skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, but just to search/replace code? In a language that already has regular expressions? Maybe I'm being too literal, and I was supposed to see beyond the particular example, but hang me if I see the point of filling a screen with code for a functionality that can be written in two lines.
I have it on clear authority that Lawtonfogle is a thief; a liar; an adulterer; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accounts; rigged elections; and whatever political affiliation the reader might have, Lawtonfogle is the extreme opposite... and thinks your fashion sense sucks. Ultimately, Lawtonfogle can't act, can't sing, and can only dance a little.

It's actually pretty hard for someone with little or no resources to fight defamation as it is. Take away their recourse in an 'all or nothing free speech!' drive, and it's game over. It's also hardly 'a small price', if socially powerful people can just outright lie about a person and never be compelled to back it up.

And hey, fuck it - as a boss, I could say "Black people are inherently stupid, don't hire them". My hypothetical staff then take me at my word and don't hire them. There's no formal policy, it's just something I said. But I point at "no limitation on freedom of speech" and then any laws on discrimination are basically null and void.

Insurance companies in the US already have departments dedicated to getting them out of their contracts. Imagine how much easier their jobs would be if they could just flat-out lie, with no legal repurcussions? People can jaw all they want about 'the market would correct itself', but if you've already captured the market, fighting dirty keeps you strong - especially with a product with a very high barrier to entry.

The idea that freedom of speech is an all-or-nothing event is a simplistic, extremist position, that doesn't survive contact with the real world. You can still criticise, discuss, and be democratic with some restrictions on freedom of speech - pretty much all the nations we call 'western democracies' do exactly that.
This is all about unintended consequences.

During a crisis, it seem like a good idea to grant more power to police and security services. But that power always gets used to subvert democracy and silence dissenters.

This is not a new problem. There's a bunch of literature about this, starting with Robert K. Merton's 1936 paper The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposeful Social Action [1].

Maybe the best way to counteract the perverse outcomes of feel-good social policy is to acknowledge these mistakes and teach future policy makers how to anticipate the second- and third-order effects of their actions [2].

Stross shows this in his hypothetical Labour Party communication:

The party recognizes that that our own legislative program
of the late 1990s and early 2000s established the framework
for repression which is now being used to ruthlessly suppress
dissent.

[1] [PDF] http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/4111/2111-home/CD/T...

[2] [PDF] http://www.au.af.mil/info-ops/iosphere/iosphere_summer06_mil...
Postmortem Part 1: The Curtin Rises
>I'm surprised it isn't working.

Remember this next time someone suggests getting rid of tenure or cutting federal research funding. Especially for areas of research that are politically or economically hot (climate/environment, privacy, etc.)
I've always felt that "free speech" is only one side of the coin, our civilization needs to promote the education of critical thinking. In a free speech society, critical thought is essential, as it is the tool to filter all speech one encounters, from political to commercial to religious to nonsense.
In the run-up to the previous election, many Lib Dem candidates made personal pledges - above and beyond their manifesto - that they, personally, would never vote to raise tuition fees. And then did so (and not because they were required by the coalition agreement - the party made it a free vote).

That was how they lost my vote and those of others I know.
My guess is that if there's no sense of self or other then there's no getting upset about others: there's just upset or 'upsetness' (which others may misinterpret as normal empathy).
What about child porn?
I'm well aware of that. This is much more interactive though. The color coding is also dank.
I believe 99% of the time people are fired for things other than the tasks of performing their duties mentally and physically. Usually it happens to be the other non-job description items that get people fired and they happen to make an error that any other person wouldn't get fired for.

I call it my "Good Will Dollar Theory." You get to save "Good Will Dollars" when you do good things for others and the company. You lose "Good Will Dollars" when you have a lapse in judgment or execution. When you are out of "Good Will Dollars" you get fired. Everyone has starts with a different amount of "Good Will Dollars" and they are often unfairly distributed to people that sometimes don't even deserve them.
Not sure even function composition is universal.

The ML family, for example, lets you model a lot of things in type specification, and Haskell goes even further making types a good model even for behavior. And Lisp has a deep focus on metaprograming.
Very true. And as I mention in the article, ES7 async/await should help fix that: http://pouchdb.com/2015/03/05/taming-the-async-beast-with-es...
I would argue that `Promise.all` is not the equivalent of `forEach` because Promise.all will execute everything immediately, maybe all will fail, maybe 1 will fail, eventually you'll have your then or your catch called but 100 of your actions will have an attempt to be executed.

Compare that to forEach, if one fails and you throw the rest don't get executed.

I suppose if whatever you're doing for each thing is async then they are equivalent equivalent but in general forEach has different sementics than Promise.all
IBM Adds Services to Bluemix Cloud Development Platform
It's not even a particularly tall barrier for cracking manually.

The face of the lock implies 64000 combinations. Knowledge of the internals reduces that by 99.875%. That's almost 3 whole orders of magnitude, and reduces the absolute worst case scenario for opening the lock to about 45 minutes. The attack need not take place all at the same time, either, and once completed, the lock can be opened in the same amount of time an authorized opener takes.

Don't use this type of lock to protect anything valuable, kids. It deters snoops and casual thieves only. Use it to secure your bike, and both may be gone when you return.
App Engine was in preview when its price changed.
If you get caught doing something like this, you might as well just blatantly lie. You won't make it worse, and at least some people will believe your lie. Why not try it? (Aside from morals, but it seems we can hardly rely on that.)
So... this is essentially first come, first served based on their description. And they say the preemptibles come from a smaller pool of resources. Seems odd to me they wouldn't have a number somewhere of how many are available and how many are in use given that it's a finite resource.

Tough to build a business model around a resource you can't even determine the availability of.
I saw it many years ago when the first Amiga PPC addons came out, but I had no idea this was still going on.

What are its main selling points?
Googlebot caches robots.txt for a very, very long time. If you disallow a directory it may take months for the entire googlebot fleet to start ignoring it. Google's official stance is that you should manage disallow directives through webmaster tools.
I'd be interested to see some computer vision algorithms explained this way too, SIFT, SURF?
Yes. On OS X, I find myself using Leech¹ quite a bit.

――――――

¹ — http://manytricks.com/leech/
Yes. Fun fact: Orwell lived in a cheap hostel in Whitechapel known as Tower House, Stalin was another occupant. At the time it was next to a Jewish synagogue, these days that's closed down and it's behind London's largest mosque, next to a very well regarded (by Londoners) Indian restaurant. Later the building was abandoned and gained a reputation for drugs and violence... people used to throw themselves off the upper storeys to effect a quick suicide. Later on it was fixed but by a Cypriate real estate investor and carved up in to cheap units. I had a go at living there, and successfully sublet a room to a guy on the interest rate committee of the Bank of England. Hosting this social mobility in a hundred years ... not bad for a building on a backstreet!
I agree with you in the following scenario: small team (<20 dev), manageable codebase size (~ 200K line), and enough budget to keep the project running without too much specialization.

If you cannot keep the project within those parameters, code nazi is unfortunately the way to go.

For most people on HN that should be another day at work, for entreprise backoffice system developers like me, that's a rare sight.

And in any case it all breaks down without great communication between team members and compatible code culture (i.e. there is some way for the whole team to agree on something and apply it without childish guerrilla resistance )
If only they did define these things precisely and rigorously. Often it's sloppier than a lot of pseudo-code I see.

E.g. I did my MSc on reducing error rates in OCR through various statistical methods. As part of that I needed to review a lot of papers applying various filters to input images. I went through at least a dozen papers on thresholding (filtering out noise by excluding all pixels under a certain brightness, for example)

Nearly all the papers had formulas. In this case it was fine. A simple-stupid (and not very good) thresholding function is simply (pseudo code): f(color) = intensity(color) > threshold ? color : 0. It's hard to obscure that by changing the notation - it'll be obvious in most cases what such a simple function does.

But nearly all of the results depended on specific values for specific variables in those formulas, and nearly all of them left out sufficient information about the values that worked best (or worked all) and/or did what I did above: define another function - intensity() in my case - that was left undefined, even though what method you'd use to determine intensity would have drastic impact on the results.
That's literally a copy/paste of the first part of the web site. Why bother?
We had the same problem with getting priced out of c3.8xlarge in Virginia. We fixed it by changing our allocation algorithm to find alternate instance types and zones. For example, instead of 1 c3.8xlarge, it might pick 2 c3.4xlarge instances or a cc2.8xlarge. Seems to work so far.

I looked through the pricing table and played with the calculator, it seems something equivalent to our needs would cost around a third more on google but each cpu would have twice as much ram. Not worth it for us.
It's worth comparing this with the HMS ASTUTE shooting [1] when a sailor with a loaded weapon did decide to cause problems on board a submarine. That led to a major culture shift in the Royal Navy and a lot of soul searching.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Astute_%28S119%29#2011_fata...
I couldn't figure out from the docs, can one restart a preempted preemptible instance, or needs to start a different one? Would it be possible to restart in non-preemptible mode, so the job completes but at a higher price? We still want to complete our workloads, one way or another :)
If you haven't encountered packages missing from their repo, then their search must be broken. In just a few minutes of searching, I found that they seem to be missing anything GIS-related, netperf, smokeping, targetcli, any daap server. That's just stuff I've been using my Linux box for in the past month, but it seems like Exherbo would make me do at least as much work as something like MacPorts!
Using Monads in C++ to Solve Constraints: 3. The Tale of Two Monads
10 Java Interview Programmatic Questions and Answers
The argument, that makes sense to me, is that other countries pay a high "tax" for the US dollar being the world's reserve currency, and they don't like it.

I don't read ZeroHedge but my son in law does.

My attitude is that the things to do to prepare for "The Death of the Dollar" are the same things that make sense even if this does not happen (or happens far in the future): don't take on extra debt, have job skills that are globally valuable, keep a reasonable amount of emergency supplies in your home (the US government has a web site with recommendations: http://www.ready.gov/kit (except I would argue having more than just a few days of emergency supplies, a few weeks would be better)).
If you have a website that can be distributed among arbitrarily many frontend servers, it could make sense to put them on preemptible instances, with the database on a regular instance. (In the unlikely case no preemptible instances are available, you could always automatically switch the frontend servers to regular ones.) However, I think this could only possibly be efficient pricing-wise if your traffic was extremely bursty.
I like doing stuff like

function ensureFoo() {
let promise = Promise.resolve();

if (!foo) {
promise = getFoo();
}

return promise;
}
Bluebird is awesome. :) I especially love promisifyAll() and promisify().

The only reason I didn't include something like that in the post is that I didn't want to overwhelm newbies. I think it's already confusing enough what the difference is between q/when/RSVP/bluebird/jQuery promises/Angular promises, etc... And honestly, more and more I just use vanilla promises, or a tiny polyfill like Lie.
Yep. This is the answer to "why do we need tenure".
No, there are spontaneous and unexplained 'cures' which I'm guessing occur where people have been given the space and time to develop autonomously, without excessive interference. This applies proportionally to ordinary children to.
I haven't looked at any of the solutions. Or any of the other comments.So at the risk of posting a redundant comment :

Alice guesses that Bob's coin is the same as hers. Bob guesses that Alice's coin is the opposite to hers.

It's fairly straightforward. I'd like to know the computer science angle to this though.

EDIT:
From the computer science that I know :

We need to find an invariant that all permutations of coin flips always satisify. Intuition tells us that Alice's coin might be the same as Bob or vice versa :

If you construct a truth table :

Alice Bob Alice's Coin same as bob Bob's opposite to Alice

H H YES NO

T T YES NO

H T NO YES

T H NO YES

The expression :

Alice's coin same as Bob || Bob's opposite to Alice

Always evaluates to true. So Alice can guess her flip and Bob can guess the opposite.

But what if we had Alice , Bob and George and atleast one of them had to get the other two right ?

Is there a general pattern ?

Alice Bob George
H H H
H H T
H T H
H T T
T H H
T H T
T T H
T T T

Will try and figure it out over dinner :D .
Agreed. I spent about half the time on my masters thesis making word and phrase changes that made the end result harder to read and understand.
If you really want to do some serious concatenative programming, this is probably a useful site: http://www.factorcode.org
But... they came last out of the three main parties, so it is hardly surprising that they weren't able to implement the entire of their manifesto. The conservatives reneged on many of their manifesto pledges too.

I suspect it is more that the conservatives have much stronger support by the media.
Honestly the situation was a little confusing because I like to think about a thought experiment which is similar (a coordinated three-person game called "Betrayal" which exemplifies the weirdness of quantum mechanics) and due to this I imagined that the "win criterion" was "Alice and Bob both have to get each other's answer right."

When I re-read the description and said "oh, they only have to have one correct answer between them," it was just like, "how can I make sure that when Alice is wrong then Bob is right?". The solution followed about a second later, "well if Alice guesses the same as her flip, maybe Bob guesses the opposite of his", without any logic tables or further reasoning or anything. Then I drew up the 4 possible coin flips and the resulting predictions and wins, to prove that it was correct, just in case I was somehow missing something.
The SNP only stood candidates in a small fraction of the country:

UKIP: 3881129 / 624 = 6,220 per area, winning 1/624
SNP: 1454436 / 59 = 24,651 per area, winning 56/59

Non-proportional voting systems are barbaric and anti-democratic, but when they're in place you might consider that voting for parties that can't realistically win to be a measure of how little your voters understand the political system or at best a protest vote. On the other hand, without large numbers of people publicly wasting their votes, then there's no push for change. The Green party explicitly told their voters to "vote with their heart" i.e. waste their vote, and have now suggested that the progressive candidates work together to avoid splitting their vote.
...this is horrible..
This puzzle you can get without being "clever" by just following the logic:

Suppose Alice got Heads. Say she guesses Heads. Then when Bob gets Heads they win. When Bob gets Tails Alice is wrong so Bob needs to guess Heads when he gets Tails.

Flip the scenario around when Alice gets Tails and you get the whole strategy
Unbridled capitalism is terrible at managing pollution and damage to the environment. :)
A harsh lesson from Tim Armstrong, AOL’s very unappealing boss
How to stop doubting yourself
No reason at all. If you have enough preemptible VMs, and they spin up fast enough, then when one goes down, just spin up another. If for some reason GCE's overall preemptible spare capacity drops and you can't get a new one and it's important to you, then spin up a regular VM.
This author has a lot of misconceptions what a car is and how it is composed of.

The HMI/MMI or however you would like to call that thing in the middle is only a small part of the software in a car. And even using standards like Apple CarPlay or Android Auto does not mean, that they give anything away. Both "platforms" are not even platforms, they are just proprietary versions of VNC. Its like the current iteration of the Apple Watch: there is no application running on the watch. The applications can display information and they have a back channel for the user interaction. But the real application still runs on the phone. That is also true for Android Auto and Apple CarPlay.

Then there is much more to control in this second display (the first display is the dashboard), which is air condition, power sliding windows, roof, and all the other car functions. Because anything in a car is controlled by software. In a normal mid-sized car there are about 40 to 60 ECUs (electronic control units), in a luxury car that can go up to 90 and some more.

Current estimates are that a modern car is comprised by about 30% software, 30% electronics, and 30% mechanics.

Seeing the reason decline of software quality by Apple, I am feeling pretty comfortable that they are only doing user interface stuff, that is unimportant to the cars performance.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9563253
So basically people shouldn't lie about things that harm other people?

Having the potential for civil action over defamation does not exclude people's right to say what they want. They are merely restricted to saying accurate things or else having to pay some money to the person they've lied about.

I do find it slightly surreal that defamation is being discussed in the context of the UK - a country with (even following the excellent reforms of 2013) the most ridiculous libel laws around.
I agree with the spirit of what's being said here, but there are parts that are problematic. For example, explaining that someone won't get a good reference if he sues is almost certainly illegal (extortion). Of course, any reasonable person would know not to use a company that one is suing as a reference. You'd do better to say, "I'm not using them as a reference because I'm suing them" (since it's already a matter of public record) than to use them. Still, saying, "you shouldn't sue us because <retaliation>" is on the wrong side of the law.

That said, I agree that PIPs are the worst. They're a way for scummy managers in scummy companies to... well, the common explanation is that they're a lawsuit shield, but that's not really true because it's actually harder to run a lawsuit-proof PIP than to just fire someone. The real purpose of the PIP is less documented and more insidious.

Companies don't actually fear lawsuits that much. They're a black-swan risk, but less than 1% of people fired will ever litigate. They're much more worried about disparagement and impaired relationships. You write a generous severance and give a good reference (which you should, in most cases) when things don't work out because, if you do things right, the odds are good that the person's career will go unimpeded, and this pays off for you because they're likely to feel good about that episode in their careers and say good things about you in the future.

The purpose of a generous severance and positive reference is to make the fired employee feel good about the company, preventing any sort of moral indignation. The purpose of a PIP is to make the employee feel bad about himself (under a parallel theory that a humiliated employee will feel weak, not morally superior, and therefore not disparage or litigate). It has almost no legal value, because wrongful PIPs are just as common as wrongful terminations. Its purpose is to shame the employee into silence. Of course, it often doesn't work, but that's a discussion for another time.

PIPs (which, considering morale, are far more expensive than severance payments) are also a common way for HR offices to claim they "saved money" on severance payments when they're actually externalizing the costs to the manager, who has to conduct a kangaroo court, and the team, which has to deal with an already-fired employee coming into work for 2 months.
They claim to be good, programmatic Java interview questions, then proceed to violate just about every single Java coding standard/convention [1][2].

[1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/codeconvtoc-136057.ht...

[2] https://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/javaguide...
I'm not sure how you jumped from free speech, to harassing rape victims. Last I checked, harassment requires something more than just freely speaking an opinion once or twice.
Yet its tops the UK's list of fears. The western propaganda machine is working well.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/05/europe-european...
Now I am waiting to see a similar thing in Azure.

Preemptible VMs will prove to be very useful in fault tolerant Distributed Networks.

One more usecase that I can think off is Load Testing on a large scale ( in a distributed way ).
California law doesn't say that at all.
The AV system we voted on wasn't actually PR, any kind of PR got veto'd by the conservatives, and the Lib-Dems were perhaps foolish to try to continue with such a meagre reform, as it now gets used as an excuse to not implement PR in future as "the country voted against it" (except of course they didn't, as it wasn't one of the two options they were allowed to vote for).
Graphite vs. Grafana: What's the Best Monitoring Architecture?