skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My friend likes Zoho Web Form Builder:

https://www.zoho.com/creator/online-form-builder/

Also depending on how much you use https://www.cognitoforms.com/ has a free plan.

Here are some more:

http://www.typeform.com

http://www.wufoo.com

https://kwiksurveys.com
The Borland Turbo languages where the Cat's Pajamas.

Microsoft countered with the Quick languages.

Borland made Turbo Pascal for Windows and with Objects and then made Delphi.

Microsoft countered with Visual BASIC.

Borland made Borland C++ and JBuiilder.

Microsoft countered with Visual C++ and Visual J++/J# and then later Visual C#.

The free IDEs and Free compiler languages ate into Borland's sales. Eclipse, Netbeans, IntelliJ, BlueJ, Sublime Text, GNU C/C++, Apple XCode, FreePascal/Lazarus, Ruby/Ruby on Rails, Python, Code::Blocks, etc.

In 2005 Microsoft introduce Visual Studio Express a free version of their development tools.

Like Amiga, Borland had the superior technology, but cheaper/free alternatives undercut their sales.

Mostly it was the free and open source revolution that did Borland in.
Reminds me of 18-545 at CMU. We did it with wire wrap though. Good times.

Congrats on being able to fit the kernel in 512K
Here's my top 6, in no particular order.

* Its uncanny ability to find references and declarations in both Python and JavaScript, even when the references are dynamic. What is this .log() or .render() actually calling? Instantly I'm looking inside the relevant function, even if there are hundreds of functions with the same name. This works across imports and libraries. Doesn't always work, but even when it doesn't, it usually makes good guesses and lets me select from a list. If you're working on a large, unfamiliar codebase, this is a godsend. You will sometimes wonder why your coworkers are struggling to understand code references and then you realize they don't have this power-tool available to them.

* Local file history separate from git history, with fantastic navigation/diffing support. It's an undo/redo button on steroids that keeps months of history.

* When searching for something, you get a full, scrollable preview of the surrounding context of each matching result. Results are organized within the file hiercharchy and are collapsible.

* Remote debugging. Drop an egg in your remote source and go.

* Annotated code, line by line, with the relevant commit and comment next to it.

* Auto-linting to catch common mistakes when coding. It'll immediately underline suspicious-looking code and tell you why. Lots of customizable style-linters to keep your code pristine looking.
I use Emacs with intelligent realtime code analysis. Anybody who doesn't use the best Emacs packages for the languages they write is doing it wrong.
It's possible to have ad networks, but for publishers to host the software themselves. This would eliminate the tracking and cookies that follow you from site to site.
> For me, the most interesting part of the experiment was how it was ended. A moral person objected.

Do to the fact the entire set-up was so dubious you can't really say that actually happened. I certainly doubt it did.
Oh, I did not know Zoho did Forms. They look like a good alternative indeed! Thank you!
Comcast has been doing this for a while, at least in SF. I first noticed, through gmail as well, that I was using ipv6 for atleast 2 years now. I think they started rollout back in 2013.
Was thinking the same thing. Especially with his "Schematics... forget it; organic creation" blurb. There's as much luck as wire in this build.

File it under "bet you can't do that twice in a row".
These guys also made a slide deck for the paper:
http://www.ux.uis.no/~meling/papers/PaxosTutorial-Meling-OPO...
We do. It's great—we can have a fast first-page load time while bootstrapping additional client-side functionality and all subsequent pageloads are ridiculously fast.

This way, we are making our web server "just another client."
Chaining. Definitely for chaining.
Yeah that's my typo, and it's still an nickname according to last week's CNET http://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-os-in-flux-as-mozilla-loses...
The flip-side of this story? Imagine what the NSA is doing. Imagine how much information the NSA is slurping up, on everybody, 24x7. Now... assuming their databases are an even more attractive target to hackers/criminals. Now assume that the folks who design/build/maintain/operate the NSA's are just as human as you and I, and therefore, are still prone to making just that one "oopsie" kind of mistake in their defenses. When that happens? All that data they slurp up falls into the hands of the hackers, criminals, people who mean you harm, etc.

Only part of the danger of what the NSA is doing due to the "what if government turns evil" scenario.

The other danger is the "what if hackers/scumbags/criminals get hold of it" scenario.

Only one of those scenarios has to happen, in order for it to hurt you. And the NSA has the very biggest pot of gold at rainbow's end, PII/fraud/blackmail-wise, of any of these systems to date. Contemplate that. Fear that. Take political action. Make day-to-day choices based on that.
Absolutely. I sat out the Ruby/Rails hype cycle and am none the worse for it. Life is too short to waste time learning ephemeral tech like Ruby, Node.js, or MongoDB. When considering whether to learn a new language or platform, I ask myself, how long have people been using this, and how long will people likely continue to use it? As a result, I know C, Common Lisp/Elisp, UNIX/POSIX, and a relational database or two very, very well. I suspect I'd be much less happy if I had instead spent time learning how to build single-threaded JavaScript web apps that rely, in 2015, on cooperative multitasking, let alone doing so with other hipster programmers who actually think it's a good idea.
Well, of course, the illicit usage, too, but after more and more pedophiles and marketplaces get busted, that usage will evaporate as well.
I'm mostly only experienced with F#, but it has a few features that OCaml doesn't (type providers, units of measure, computation expressions) and is missing a few that OCaml has (functors). F# has a bit of a cleaner syntax in some ways IMO[0], but that's offset by .NET interop - the standard libraries are pretty much all borrowed from C#, and therefore tend to be more OO-first than functional-first.

Also, because it runs on .NET/Mono, you can do multicore stuff in F# very easily, whereas OCaml's multicore support is very immature (and actually not present at all until the next release, 4.03).

[0] See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd233199.aspx The "verbose" syntax is almost exactly OCaml, the "Lightweight" syntax is what's commonly used in F#.
> When you choose a license, you should choose correctly for what you want to have happen. Would it outrage you for someone else to take your code, put a pretty GUI on top, sell it, and make millions while you make nothing? Well then, you shouldn't use a BSD license.

Which license you should use? I thought licenses does not discriminate wether you use it for personal use or commercial use. Sorry, newb here.
It is, so is QUIC. My employer hosts in the US but serves to NZ so I've been experimenting with new protocols to improve performance, it's always interesting.

Still won't shake the pain that is a single connection to the rest of the world (the AU links are only used for local traffic).
Hey I wanted to thank you for your comments and links in the Kindle thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9365567 - I used them to successfully improve my device. Replying here cause replying on the other thread is closed.
Cheers!
He can't. "My 68008 runs at 2 MHz (it was unstable when tested at 4 MHz), providing similar performance to a 1 MHz 68000." He had to de-rate the clock speed of an 8MHz part to get it to run on that breadboard.

The 68000 line has a sad history. It came out in 1979, and for a while, it looked like it was going to be the winning microprocessor. Intel didn't have a 32-bit entry for years later. But early attempts to build workstation machine ran into problems. The 68000 had no matching MMU, and wouldn't work properly with an MMU anyway - page fault state saving wasn't quite right. Machines with external MMUs were built anyway, but great kludging was needed to get around the design flaw. The Apple Lisa avoided using increment instructions, and Apollo had two CPUs; one for the user and one for the kernel, with only one running at a time.

That was fixed in the 68010, which came out in 1982. But by then, IBM had picked the Intel 8088 for the IBM PC. Motorola didn't come out with the MC68451 MMU until a few years later, and it was a slow, segment-oriented MMU. So the Macintosh didn't have an MMU, and had a much weaker OS than the Lisa - no process isolation, no paging, not even a real CPU dispatcher. The UNIX workstation crowd (Apollo, Sun, HP, etc.) all developed their own MMUs for the 680x0 line.

If Motorola hadn't had those errors in the 68000 and had shipped an MMU earlier, the history of computing could have been quite different.
ForeverScape – the world's longest illustration
>Security people (and armchair security people especially) think that security is the end goal.

This only seems to be your mistaken perception of what security people think. I'm a security analyst and I've never met anyone in my industry that believes that security is a goal that can be achieved. Security is a process that will never end.

>I don't think that this is a case where you want to trade off security for usability, and I don't think that generally those cases exist. You always want more usability.

If you believe that security is always a tradeoff(which you stated) and you believe that there is never a situation where you would want to make such a tradeoff, you are basically saying that there is never a situation where you would want security, which is ridiculous. There is always a balance between usability and security. In most cases, the scales will tip towards usability by a large margin, but there are times where a significant hit to usability in the name of security is the right decision.
I sure this will put me on some list, but you are right. They have a ton of information. It's probably just a matter of time before they get hacked. The question is by whom and for what purpose. It would be interesting if it was done as an act of civil disobedience.
On the contrary, out of all the free OSes out there, it was Linux with GPL the most successful, because companies could contribute back knowing that their competitors would not take the code and run away and produce proprietary forks backed by large marketings budgets.

See FreeBSD and Mac OS. If I contribute to Darwin, Apple will take my changes to improve their product. I get nothing in return. This may be fine for an individual, but for a company who depends on a product, it's a bad scenario.
Similar criticisms of the called "Lord of the Flies" study where they got two groups of boys to fight each other.

Preconceived outcome, manipulation of the subjects. Deliberate provocation to amp up the conflict etc.
Yep, just like Dart... oh, wait.
And also, you'll find more bugs in Python3 libraries. They're being used less than Python2 libs. That, and the long tail of libraries that may never get moved to Python3. There's really a lot of reasons to not use 3, or like me, wait to see if it ever really overtakes 2.
A 3rd extra reason if you needed any more, is that almost all jobs in the field use 2.x. I tried to love Python3, but the technical reasons just don't make sense to migrate, and once you meet the coercion and vitriol of the Python3 community, you'll learn to resent its existence and them.

The future of Python2 is actually very bright, while 3's is in jeopardy. That's why everyone is so pushy about it, they lose their bet if it never gets over the hump. Being as 3.0 was released in 2008 and it's now 2015, I honestly think that answer is already here.

Using 2, then switching to 3 if it ever does overtake it makes a lot of sense and is the sensible bet. But 3.x overtaking 2 anytime soon is really unlikely, and library worth anything will be 2+3 compatible and dropping 2 support would just be asinine with the ~83% userbase it holds today.

Even if Python3's userbase doubles in 5 years, it'll still be under 50% of the overall Python userbase. And I think doubling its current usage would be overly optimistic. Python3 will either collapse, or split the community (already has to a degree) with someone forking Python2 for good. Pyston may be that fork, or a couple other contenders.

The situation is a disaster all around. For Python and the community. Companies in some cases now aren't putting new product down in Python because of this.
You'll be alright using 3, because no matter the final outcome you'll be able to go back to 2 without issues and vice versa. I only recommend 2 because you won't be missing any libraries if you use it, and if you want to do it for a job you'll be using 2.x anyway.

Python3's biggest purpose is giving people a reason to hassle maintainers to port to it. They bite on the political propaganda surrounding 3, that it's the "newest version", which for programming languages is not always in best interests of the user unlike an up-to-date web browser. Then when they find out x doesn't work or exist in 3, they badger whoever wrote a library for 2 to port.
Those people really need to port it themselves and maintain it afterwards. They don't, and it's just an ugly situation.

For example, you can build iOS/Android apps using Kivy. Guess what, can't build for iOS unless you use 2.7! Just lots of surprises out there for those who start off wanting the "latest version". It's not the latest version, it's a new, breaking language. If you end up doing much cobbling with Python, this may be of interest to you.

I have my doubts 3 will get over the hump, and just plan on waiting till the complainers turn into maintainers and 99% of everything is ported. Then I'll use Python3 if I don't find something else I like more before then.
Wow, I did not realize the difference in search volume of PHP vs nodejs.
A very useful discussion, based on an interview with a Library of Congress specialist:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8198253
AGPL says no such thing. AGPL software running on the backend must be made available upon request to users who are served content by it.
This is probably the best comment I've ever seen on HN.
Of course you say in how it's run. The people who run the fed get swapped out every so often, and we get to vote on the person who decides on their replacements.

Do you, personally, get to say who's in and who's out? No, of course not, your vote gets weighed up against all the millions of other voters in picking these people.

People often say "oh you have no power" and then, I guess, abstain from voting in order to make it absolutely true. But that's not it at all--we have lots of power, we have the power to persuade, talk amongst our friends and relations, convert others to our ideas, and voting's just the final test of how successful we were.

Politics doesn't start at the voting booth--nor does it end there. That's just one milestone along the democratic highway.

But compared to bitcoin? Where the average person could never plausibly voice an opinion at all? That's not democracy, and the only reason you like it at all, I'm guessing, is because you fancy yourself one of the people that could submit patches.

As for your last remark, let me know when bitcoin policy decisions show up in the voter's pamphlet. Then we'll have a democratic currency with it.
The myopic nature of the beast is really dumb. You want a blend of both. It's no different than managing a portfolio of assets, probably because it is identical to managing a portfolio of assets.
It makes economic sense... if you plan to ever update the software (especially more than a small handful of times). For most software, that's a pretty sane assumption, but there's a fairly important niche where it's not: embedded firmware, all the way from the GUI of some random thing-with-a-cheap-LCD to device drivers for flagship Android phones (which are more likely to be in the "small handful" category than "never", but still). In the latter case, even though Linux is under the GPL, at the rate the hardware changes there is often little incentive to contribute back to mainline. Or fulfill GPL obligations at all, for that matter - but at least most big Western manufacturers have some place to get a source dump. If Linux were BSD-licensed, things would be even worse.
My questions is why wouldn't something lime ammo be considered more valuable? In the US at least, you have fairly standard calibers, most rifles are going to be .308 or .223, and a couple others. A 30-round magazine of .223 carries much more value than a gold bar, so why would anyone value that brick more than that magazine of ammunition? Once you get into a scenario where you're having to barter for goods, you're not having an organized system of governance. I see some comments about fleeing wartorn for stable ones, but I'm asking in the context of an end-of-government type scenario.
Female tech participation fails to increase despite industry push
> I knew that it would be closing for good, though I was surprised to find that its fermeture definitive was to be this week, on Saturday, June 14th.

Saturday is the 13th. I know it's a minor detail, but when I see something like that, I can't help but stop dead in my tracks and wonder if anyone took the time to give this a cursory once-over before publication.
> tens of millions of its own citizens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

>The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, resulting in tens of millions of deaths.[3] Estimates of the death toll range from 18 million[4] to 45 million,[5] with estimates by demographic specialists ranging from 18 million to 32.5 million.[4]
Thanks for bringing this up. We opened an issue to investigate: https://github.com/CiscoCloud/microservices-infrastructure/i...
Looking back it does appear that Intel did nearly everything right, and their competitors didn't. It did help a lot though getting the IBM PC business, and due to that, aligning with Microsoft. If you look at the 68000 machines at the time they all had flaws that prevented them from really taking off, often not things that couldn't be corrected, but things that held them back. The Mac didn't have a hard disk, or multitasking, or color. The Amiga would always be constrained by the custom chips and that would be a problem long term, plus Commodore wasn't investing enough in software. Atari had a good simple product, and GEM wasn't too bad, but they didn't develop it further either. And the workstation market was constrained, as said by the parent, by the lack of a decent MMU solution. And then RISC came along too. In an alternative universe maybe the 68000 machines could have joined forces around a common unix platform and built a major market, but that didn't happen here.
Your attitude towards Americans is amazing. A fascinating and engaging essay of thousands of words, focussing specifically on the remarkable recovery of one patient from a traumatic brain injury, is basically a jumping off point for you to lecture Americans.

Further, the basis for your generalization is off base. There was no seat belt sermon, because that is not what the story was about. He didn't include a three paragraph moralizing preamble about seat belts, not because stupid American attitudes, but rather because he's a good writer. That essay could be written, and you might have enjoyed it more, but it was not the article he was writing.
I, for one, would be glad to sign whatever paperwork gets Texas out of the country.

We settled this one about 150 years ago. It's unreasonable to even contemplate, except for entertainment purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States
This Land is Mine
FACEBOOK EXEC JOINS START-UP AS IT READIES FOR ASX
These are affectionate relationships and an exception rather than the norm. It's a massively important need, but you only have a handful of people you cuddle with. The vast majority of your relationship are social, smalltalkish, gossipish, etc.
that sounds like a really bad pairing
With React.js this pattern has become much more prominent and simple, with pretty obvious benefits being shown with little effort.
> Every shopkeeper in Paris will say "good journey!" to you as you walk out the door.

Actually, it's bonne journée, which means "good day"...
You could, but then you're still paying fees designed to exploit the unbanked. If the parent is financially secure, they can use that fact to get a free checking account for their child.
Is this going to lead to client-side content blocking in countries like China, where they could mandate that all iPhones now install the content blockers? The benefit is obviously that the content blocking gets distributed.
StarVR
How I lost my faith: Science helped, but the holy texts were written by man
Third party ad networks should pivot and provide a single binary executable (e.g. Go/Rust/C++ application) that a website owner adds to his website. And that binary app delivers the ads from the ad network and the website can choose how he integrates it to the website. The ad network will receive a list of URLs from the binary where it checks (with different IPs) if the ad is displayed to the user and if the image file hash is the same. Such an ad would be good for the users privacy (no more third party JS), good for the website owner (more ads delivered, more money), and good for the ad network (ads delivered also to users with adblockers) - a win-win-win situation.
How is a backup into the cloud or hard drive is a sub-optimal solution.
express my valid opinion relevant to the topic ?
An engineer at Comcast in this nanog video [1] claims they have 60% penetration in their own network for IPv6. Which is excellent news.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfjdOc41g0s&app=desktop
While the observations I am about to make likely will be down-voted by some/many in this forum, perhaps even be viewed as heresy, I am compelled to present them on the chance that it helps some to understand what JavaScript objects truly are.

TL;DR JavaScript "objects" are nothing more than a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table">Hash map</a>.

From the article:

> Prototypes in JavaScript are “just objects,” and since they are “just objects,” we can add, remove, or modify methods of the prototype by adding, removing, or modifying the functions bound to properties of the prototype.

They are not "just objects." In fact, symantically they are nothing more than a hash map (a.k.a. hash table, dictionary)[1]. The above quote from the article clearly indicates this fact as, if we peform three simple keyword substitutions, the sentence reads thusly:

Prototypes in JavaScript are “just hash maps,” and since they are “just hash maps,” we can add, remove, or modify values of the prototype by adding, removing, or modifying the values bound to keys of the prototype.

Attempting to think of JavaScript objects in the same manner as what most mainstream "OO" languages semantically provide is simply wrong. "Prototypical inheiritance" is nothing more than a shallow copy of an associative array. By its very definition, that is _all it is_.

Now, IMHO there is nothing wrong with a hash map. There's nothing right about it either. Those sentiments imply judgement, whereas what I have said above is simply analyzing the nature of the subject. The fallacy in calling JavaScript "objects" objects lies in deceiving one's self into thinking that the same semantic guarantees OO languages provide can be done in native JavaScript. The quicker a developer accepts that JavaScript objects are simply hash maps, the quicker they can understand the semantic contract being proffered by the environment _and_ be able to work with it as best as possible.

1 - http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_object_definition.asp