the user to do any measurements.
"I assume that this complaint was about transliteration into pure Haskell (whatever that may mean exactly). Clearly transliteration into full Haskell with actual mutability is possible."

Ah, if you'd made that assumption explicit I would not have objected.

I don't see anywhere the querent suggesting that his translation demand invoked any notion of purity. If it did, then certainly he was asking a harder question than he presented, although even in that case a naive translation could have trivially produced an O(m n lg(n)) solution and O(m^n) should quite reasonably be considered failure.

I think the issue in the main is that relatively novice Haskell developers are likely to be the most eager to try and translate arbitrary code on demand in #haskell.
It bothers me that this uses a doctored image of Samantha Cristoforetti. [0]

[0] http://i1.wp.com/leganerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/sam...
Oculus has no plans to block virtual reality porn
Extensive discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9559721
Is that one better? Why?
Have an upvote, dissenting opinions should at least be legible.

That said, I really can't agree with you.

Browsers can re-compile their input into whatever intermediary format they desire subject to the usual space/speed trade-offs. By the looks of it (judging by the space they need) they use that trade-off rather liberally in the 'speed' direction and they still run quite slow. I just can't imagine that laying out some text and images in 2d (which I've done for limited contexts) is that much harder than rendering a 3D scene (in software, not using a bunch of GPU power to do the heavy lifting) (which I've done, but not recently and definitely not with this kind of detail, roughly at the level of the original 'Doom' with a slightly better lighting model and right around the time it came out).

Games may not have security issues in the input data that they consume when it comes to graphics and such, so that's a valid point but games do have to run on a wide variety of hardware and they typically adjust really gracefully.

The one thing I think that really differentiates game rendering engines from browsers is that game engines tend to model some physical process whereas browsers attempt to implement a massive spec to allow any server it chooses to contact to send it a bunch of bytes the rendering result of which is not known ahead of time so arguably the games people have a relatively limited possible space of outputs they can generate whereas browsers theoretically can display anything including that game.

That still doesn't excuse them for the crappy performance they deliver, that simply means we've moved too fast in adding layers before getting lower layers to perform adequately. The original web did not seem sluggish to me, it seemed about as fast as what you could expect from the hardware of the day, whereas the 'modern' web seems to be (to me) terribly slow and inefficient.

The ratio of content:markup+eye candy has deteriorated and I suspect that that is part of the answer here (and of course that would not be the browsers fault per-se).
Pretty sure it's because of fish appearing on the front page today.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9566441
Thanks downer dave
If anyone is curious what this punycode decodes to:

> http://thiébaud.fr
Well the writing had some weak spots for sure, I was mostly talking about how the slick cyberpunk atmosphere, visuals and soundtrack were so appealing to me that I wanted to go back to experience and explore it.

Also, I did feel there was a bit of an enemy progression throughout the game (cloaking troops, bigger bots), but it was mostly just more complex level design, which in a way I prefer to just "tougher" enemies. I think this was kind of necessary for supporting a pacifist play style.
ZSH only gets slow because of the customizations, which would be true in Bash as well. Both shells are relatively comparable, though there are still a few things you can do in ZSH that you can't do in Bash. If you keep your customizations relatively light-weight and don't iterate over too many files on each login session, you'll probably be OK.

I wrote a framework to help deal with the shell a little bit after getting fed up with OMZ's slowness: https://github.com/tubbo/homer
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=military%20police&sort=byDate&...

Nine months ago Obama ordered a review: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8217292

Now we have several stories announcing the restriction.
> distributed transactions based on 2-phase commit.

i just stop reading from there.
For years, large codebases at Adobe and Microsoft were built using Perforce. I don't know if they still are today, but the argument that Perforce is good at handling huge codebases is valid.
When used as a login shell, shell is expected to source some init scripts to fix PATH, locale and stuff; if a particular distro is not written with alternative shells in mind this will fail, esentially making you use two shells which is cumbersome enough to be a deal breaker.
2015 Talent Shortage Survey
The reason for that is not 'web developers' but rather the fact that a single delivery device for a huge variety of content without intermediaries is a thing no corporation will be able to ignore.

That's what caused the envelope to be pushed as far and as fast as it did, and we all both enjoy the fruits of that and suffer because of it. It's like forcing a kid to grow from age 3 to age 30 in a few weeks time, it's bound to give trouble, no matter how impressive the feat may be technologically speaking.
I'll switch to one of these new-fangled shells if I ever master bash.

In any case, bash -- in one of its many forms, colors, and sizes -- is what I usually find myself in front of.
OMZ got painfully slow for me when I used it with a lot of plugins and it was iterating over a lot of different file paths. It seems like ZSH has an issue when you're loading a mass amount of files...or maybe it's just the way OMZ is loading them?
I don't know how the MySQL one works, and if it does provide disk-based durability at all, but the way Microsoft SQL server does it is explained Section 7 (at page 7) of [1]

They use a log stream and checkpoints stream that are writing to disk.

[1] http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/193594/Hekaton%20-%20Sigm...
The author only mentions heritability once in the article. While educational attainment is also heritable people tend to view it as 'extrinsic.' The seemingly intrinsic nature of genetic modification is largely what drives moral reactions against it and the fact that any offspring will also retain those changes. This is of course also true for extrinsic factors that are also heritable but due to the quirk that human beings have a sense of their bodily self which is distinct from the rest of the universe we tend to distinguish between the two (probably to our detriment). That said people trying to distinguish use of any tool to 'fix' an abnormality vs 'enhance' something that is normal are idiots because the distinction is merely one of perspective around whether something is 'broken' or not. Frankly the world would be a whole lot better off if everyone had a IQ > 130 (functionally, since we would renormalize).
(Hi! I'm the author of the blog post & maintainer of the Sandcats service.)

I'm excited about Sandstorm eventually helping people tackle issues like port forwarding. There's enough to do that it's not something I'm personally prioritizing, but it would definitely be very interesting. I can imagine the initial version of this feature working using UPnP for example, for routers that support it.

Thanks for taking an interest in Sandstorm!

As for ngrok-style tunneling, that's something I'm less interested in hosting/maintaining as part of the Sandcats toolkit for Sandstorm self-hosters. I'd be happy to see Sandstorm grow the ability to integrate with services that offer something ngrok-like, though.

Somewhat hilariously, a Tor hidden service is easy to set up and has built-in NAT traversal, if I understand things correctly, so maybe one day we'll see a "Run your Sandstorm server as a Tor hidden service" feature purely for the connectivity conveniences.
>How can abuse ever be countered with economic boycott?

You can make the argument that by boycotting abusive business, like for example Chick fil A and their actions against homosexuals, you speak against the business in the only language they understand, money.
Not sure this needs to be on the top of HN. It's a licensing issue that I'm sure we can work out between CloudFlare, Google and Intel.
Goodbye Dad
Putting all of your money in CD's is like overpaying for insurance. Index funds are your friend as you get the market portfolio (important for risk minimization) with minimized costs.

WRT "market timing," the lay investor wins by NOT relying on market timing. Even if you think the market will move in a direction, it's impossibly hard to guess when. Don't believe me? Check out this study which shows that missing single days can adversely impact a 20-year holding.[1] In this study, researchers looked at 20 years worth ('95-'14) of daily returns and asked what'd happen if you missed the best days and/or ate worst days. Missing the top 10 days of gains -- out of 5,036 trading days -- cuts your portfolio value in half. Miss 20 days? Your portfolio doesn't move.

[1]https://www.ifa.com/12steps/step4/missing_the_best_and_worst...
if it wasn't enough to have google pushing it's weight around to drive new JS and html specs, now microsoft resurrects from the grave with out-of-IE6-history pearls such as:

"Legacy JSRT APIs ... Edge JSRT APIs"

when IE11 rolls out, lots of devs (obviously not in san francisco bubble) will be churning out sites that require IE11 new APIs to work.

let's just hope they at least bring something useful to justify the shitstorm, like they did with XMLHttpRequest (which does not get even the uppercase consistency right)
It depends whether or not mutexes are "heavy" resources. If making them and not using them is free, then it's OK to treat them like memory and wait for garbage collection to do its thing.
pfSense sucks.
PF sucks too.
Why would they? What economic sense would it make to try and block an entire market that would come into existence regardless of all the money they would pour into the effort? Not even getting into the logistics and feasibility of such an attempt to begin with.

This seems like one of those articles a writer creates because if they don't write something they might lose their job.
I'm curious about a couple of your points here.

First, when people involved in addiction treatment say that drugs cause people serious problems aside from legal issues related to the drug itself, I wonder if they are biased by only seeing the users who hooked badly enough to land themselves in various sorts of rehab/therapy programs. Do we know how many people are using these drugs in a more casual way, suffering little to no real harm from them, and never coming to the attention of the legal system?

Second, you say below in reference to heroin being dangerous how many people die of overdoses every year. I was under the impression that the reason overdoses are so common is that, since it is illegal, there is no regulation or easy way to determine the purity of any given batch of it, so it is easy to accidentally overdose if you get a stronger batch than you're used to. If opioids are really that fundamentally dangerous, why is long-term monitored use of methadone etc not considered to be a bad thing, as opposed to going cold-turkey ASAP?
The 1970s just called. They want their batch processing back. :-)
> you'd have to engineer the system such that different emitters can be clearly distinguished from each other

It mentions in the article that the light is modulated to permit multiple transmitters, so this seems pretty robust.
If there is an emergency situation where I need to apply a hack, of course. But, I always go back and take the time to fix it with an engineered, long-term, solution.

I also don't over promise features in an un-realistic amount of time.
In other words, their own mining is no longer profitable, so they'd rather sell snake oil to the easily-duped Bitcoin community.
If it makes anyone feel any better, it's really between Google and Intel as the last post notes:

>I'm afraid that, without Intel's permission, it doesn't appear that this change can move forward.

What I don't get is this:

>Intel do not wish to publish this code under the Go license and having bits of the Go repo under different licenses is sufficient unpleasant that counsel didn't want to entertain the idea.

What makes the Go license different than the BSD under which Intel has published their code?

HN is a place for things that make people think. This made me think, so I gave it an upvote.
So, you're saying that there is a problem with saying: "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children."?

If so, what is the problem and why is it a problem? If not, then what are you saying?
I found prezto did too many things (replaced mkdir, cp, rm and ls with slightly incompatible wrappers for example). The worst was wrapping diff and make, both of which broke scripts I used.

oh-my-zsh seems from my experience to be less eager to replace built-in functionality (although, I'm not an expert in either).
There are a few reasons to do unit tests first, over and above my direct reply to GP.

The first is that integration tests can be (not always, but can be) too inclusive and thus fail too much, especially early on. A good test process requires tests to stay green most of the time, otherwise you learn to ignore them as "known" and distrust and eventually dismiss the results. So you turn off or xfail failing tests while you triage. But if you turn off or dismiss an integration test as a known failure, you lose a lot of coverage.

The second is isolation. Even if you don't have full unit coverage, having -something- beneath the integration tests lets you tell a lot more from the combo of failures. Integration covers ABC and fails, have unit test for B and C, must be A.

The third is that they're for different purposes. Unit tests are there to tell you what you thought you were guaranteeing with your code has been guaranteed. That's a really important step in knowing that all the other stuff you -didn't- cover with integration testing (remembering that as you add moving parts, you have the combinatorial of all the ways they move--you won't cover it all) is probably correct. And, of course, it's what will ever let you refactor while still knowing your interface is correct.

Finally, there's simple terminology differences as to what's a unit and we might be on the same side. There's debate in the community, but I'm on the side that you always unit test to a public interface, period. Don't test within something not exported or exposed. That may mean you only test a module instead of component classes if they're all private implementation classes. It's still a unit test for that module.

Also, a political reason: once you start down that route it's super-tempting (especially for your boss or your boss's boss) to say "we'll test everything full stack, that gives us all of the coverage." In reality, it only gives you some of it, and you probably have no idea what even with code coverage tools (remember that paths are ultimately what you're testing, not lines or branches). And it's incredibly indirect, since you're trying to find externally driven cases to make the internals do different things. It's usually easier just to manipulate the internals directly via the nearest interface.

One more point: YAGNI is fine and well, but we all know modules or classes usually have behavior that isn't used yet because it's part of an obviously complete API (like, D from your CRUD API when nobody's had to remove anything yet). Unit test that stuff, since there is no integration test that'll cover it. Otherwise it's landmines waiting to be found. The unit tests -are- the client code at that point.

So one or two high level acceptance/integration sanity tests, sure. But I'd never say that you should have "integration testing in place" first. That implies a level of completeness or formality that I think would probably be counterproductive in almost all cases.
Fake Unicode Consortium
I tried really hard to use Fish for awhile and if the shell was just history, completion and sane defaults (and it is for some people) it would have a very good case. But not being even remotely compatible with bash drove me nuts as the shell is my REPL.
Thanks for the heads up, looks like I'll pass on prezto...
I agree, but CloudFlare wants to do whatever we can to make sure this stuff gets into Go.
I hope that you now understand that your initial claim was mistaken. :)
It's be interesting if, instead of Bitcoin, 21 planned for these chips to be used to create a new cryptocurrency.
Hubble: Timelapse of V838 Monocerotis (2002-2006)
I thought this was going to be some sort of crazy patent issue or something to do with Intel's proprietary compilers, but instead it's a simple license incompatibility where authors are trying to transfer code (that's been BSD/Apache dual-licensed in OpenSSL) into Go, which uses its own license.
Why the creators of Julia just launched a startup
Deploying to app engine caused us big pain in the long run. I just had to spend two days migrating a legacy app to the new hrd. The migration was painful, app engine "billing bugs" when upgrading etc made the process real hard.

Also when the bugs occured, I realised there was no way to get quick support.

Thankfully we moved our main app away to ec2 around when they increased the pricing a couple of years ago.
clonefd is a very limited solution. What we really need is the ability to open a file descriptor handle to any process. That ability solves all sorts of race conditions. Conveniently, we already have an interface to open file descriptors for processes: /proc. We just need to extend its semantics slightly.
All of these apis seem to be exposed only when hosting the Chakra engine. They even call out the fact that it's not for in browser:

> However with JavaScript’s increasing popularity in beyond-the-browser scenarios, developers have been requesting to host the Chakra engine outside the browser to enable JavaScript programmability in their native/managed applications across the client and the server.
I'm glad y'all are working it out. The licensing for that stuff really is confusing, and discourages the use of that code.

It's worse in OpenSSL because the x86 and ARM adaptations are licensed under the OpenSSL/Cryptograms licenses instead of BSD/Apache. Big chunks are labeled as transliterations of the X64 code, so I'd expect them to also be BSD/Apache licensed. Also, it isn't clear what Andy Polyakov's significant improvements of the the X64 code mean for the copyright, licensing, and re-licensing from Apache to dual BSD/Apache. In other words, it seems the copyright lines should, at a minimum, mention Andy's copyright, and it should be made clearer whether Andy agrees to dual license his contributions under the BSD/Apache dual license.
Hey heads up Steve Gibson of the Security Now podcast just shared your website. You might be getting a ton of traffic, if thats a concern
I disagree, it is relevant for HN: it's open source. I'm really curious as to why we can't just use it anywhere given the BSD license.
> I didn’t meet Shira, but I would like to; we corresponded by email while I was in Australia, and she was in Namibia. I did not travel to Namibia for the shoot, so I sent files to her to continue.

This is one of the more fascinating tidbits. Two art directors on a major motion picture that never once met - conferring by email.
If your application is a well-behaving application in a well-behaving environment, then it will most likely run in a reasonable amount of time. Furthermore, if you leak a few mutexes, it's not really a big deal for most applications.

I think one of the implied points of the article is that you should not rely on finalizers for anything time sensitive or critical. For instance, if you MUST close a file handle or database connection, you should never rely on a .NET finalizer to do it because it's not predictable when or if it will run. You should explicitly close it (most likely by implementing and calling Dispose().)
Your original statement was "In the UK they have returned to prescribing heroin to drug addicts".

The counter-statement was that it doesn't appear to have been a recent change in the numbers. That is, doctors in the UK have been able to prescribe heroin since the 1920s, so long as they had special permission from the Home Office. The first link repeats the baseline that has been present for decades. It does not report a change.

If there's no change, then there's no "return". DanBC's comments were to suggest that there hasn't been a recent change in the numbers. I found http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/1859350836.pdf which says that no more than 50 patients received heroin in 2000, and 9 lived in London. In 2011, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-13944209 says that almost 120 addicts in London, over three years, received heroin this way.

While that is an increase, it's hardly enough to be a significant change.

Your second link appears to not be a high-quality source. For one, it cites Wikipedia. For another, its second citation is to a summary of the survey done in 2000; which is the one I mentioned earlier that found fewer than 50 patients receiving heroin. Therefore, it does not indicate any recent change, either to the UK drug laws or change in medical policy.

I therefore concur with DanBC. The UK has not "returned" to prescribing heroin to drug addicts given the information you provided, or the sources that I examined in trying to answer this for myself.
If I were handling private customer data or money, I'd absolutely pen test early. Comes back to that "what do you have to lose" consideration re: context. If the worst that happens is my own service goes down, I might delay it.
Too much anthropomorphism. Ant colonies aren't a socialist society, they are an organism. One ant is no more capable than one human cell.
Hello! PageKite is "ngrok-like" (we pre-date them by a fair bit), I'd be happy to work with you guys on exploring whether we can integrate and make it as easy to spin up as Sandcats. Feel free to mail me, bre at pagekite.net if you're interested in exploring this further.
To be honest, it simply seems like the author took one arbitrary aspect of living beings (metabolism) and somehow made it responsible for conscioussness.
reliability != availability. I can build a business model around an unreliable, but available resource. I can't build a business model around an unavailable resource. They're two very different things, and the distinction is important.