skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Articles like this are harmful. There are many of us successfully using gitflow without _any_ of the issues raised in the article.

And yet people who want to argue against the use of it simply because they don't want to learn something new now have a useful link to throw around as "proof" that a very successful strategy is "harmful". I guarantee in the next year I will have to go point by point and refute this damn article to some stubborn team lead or another senior dev.

Nobody should ever write an article outright bashing a strategy that they either don't fully understand or personally have not managed to integrate successfully in their own day-to-day. Bare minimum, if you're going to publish an article critical of a tool, don't name it so aggressively as to sound like it's fact rather than a single personal point of view.
SENS Research Foundation is made for relatively wealthy people who already have money and health who want to live longer. Do they have any successes or measures of efficiency? It seems like science fiction pie in the sky research by a small group of true believers.
I can make 20 or 30 commits during some code changes in a morning's worth of coding. This allows me to easily trace back to any point, or cross-reference changes across many local branches, etc.

At the end, it might all be squashed down into a single bug-fix commit for the devel branch.

The commit granularity that's desirable and effective for an individual is very different to the history you want in the main feature branches.
Well, TFA talks about Linux not having great support for async IO for the filesystem. You can use O_DIRECT and get async IO that way, but that completely bypasses the OS cache, so it's not a great way to do it, at least not for nginx. Just read the article to see the details.

Note that kqueue(2) in BSD-land supports a unified interface for async IO for both sockets and files, so you can have a proper event loop without having to resort to reading files in a thread pool. If Linux had something similar, a nginx wouldn't need to integrate a threadpool for this (though it might for other things, such as CPU-intensive plugins).
EDIT: Ignore everything below. I fixed it.

I won't lie, the 1-letter top-level directories are mostly an indulgence of mine. I got the idea from some of the suckless projects, which use this method as well. It was confusing on their project (no documentation either on those), but it forced me to look into those directories and actually see what the code was doing. I could appreciate that code a whole lot more. I liked that concept a lot, and I hope people will do the same. I know it looks a bit daunting at first, but it's not that hard to get once you figure out what each folder is for (and there aren't that many).

That being said, I do intend to add at least 2 new directories to the top level eventually, and I know that's going to be confusing if they are all one letter.
Yes and yes. In both cases most funding goes towards intervening in much more ineffective ways than addressing root causes or common efficiently addressed mechanisms, however. Most of it all about trying to mess with proximate causes. Bailing out the boat rather than plugging the leak. Making better piston lubricants rather than fixing the worn components of the combustion engine. That sort of thing.
The attack on Dr. Wei Hock Soon is a very ugly business. It is a case in point of the political incursion on science that Matt Ridley was describing in the linked article.

I have good reason to believe that the insinuations against Dr. Wei Hock Soon are both damaging and false, and indeed, actionable. They are part of a campaign instigated since 1997 by one Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, to mob and harass Dr. Soon, isolate him by putting pressure on his employer to fire him, to cause sponsors to drop him, and destroy his reputation. Added to that, the stress from this attack is worsening his ill health.

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/defense-dr-willie...

>Contrary to media reports, the grants from “energy interests” used to support Dr. Soon’s research were solicited and received by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, not by Dr. Soon himself. The Smithsonian staff vetted and approved every grant and then kept about 40 percent of the total as a fee for acting as a fire wall between a donor and the researcher.

>Prior to conducting research on behalf of the Smithsonian, Dr. Soon would draw up a grant proposal that summarized the scientific questions he planned to research. Third-party entities interested in funding the research made their interest known to the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian then vetted the research proposal and grant offers to ensure the research was scientifically proper and would not present any conflicts of interest. Only after conducting the vetting process did the Smithsonian authorize the research and the funding. The third-party funders wrote their checks directly to the Smithsonian, which was the grant recipient. The Smithsonian then distributed a portion of the grant money (usually a little more than half) to Dr. Soon as payment for his services

The term 'deliverables' mentioned in the offending comment above (which insinuates that Dr. Soon is 'delivering' scientific conclusions made to order) comes from the contract between the donors and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (not Dr. Soon), and refers to progress reports and early access to material in preparation for publication.
MicroPython was originally written for an ARM chip. Since then it's been ported to a number of other systems. What I do know is that it requires a fairly "big" micro. I have a particular interest in PIC chips, but would be happy with any version where I could compile and load the program on a circuit that I'm capable of building myself.

I have tried downloading and compiling large C programs in the past, and it's one of those things where if it works, great, but if the basic "make" comes back with an error for some reason, then I'm kinda lost. My experience with C programming has tended to be with programs numbering no more than a few hundred lines, that all fit in one file and didn't need any kind of "interesting" build process.

Wow, talk about a weird set of customer requirements. ;-)

These micro's have a fair amount of RAM, and the C compilers support memory management, e.g., basics such as malloc() and free(). I suppose somebody could even implement garbage collection.
I'm a cynic on this subject, but my first thought when I see a young or youngish person do something like joining the Peace Corps is that they're resume-padding. A lot of that is because pretty much everyone I know who's done some kind of long-term charity work clearly was doing that (went off to the third world because they didn't get the internship/job they were applying for, or are angling to get into DC/politics or somesuch).
This is a really common argument that people make, but I think it's missing some essential externalities. I've worked in the nonprofit space for ~7 years now, and this is the most common over-cocktails argument folks tend to make.

First of all, and most importantly, most people do not give very much of their income away. And as you accumulate more money, your rate of giving tends to decrease. There are counter examples, thankfully (!), but this tends to be the trend.

There are also very important questions about the counter force of the labor you engage in to earn money. "Wall Street" type jobs make a great example here: say you earn $1M in a year by, say, funding expansive oil palm plantation development in southeast asian peat swamps. You may end up giving away a generous (!) 10% of your after-tax earnings, but you probably won't make up for the negative impact that you, or your money, had.

This particular externality is huge when you think about how investment works. For instance, all the major charitable foundations have large endowments that are tied up in various capital markets. Almost all of these foundations only give away their legally-mandated 5% payout amount. All the while, their complex financial machinery is generating, on average, returns in excess, or close to, 5%. So 95% of their money is actually working to make more money through the whole expansive and environmentally destructive capitalism thing[1].

Working at a soup kitchen full-time when you posses important skills does seem silly, though[2]. Like everything, I think there's a balance here. For instance, if you're highly skilled, donating a percentage of your time to volunteer or work at a lower-than-market-or-just-market salary at a nonprofit you believe in can have a tremendously important impact.

1. Not all foundations do this. A notable exception is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which I believe has a long-term goal of giving away all of their assets in some finite time period. A mixture of private investment in areas of interest can also help, e.g. what Omidyar Network does a lot of (http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/tech-philanthropy/2014/3/2...)
I'm also curious what proportion of the committee was made up of "old guard" folks ten years ago compared to today.
Who suffers the most from age-related disease? The rich or the poor? Are novel medical treatments forever only available to the rich, or do they become ever cheaper, more widespread, and more effective over time? How much of your own personal future are you willing to sacrifice to spite rich people who might get access to early, inefficient technologies before you do? How much of everyone else's future are you willing to sacrifice to make yourself feel better? Think about it before answering.
Americans gave $358 billion in philanthropy last year.

https://philanthropy.com/interactives/giving-usa-2015

A trillion dollars every 3 years. Simply trying to make every dollar more effective would go a long way. We probably need fewer, but more effective charities, for example. Identify the best ways to fund medical research.
In the Opal situation, the fear was that the code of conduct would be used as a weapon against people expressing unrelated political opinions outside of the context of the project itself.

This is not an unreasonable fear, given that the people who are demanding the CoC explicitly said they wanted to do this.
I think it is a great service and I built a manual version with a server and an old FAX modem. The challenge for me is that with a service, if your infrastructure gets compromised, and you have a fax that I sent to my bank asking them to say 'reroute my checking account', it becomes trivial to have my bank reroute it again. The problem for me with FAX is that it is both massively easy to spoof and considered so freakin' authentic by the folks who demand faxes.
You can close a branch and it will not show up as being active but you still have the info for every commit which is what makes history readable.
It wasn't before the market crashed but it's been much cheaper to buy than to rent where I live at least.
The hope is that it would be done by the local workforce.

The worry is that depending on foreign volunteers to do the manual labor is a short-term fix that creates a culture of dependency. By contrast, training skilled workers (might be) a long-term structural fix. But this essentially limits the useful on-the-ground volunteers to those able to teach skills, rather than those willing to do unskilled labor.

I think this piece (plus the excellent comments) is a good summary of both sides of the argument: http://mitpsc.mit.edu/globalchallenge/?p=335
Can't believe, no one has posted this yet.

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

"GiveWell is an American non-profit charity evaluator and effective altruism-focused organization.[5][6] Unlike any other charity evaluators, GiveWell focuses primarily on the cost-effectiveness of the organizations that it evaluates, rather than traditional metrics such as the percentage of the organization's budget that is spent on overhead.[6][7] GiveWell recommends several charities per year. In 2014, its top recommendations were the Against Malaria Foundation, GiveDirectly, the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative, and the Deworm the World Initiative."
Argentina's voting machine system leaked?
Age-related disease is simply not an issue for the billions of young people suffering.

Actually, it is. A huge amount of resources is spent on trying to treat the symptoms of aging, and much of that comes out of the pockets of younger people.
Pocket (https://getpocket.com/) is great for that. If I see a great article that I don't have time to read now I usually just pocket it.
one angle not addressed is there could be a social contract and relationship between the donor and the recipient.

This currently assumes a single transaction, but what if the recipient had a way to pay it back and/or pay it forward? If the donor had the opportunity to view the results of the donation, the satisfaction from it and the relationship obtained makes the sacrifice worth it.

If there was a system that helped to track it with the various privacy and other concerns, that would be so awesome!
What products has this SENS group ever produced besides a bunch of talk? Have they even produced one research result paper in a top journal? Or is it just a bunch of talk.

I guess maybe you can argue that funding people to advocate for anti-aging research can encourage more people to engage in it? Is that your argument on why this is a useful charity to fund?
On Ubuntu, you can try it out like so:

sudo apt-get install libsndfile1 libsndfile1-dev
git clone git@github.com:PaulBatchelor/Soundpipe.git && cd Soundpipe
make
cd e && make
./ex_music && xdg-open test.wav
If you haven't read this by now, you definitely should.
What indication is there that living longer would serve the greater good? People living longer = fewer births assuming stable population, and a greater percentage of life spent in older years. Even if you can make those older years healthy, you'll never be able to capture the uncomplicated wonder and joy of childhood and adolescence. You'd literally be trading a teenager's first crush for an 80-year old's third marriage. The aggregate joy of society will go down if SENS is successful.
Bugfix release, or smokescreen?
advanced GCs need more, they need to know your object layout on the stack and on the heap. Otherwise they have to be conservative and have to pin a lot of objects during the moving phase and cannot skip large non-pointer structures, at least if those reside on the same heap.

And once you start pinning objects using bump pointer allocators gets more complicated since you have to maintain holes or free-lists.

I think the next logical step for ruby's GC would be parallelizing it. STW pauses are fairly controlled states that should be amenable to parallelization i.e. suffer far less from potentially racy behavior like mutator threads.
Or, you know, a promise is another name for assert.

Except of course it isn't. Oops.
Show HN: Tunacan – Image concatenator with experimental user interface
So after playing around with the page, I just started saying random things to see how the speech API would fare with my atrocious accent. That was interesting, until I said "the quick fox", and it interpreted ... bleeped speech?

2015-06-20 03:02:49.109 say_restyle.js:7 Speech recognized: the quick f****
2015-06-20 03:02:49.110 say_restyle.js:7 Speech recognized: the quick Fox
2015-06-20 03:02:49.110 say_restyle.js:7 Speech recognized: quick f****

What the fox?
Appreciate the details. I knew it was a demo but not that it was that budget. The use was a guard for communications or mail, wasn't it?

re abstract vs implementation

More evidence for the claim by many lesson learned papers in formal methods: people doing specs/proofs should work closely with implementers and in parallel where possible. That way issues spotted one place get to the other quickly. Better compromises, too. Neat that it helped with the file system, too.

re verification tools

Yeah, that sounds as painful as I expected. The only one I read on in that time was Gypsy and attempts to convert it to Ada. The proofs were done by hand in most. Every paper had researchers griping about the tools. Main benefit those tools gave, per users, was making verification easier just because the prover's needs (and weaknesses) forced simplification of specs. Did your projects see at least that benefit?

re DARPA

That's my impression. The consensus at the time was on a security kernel approach. It's what all the A1 and B3 systems used. They learned a lot from their endless Mach-related projects but the drawbacks (esp performance) were too great. Personally, I think it was the hardware context-switch performance & message passing overhead holding them back. Users wanted power, performance, and price without much worry for security. Naturally, they built on BSD.

And now one of DARPA's best, CheriBSD, is a port of FreeBSD to the capability-secure CHERI processor. They finally learned to be practical, eh? ;)
(I work at imgix)

There are a number of different ways that crops can be made including custom rectangle cropping via pixel or percentage values, provided as url string parameters. The face zoom crop is just an additional feature to save some steps for these kinds of scenarios. Ideally this feature can be built into an application providing a user with a suggested face crop, and then allow a to use the alternate custom crop that access a different set of parameters via imgix. imgix is an on demand dynamic api for these operations.
So the entire point of the article is that the price ratio of one coffee pod to the cost of the machine is much greater than the cost of printer cartridge to the printer itself?

Hence consumers don't balk at paying for the consumable parts?
As long as I'm making controversial statements, you can probably extend that to people who join the military in a role that isn't likely to see combat and who don't intend to make a career of it. That's a lot less common than the Peace Corps, Teach for America etc. amongst my very non-representative social milieu (urban, East Coast, liberal), however.
i enjoyed this. thank you. nice to see people using sse!
I was wondering how he did that one!!! Part of my thinking was that you'd choose pictures that had the ball in an easy to photoshop location, and that threw me off
sorbits' point was in response to:

clinta > Why do you need to rewrite? If a pull request is not completed, you can continue to push it and the PR is updated to pull the latest commit.

sorbits is saying that no, you really should rewrite your PR.

You, hayd, seem to be merely reiterating sorbits' point.
This website is under heavy load

We're sorry, too many people are accessing this website at the same time. We're working on this problem. Please try again later.
This is very important. The chance of being able to eliminate nearly all age-related diseases in the foreseeable future is very small. The chance of any single donation making a difference there is also fairly small, whereas other donations go more directly toward saving lives.

If I had to choose between contributing 0.1% of the cost of a project that has a 1% chance of saving 100,000 lives a day (effectively saving 1.0 lives a day), versus contributing 0.2% of the cost of a project that has a 60% chance of saving 1,000 lives a day (effectively saving 1.2 lives a day), I might choose the latter.
A very brief humorous version of Rosalind Franklin's story on "Hark! A Vagrant": http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=240
"This website is under heavy load

We're sorry, too many people are accessing this website at the same time. We're working on this problem. Please try again later."

Apparently it's not webscale
Sure. It's sent on behalf of the CAO/Corporate Secretary. But come on - I doubt the GC spends time reading Ars Technica for violations of trademarks.

This seems a classic mistake of a staff member without thinking the impact on company's PR.
But won't the players have moved roughly as much as the ball from photo to photo (since they're moving at about the same speed)? I suppose as long as the players haven't moved into the space where the ball used to be you could still trivially use that space to replace the ball in an earlier image.
FYI, I co-founded Mozilla, helped spin it out of AOL, picked the founding team that did Firefox and Thunderbird, led them as chief architect and then long-term CTO, and finally led all of Engineering as Senior Vice President.

That you wrote "an engineer or simple employee" shows some lack of familiarity with the history. Also, at what point prior to my taking CEO was I "ok" as a boss and leader?

As for "repudiate his hate speech", I never uttered hate speech. A donation in favor of Prop 8 is not on its face "hate speech" by any legal or sane definition of the phrase. Nice try, though.

As for "take your rights away", that's also a disputed matter of definition, not some ground truth to assume because you heard it somewhere. California had Domestic Partner law to grant certain positive rights already granted to Conjugal Marriage. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Califo....

That wasn't enough, but many people including me, for religious and other reasons, do not agree on redefining marriage as the best solution to any remaining inequities.

To turn this history into "an engineer or simple employee" and "hate speech" and me as CEO out to "take your rights" is grotesquely misleading.
surrender, nigger. I have God. I win.
Correct link: http://news.layervault.com/
But users choose their own OS/themes, or at a minimum they get used to one particular one that was chosen for them.

I think computer people really underestimate how much the average user values consistency and predictability, and how much they hate change. There's no other tool we ask humans to use that looks and acts completely differently every 2-5 years.

Edit: Actually, on thinking about this, computer people also value consistency: How would you like it if all your vim keybindings were changed? They just don't extend that courtesy to their users.
And so your solution is killing people? Seriously?
That's true, but it would almost definitely be a lot cheaper than paying more laywers.

Non-legal remedies are almost ALWAYS what people want.
It is mongo webscale
I just think its offensive to those who want equal rights not separate rights. No one is redefining marriage. There was never a definition coded into law to begin with and for good reason.
That fits with our plans. Thanks again for the feedback!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those parasites only to survive on live hair, because of the heat provided by the head the shelter provided by the hair?
Another anecdote: A colleague of mine visited an aluminum casting plant, and saw bags of potatoes sitting around. She asked what the potatoes were for. The answer: They used to throw some sort of large pill into the aluminum, to get rid of the bubbles, so the casting would be more solid. Then they heard that a potato worked just as well.
I think more specifically, and not disagree, it's more those categories of (development) tools require a network connection to begin interfacing with them. With that said, if all that is required is a network connection then the browser would seem certainly the best platform. It is the most prolific means of interfacing with them (network connections).

Now that web apps are "grown up," and properly competing, we're seeing where they're better than desktop and also insufficient. I think it's safe to say, when the only requirement is a network connection, then the browser is the obvious choice! :)

... well I guess an argument could be made the telephone is a more available network connection-- but I don't want to dial in my database commands ;-)
If you want a real trip check out leJOS - a JVM for the Hitachi H8 based Lego RCX (and now the much less esoteric ARM-based NXT bricks).
How is turning boreal peat forests into palm oil plantations equal to capital extraction? Isn't it the exact opposite in that land of less value has been turned into land of more value? I think I'm missing something here.
After 14 years Shenmue III is confirmed