skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The issue is that many people trying to convince me about science are woefully unaware of their own assumptions and are typically ignorant of some basic philosophy.

In particular, I accept that the scientific method is a reliable path to knowledge, that is, it reliably leads to a true understanding of true things. However it does not follow that the scientific method is the only way to knowledge. It also does not follow that all true knowledge, or even a fraction of it can be acquired through the scientific method.

Other unvoiced assumptions speak to one's life's purpose. The old quote from Emil Faber, 'Knowledge is good', is certainly not a scientific conclusion, or a testable hypothesis. Valuing wisdom over ignorance and indeed freedom over slavery and life over death speaks to a purpose in life which is necessarily ungrounded in any science. I certainly do value all of those things, but it is not a belief anyone achieved through falsifiable hypotheses.
OkHttp’s New URL Class
> If people were sentenced for a crime based on the fact that their DNA matched with the DNA found at the scene of the crime they supposedly committed, then surely there's a massive problem here?

I get the impression - though I don't have the data/numbers obviously - that in almost all of those cases the DNA evidence was being used as the cherry on top of the evidence sundae they had already compiled.

That's why it won't realistically change much; either very few or none at all are convicted _only_ because their dna happened to be found at a crime scene.
Definitely. Some of my friends had an apartment together in college and they had a tower connected to their TV and stereo with 1000's of songs on it. This was 1999 and was a pretty impressive idea I soon aped. Needless to say, small parties, LAN parties and get-togethers at my college apartment (really a huge place with 5 bedrooms, 2 living rooms) were awesome for the time.
Speak of JS, Jiangsu in China is also an option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiangsu
This can be applied to any language actually.
Making a toy programming language in Lua, part 1
With widely varying results
If the server has a "PC speaker" like desktop computers then you could make them beep to help find them.
You should use Django along with Django Rest Framework[1], which is absolutely amazing at building REST APIs. It lets you use all the goodies that come with Django and provides a very Django-ish way to build APIs.

[1] http://www.django-rest-framework.org/
Thanks for the comment. Here is the philosophy from peer-review:

Have your grandparents passed at an age younger than newer immigrants?

✓ Never Forget: The VA

Are citizens (& cars) treated strictly by "No Fault" laws?

✓ Durable Insurance

Are you friends with our attackers?

✓ Anti-Bullying & No College Warfare

Scientists do not judge.
Because most other payment providers (say Stripe) require a credit card, which is, at least in Germany, a not very popular payment option (the prefered payment option there is SEPA direct debit).

I often have the impression that lots of vendors forget that in other countries (say, Germany) not everbody has and is willing to get a credit card and other payment options are prefered. Paypal provides them (in this case SEPA direct debit), while e.g. Stripe does not. So I use Paypal, though I don't like it.
Android Studio Gets C/C++ Functionality
I don't think so.

"Prototype-based programming is a style of object-oriented programming in which behavior reuse (known as inheritance) is performed via a process of cloning existing objects that serve as prototypes. This model can also be known as prototypal, prototype-oriented, classless, or instance-based programming."

In class based programming you have the fragile base-class problem, as the OP mentioned. Prototype based programming is more powerful and you could emulate class based programming in it (as is done in ES6 with the new "class" syntactic sugar).
Yes, return can be a function. Torvalds hasn't heard of continuations, obviously, where we "return" from a function by invoking a continuation.

We can justify writing return (expr); using the same arguments that justify the sizeof (expr) convention.

The thing is that in C, return isn't a function; there are no continuations.

Similarly, sizeof is an operator, which doesn't reduce its argument expression to a value.

If we are going to make coding conventions based on pretending that C is a different language in which sizeof is a function, then pretending return is a function is also fair game.
You can implement your favourite data structures in Go, and see if you can make them faster by using the concurrency primitives in Go.
Most systems programmers I known share similar views.

The rational is that you should only be working on systems-level code if you have an exceptional understanding of computers, the code base, and the repercussions of changes. If your understanding of multithreading isn't flawless then you should not be working on the OS scheduler, at all. And for a programmer working at this level to not recognize the importance of code clarity is to undermine the responsibility that goes with it.
> You can't take drugs 100% safely

I guess this depends on your definition of "100% safely", and probably also on your definition of "drugs". Let's assume that "drugs" means "psychoactive drugs". In that case, I'd suggest that you can take a cup of coffee pretty much as close to 100% safely as is achievable for anything in the world that you can ingest. And coffee is psychoactive. So, it is possible to take drugs 100% safely.

Even alcohol can be taken safely: so long as you keep the dose low, and you're not someone with a special sensitivity to it (e.g. an alcoholic), you can have a glass of red wine with pretty much zero chance of anything bad happening.

That also applies to all the other psychoactive drugs in between: speed, cocaine, LSD, heroin, mushrooms, peyote, MDMA, whatever. They can all be taken 100% safely. The key in all cases is always the same: good education and moderation.

All of these drugs can also be abused. You can kill yourself with caffeine too (though unlikely in coffee form - you'd need about 50-100 espresso shots). I recall a story of someone who ate a whole pack of caffeinated candy, thinking it was normal candy, and died.

Shit happens.

Shit happens more often without good research, education and clear guidelines.

Shit happens even more often without good research, education and clear guidelines, and with dodgy suppliers who may or may not be selling you the thing you think you're buying because they're all criminals.

The real culprit in every drug death? The three branches of the government, who have failed to do the right thing on this topic for 50+ years now.
I am not an expert, but I think it only removes the outermost ones. The major task of the tools is indentation and placement of curly braces.
I hear this a lot: morality is above science. I don't believe it for a moment. Just look at those that believe in ignorance over wisdom, or death over life - they do very, very badly. Empirically these moral codes are useful and effective. That's science right there.
You need a lot of bad/unsuccessful ideas to find the good/successful ones.
> I don't need to look at the post you're responding to, I wrote the post you're responding to

You do because that's the context of the point I am making. Right now you're having an argument with some point I didn't make, and it's coming off as a bit silly.

>In the court of law where Ulbricht was tried for drug trafficking, the murder for hire thing is a crazy rumor.

First of all, I'm talking about HN here and the persistent need for posters to pretend like the specific evidence we have of Ross being violent was shaky. It's not. We have very good evidence that Ross was a violent person. I wasn't making claims about whether that should have been used in sentencing, so the fact that you keep harping on that is weird.

Second, the fact that he tried to hire murderers was material to the criminal conspiracy charges. So it's not just "a crazy rumor" from the courts point of view. The current way sentencing works is that evidence introduced in the trial can be used for sentencing as long as it meets some burden of proof , and this evidence was there and met that burden.

My gut reaction here is that the burden of proof should be higher (ie an actual conviction) and that the sentencing in question was highly inappropriate from a social standpoint, but I don't have background in law to understand why the rules are the way they are.

At the same time I'm not going to rally behind a guy who incompetently tried to murder people as a way to express my distaste for the American justice system and the drug war. There is such a thing as picking your battles and this is not the hill I want to die on. I am aggrevated that people who share these views seem to be stuck on Ross and are trying to retconn away the evidence rather than pick a better battle to fight. There are myriads of drug war victims and avenues of tackling the problem, but we're going to try to bang a square peg into a round hole here because the guy is a white upper-middle class programmer and we think Bitcoins and Dark Webs are cool? Right.

The strongest statement I will make is that the life sentence is clearly unjust. People should be given second chances with very very few exceptions. Ross should be one of these people.
Remember that Digital Oceans’ ToS allow them to access "all and any information" in case they "consider it necessary".
How I Walked Every Block in Manhattan in 10 Weeks (2005)
As the grandson of a plumber and son of a plumbing engineer, just have to jump in here and defend plumbing...it's damn interesting! It's also responsible for a larger chunk of recent increases in longevity than probably anything other than maybe antibiotics.
Ask HN: New job and hiring manager pulled a bait-n-switch
I just started a new job and one of the reasons I accepted the offer is because I liked the manager, but after I start work I find out my manager re-assigned me to someone else's team and now I have a different manager.

I feel cheated because this isn't what I signed up for. The new manager is cool but this bait-n-switch isn't sitting well with me. What should I do?
That's obviously false as plenty of goods are never sold but destroyed instead because nobody wanted them. Production follows demand, any businessman will tell you. Maybe if a few economists actually learned about business we wouldn't have so many recessions.
That's foolish. Scientists have to work hard to avoid bias. A lot of them don't manage it. Most science isn't as rigorous as eg ATLAS at CERN at avoiding biases.

There are plenty of scientists who are fucking idiots.
Jessica Alba built a unicorn
John Ochsendorf: The architectural rebel who champions ancient engineers
It's bad for MACROeconomics. A consumer based economy suffers when consumer spending is down. More saving and less spending may be good for the individual, but it's bad for the economy. It results in lower sales volumes for business, less lending for banks, and an over all "liquidity trap" where increases in cash simply go into investments which don't stimulate the economy. Over a long enough time period, this leads to deflation, which believe it or not is actually MUCH WORSE than inflation as it can be near impossible to recover from (see the great depression for examples).
Thanks for the detailed write-up. You are a pioneer in the rust webdev space and have created a map (with the dragons labeled) for others :)
I don't mean to sound like a pitchfork-wielding maniac, but http://letskillpaypal.com for the win. I bet they were shaking in their shoes at the prospect of something like this going seriously viral.
The essence of science is its method: Setting up experiments in order to look for counterexamples for a scientific statement. Therefore, anybody who is uncritical of scientific results and does not desire to find counterexamples, is not engaging in science but in anti-science, which in turn is a dangerous and counterproductive ideology. The science-as-religion people do not have a good chance of being right. They are always completely wrong.
Nature "is".

Science is an attempt to explain why Nature is the way it is. Collect data, make a prediction, test it, revise the prediction, rinse, repeat. Granted, there are belief systems aplenty in scientific work (string theory?) but as Kuhn has written, sometimes Nature laughs and forces a change.

And Asimov's "level of error" discussion is valid. Newtonian physics, while "wrong" is perfectly useful when aiming spacecraft away from the sun. Box: "All models are wrong. Some models are useful". And Feynman's talked about this as well.
fsvo efficient
I have alway thought "converting users to our brand" sounds suspiciously like "converting people to our religion/cult" just say you want loyal customers, not "devoted followers."
Appreciate the corroboration from the inside. I've suspected as much given that even the "controlled interfaces" are usually EAL4 at best. Did you know Navy people built an EAL7 IPsec VPN? I'm sure you can immediate realize (a) how awesome that is and (b) what value it has for our infrastructure/military. Yet, it got canceled before evaluation because brass said "no market for it." Virtually nobody in military or defense were interested in setting up highly secure VPN's.

Not a great state of affairs.
Fooling yourself about safety. There's more to it than moderation and education. Look in the news for evidence: how many deaths related to meth overdoses, vs caffeine overdoses.

More powerful psychoactives can make education and moderation moot. Then the addictive qualities can drive the user down a well-trodden road. Ignore this at your peril.
There's some kind of phrasing problem when you exclude a sensitive group of people in order to state that something is 100% safe.

I think that"100% safe" is an exaggeration intended to emphasize that the risk is manageable and it would be more polite to simply state that many substances can be ingested with minimal risk.
Was there something factually incorrect in my comment?
What does 'badly' mean? Sounds a lot like an opinion to me.
http://archive.is/CwQAP
If one considers all the research papers that have ever been published and retracted, and could enumerate over them and calculate their "rightness" and notices that greater than half are "right" then that would be a fact. As of today, no one has done that, and to assume it to be "often right" is quite dogmatic.

I posit that if one doesn't have time to research the subject themself, one shouldn't form opinion about such subjects beyond that they now know such subjects exist. But I suppose asking that of human beings is too much :P
I'm not convinced that heroin ruins your life only because the dose is unpredictable. There's much more to it than that. Lets not pretend a heroin addiction could be a safe and normal way to live.
IANAL, but I believe it is not that they are not regulated heavily, it is that bank regulations specifically are much stricter than money transmitter regulations. For example, a money transmitters (as PayPal claims it is) are only supposed to transmit money from person A to person B transparently. However, PayPal routinely will hold funds or refund funds to a buyer without giving the seller notice or fair warning. Under banking regulations there would be more transparency to the seller and these types of incidents would slow or cease to exist is my understanding. If you have a $1000 in your bank account and walk into the bank to withdraw $500 the bank has to honor your request as long as the funds are available. With PayPal it can be a guessing game of whether the funds are available and there is no one there to answer why they are not available when they make the claim. Again, IANAL but that is my general understanding of the difference.

EDITED TO ADD: Also, as I understand it if someone hacks your bank account the bank has insurance and your funds are almost always refunded sometimes the same day. With PayPal if your account is hacked and you have a balance there you risk losing your money with PayPal not refunding any of it. PayPal most likely would tell you it is your fault.
Oh great, even more of Internet of Surveillance Things!

I can't wait to help governments monitor me in every way possible! I'll wear surveillance clothes, use only Smart surveillance TVs, play video games with Kinect, wear surveillance Glasses, wear surveillance watches, and decorate my home with surveillance thermometer systems and Elves on Shelves: http://truthstreammedia.com/2014/12/24/elf-on-shelf-toy-teac...

Yes, that will be great. Yay technology. I can't wait to mindlessly consume everything they put in front of me!
And subtitles! All talks should be done like this.
Lets not pretend we don't know how badly murderers end up in court. This is getting silly.
I participated in that group for a while, too.

It was fun to learn, and it gave me some ideas that got me going in natural language processing despite that it's not a natural language.

The argument structures were one of the big problems I had with it, too: it seemed like someone coming up with predicates just kept tacking on more arguments that were not at all essential to the predicate, in case someone wanted them. This lacks elegance.

Also, the grammar needs an overhaul. There are hundreds of PEG nodes, some of them are almost the same as others except that things you'd want to say are unexpectedly ungrammatical, and some of them could never be used at all except in an interplanetary spelling bee.

I emphasize that this did not stop me from enjoying it, and much later writing an MIT Mystery Hunt puzzle in it [1]. (warning: Mystery Hunt puzzles are hard)

[1] http://www.mit.edu/~puzzle/2013/coinheist.com/rubik/lojicomi...
But tying everyone to a single IDE is never going to happen. The language is out there. It's going to stay backward compatible forever.

How could the presence of braces cause a worse error than no braces? Code compiles when you completely omit braces but put more than one statement underneath. The error is logical, not syntactical.

But if you have an open brace without a matching close brace, that's a compile error. What other error are you referring to?

How can you know that you won't add more statements to the block? Why have a special case at all? For me it's just become muscle memory to add the braces. It's a risk with exactly zero upside to omit braces.
I'm always fascinated by StorJ.

http://garzikrants.blogspot.com/2013/01/storj-and-bitcoin-au...

TLDR; a SaaS system that not only auto-scales, but does so autonomously. When it has excess funds, it buys more VMs and provisions them with itself. If cashflow is low, it shuts some down. Add in the ability to create accounts (using bitcoin as currency) and you could very quickly lose the paper trail and have a SaaS owned by the Æther.
There are a vast majority doing good work. Your cell phone is a towering testament to this. To be fair, try making the converse argument: how many religious zealots avoid bias? Zero. Lets not condemn science on the basis of a strawman ("some scientists somewhere are not very good")
I think he is talking on a similar topic at AltConf, Tuesday 9th: http://altconf.com/schedule/
Haha, I didn't intend to go for detailed :) I'm pretty sure there's a lot more to tell about the details. I just wanted to at least list all the modules I've been looking for / using in this webapp. Thank you for the feedback.

I intend to write another post with some very basic skeleton / hello-world of a new Iron application using database with connection pooling, templates, logger, parameter parsing. But that's for another day.
Stripe, Amazon Payments, WePay, & Square come to mind. Paypal is great, until it isn't.
It's an opinion, it can't simply be "wrong". You disagree, that's all.
But he did get paid. He bought more than his original gift cards would have allowed him to.
Shouldn't this just be 'Paypal: don't do it'?
He is talking about C. Continuations are irrelevant.
Re: Linpack Run - given the iPhone 5S ranks as 10 Gigaflops, hard to see the iPhone 6 at more than 20 Gigaflops.
Science id defined by its method: to set up experiments in order to look for counterexamples for a theorem. It is pretty much impossible to set up experiments in economics. While I agree that sociology and anthropology do not satisfy the definition of science, economics does not either. Where are the experiments? Without experiments, no science.
You typed that on a portable device, right? And without any sense of irony about the unreliability of science.

The rise of a civilization based on technology and information is a towering testament to the successes of science. Lets not fool ourselves.
That's an antique notion. There are plenty of rigorous experiments being done in all of those fields.
It's more than that. Finding a real-world, compelling, useful product based on a new technology is much harder than just developing the technology. This is, of course, obvious, because in both cases, you will have to develop the technology. For one, the project ends at that point; for the other, some of the most challenging work is just getting started.

If you are responsible for developing a new technology, you can claim success if you release something that works as advertised, even if nobody actually uses it ("it was ahead of its time", "naysayers poisoned the market", etc.). Since there is no way to tell ahead of release whether it will succeed in the market, your project and, by extension, your position within the company creating it, are secure. Much, if not all, of the blame can be externalized.

On the other hand, if your goal is to release a usable product, you've just massively increased your personal exposure. First, you have to become very opinionated because any product that tries to please everyone generally succeeds in pleasing nobody, so that means there will be people who hate it, often before it is even released. Second, it is usually possible to tell if a product is useful before it actually releases (if you aren't putting blinders on yourself), so you can find yourself in a position of failure before release, a failure that you cannot shift to anybody else.

Part of the reason the iPhone succeeded was because the person who, ultimately, was leading the project was the CEO. He wasn't worried about what his boss thought, so the entire team could focus on the complete application. But that was only part.

The other reason is that the product, the way the technology would be used, was part of a feedback loop that influenced the technology itself. The advantage of taking on all that risk of failure is that you end up with technology that is better, technology that is more suited for solving real problems.
But they have to have jobs despite the existence of copyright, so that's more of an argument that some people just can't live off their art.
Then he deposited the money back. And presumably destroyed the gift cards.
Funny, I think about it the other way: inheritance of function/method implementation is so useful, it's a shame people mentally tie it to data type inheritance.
I don't actually see how Starbucks could have been out millions. They'd just notice a gift card had a large balance, investigate, and zero it out. Unless the guy had managed to drink/hawk one million coffees in a few weeks.
> There are a vast majority doing good work. Your cell phone is a towering testament to this. To be fair, try making the converse argument: how many religious zealots avoid bias? Zero. Lets not condemn science on the basis of a strawman ("some scientists somewhere are not very good")

Yet to uphold what people consider science today, you use one example. As if the vast majority of scientists had anything to do with the development of the cell phone (and use the word testament which has a non zero religious connotations), and give no lip service to how many religious people throughout the times have supported scientific endeavors…