skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sheesh, that's harsh

This is shop talk, a term of art. He's talking about making your app pleasant to use and easy to understand quickly, not literally.. puff

This reminds me of the time everyone was up in arms about some article where US intelligence cryptographers were calling people "adversaries." You gotta take these things in context.

Of course, making useful things matters if your goal is to have people use your things. No sane person will argue with that. there are also people who blog about that. Also good.

This article is about when/how people drop off, given some level of inherent usefulness. How they decide whether your app is useful. It's saying most apps loose most users immediately, most of the rest shortly after then it stabilizes after a week or so. So, you need to convince users that this app is useful fast.

Obviously, in a lot of cases users download an app, see that its not useful and get on their way. Everything is a function of usefulness. No amount of attention to user on-boarding will make an app that gives you constipation popular. An app that makes gold drizzle out of the headphone jack will show you exactly how sophisticated all these supposedly tech-illiterate "late adopters" can be when properly motivated.

If your app falls in the range of apps that people might get some benefit from but don't drizzle gold, you are probably losing some potential users needlessly and to the benefit of no one.

The most obvious take away is "focus on what happens when users first open your app and make it nice." Give people a reason to come back" Why be angry about that? You'd think he was talking about a coffee shop where employees say see tomorrow, Jim. Those creepy neurolingocerobronic manipulators. I'll see you if I see you, OK! I know what you're up to and it won't work on ME! I'm on to you!!!!
Palantir is reportedly raising $500M at a $20B valuation
How to Use Mobile to Send Your Content into the Stratosphere
And that is why people in the market get paid lots of money, no one wants to do it, yet it's essential to the functioning of society.

Most people call this being an adult, instead of 'following your dreams'.
There is no actual evidence, that is the problem.
What is your VM workflow?
VMs seem to be an elegant solution to a very stick problem. Getting every developer's environment set up exactly the same can be a hassle, especially if you are working with Junior Devs. I'm curious about your VM workflow, specifically which tools you use(i.e VMWare vs Virtualbox or Vagrant) and how you incorporate them into your workflow.
Ok, very valid point. But if everyone is doing it to everyone else and everyone knows it, then what does 'getting caught' actually do? Why bother feigning outrage at it?
Again we see another Dijkstra soldier pushing the corrosive "software programming is complex" ideology. Notice how they are the same group as Martin Fowler followers.

> "They keep people from re-inventing nearly identical solutions over and over"

No, they force users to rewrite the patterns over and over again, since a pattern is an idea that a given language is not powerful enough to abstract over. Cf. opinions on the C2 wiki.

Maybe that's why you think what we do is "too complex to fully describe" - you haven't used a language that allows you to abstract at will.
So how is that not a logical extension? They don't have to be identical to be logical extensions.
Benchmarking with Juju
>Source?

From http://www.iop.harvard.edu/does-divestment-work

>"The conventional wisdom is that divestment from South Africa was a success; public pressure lowered targeted companies’ stock prices and forced them to comply with the divestment activists’ demands. However, the true impact of divestment from South Africa is unclear. In a 1999 study, Ivo Welch and C. Paul Wazzan examined the impact of divestment from banks and corporations active in South Africa and found that these campaigns had almost no impact on public market valuations:"

And from the 1999 study they referenced:

>"Despite the prominence and publicity of the boycott and the multitude of divesting companies, the financial markets’ valuations of targeted companies or even the South African financial markets themselves were not easily visibly affected. The sanctions may have been effective in raising the public moral standards or public awareness of South African repression, but it appears that financial markets managed to avoid the brunt of the sanctions."
It's not my field, but I'd be very surprised if models were not also calibrated by extrapolating earlier known years and comparing to later known years.

You can really only judge models on days that was not yet available when they were created.
Reading (audio book) Nate Silver's book on prediction, he looks at the predictions made by James Hansen in 1988 and IPCC a few years later.

He says the predictions were generally pretty good, maybe IPCC was a bit on the high side compared to what happened.
You just gotta find the best tools online and I happened to come across it. check out www.pharaohtools.com that website has been so helpful with just about anything PHP related, really.
Text editors become mail clients. Game editors need chat clients. I see a pattern. Things want to talk to other things.
Lots of little gold nuggets in here:

- technology hasn’t made it any easier to concentrate, and actually write.

- If a computer is a “bicycle for the mind,” then a computer connected to the internet is a bumper car for the mind.

- The most important thing that gets produced in most first drafts isn’t so much the writing itself, but the connections you build in your brain.

Great piece of writing. Obviously a result of his AlphaSmart 3000 ;) If you're going to build a great company, you need great writing. Not just to communicate to customers, investors, and your troops. You need it to grow your thinking (aka connections you build in your brain).

Education seems to foster terrible writing, because the focus is on words ("give me 500 words on..."). Good writing is focussed on developing good thinking.
I read the whole letter and loved the tone of it! It jumps at you right away that: (1) Here's a guy who really cares about his business, its future, his employees. (2) He talks candidly about the reasons for closing up: his declining health, sales volumes, even including awkward sentences like "So chalk is more environmentally friendly, I think." I am now a fan of Hagoromo.

It was rather refreshing at a time when I can't stand reading more than a paragraph of a typical press release of a BigCo written by lawyers or PR specialists. Unlike this essay, those are intended to obfuscate, not to inform.
What about agricultural water output?? Inverse of the deforestation curve already shown is also potentially convincing.

If you want to go spurious, you could also run a correlation between wind power generation.
How to build your own public key infrastructure
Sorry I deleted my comment out from under your feet. He was responding to my exclamation about the large spike upward in CO2 levels on that first graph on the EPA site. After posting it, I deleted it because I answered my own question.
FWIW, my parents were rabid climate deniers, after they got cable and foolishly started watching Fox, porn for the ancient (but I digress..). Then Super Storm Sandy. Now when it is being discussed they sit silently.

Personally, it doesn't seem to me that one storm is all that persuasive, from a statistical standpoint. But we are not talking about reason here.
> By all accounts, it doesn't work worth a crud in its current form.

You insist that F-1 OPT "doesn't work", but you the fail to give the slightest explanation as to why.

OPT allows students to work a certain amount of time after they graduate, and most students cherish being allowed to do so. After OPT expires, they have to go through the H1B lottery. You can start a startup (i.e. be self-employed) on OPT, so it's actually less restrictive than the H1B.

I'm not saying that any of the work visas / work authorizations in the U.S. are perfect and without flaw. Far from it. Ideally, it would be good if students were allowed to transition to permanent residency after their graduation. But OPT helps a lot of international students, and it isn't fair of you criticize it without explanation. It is arrogant and asshole-like of you to do so.

> My friends on H1B's couldn't switch jobs freely.

Ask them why.

Nothing prevents a person on H1B holder from moving to another employer that sponsors H1Bs. Practically every company in tech is willing to do a transfer, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to switch. A transfer costs a company at most $4000 in total (application fees, attorney fees) which is not much if you're paying the individual $100k+/year.
Is that list of events exhaustive?
Actually, a better Q: are there any Docker events SPM doesn't capture?
Science shouldn't care about "convincing people that we urgently need to address the current climate problem" when it comes to testing their models. Scientists should test their predictions against all available usable data with impunity. Of course you don't want to write about that in your fancy Nature paper, you put that in a climate modelling conference paper or something.
Their game was called 'Game neverending', never launched, how apropos.
The common lifecycle of a view controller
Unfortunately, I've been the dogmatic person in a lot of cases. Often the feel good viewpoint is just clueless and going to lead the company into real problems.

I was recently at a company that was working on a custom AOSP build. Their engineers had no clue what the repo tool used to download AOSP source was and every day started arguments about how they wanted to replace it with git submodules and things like that. Generally so they could do something the repo tool already did, but they just didn't know how to do using it, such as documenting the sha1 commit hashes used for a particular build.

If they had tons of engineers, fine, start rewriting core tooling, but it just made no sense at all for a small startup with strong time pressures for shipping and few engineers. Every other company from Google to drivers to system on a chip companies is using repo so making their own incompatible submodule based method would have 1) taken them a long time to reconfigure ~60GB of source code into a different format 2) made it really tough to bring in later changes from the old format 3) made it really tough to do things like integrate drivers and other code which typically ship with a README for how to integrate into AOSP repo manifests.

Most of the people pushing the submodule rewrite had never even managed to build AOSP using repo in the first place, so their estimates and explanations usually made no sense. Yeah, it would have been the feel good solution to let them stupidly make their attempt and fail or waste a month of time, but that's going to hurt the company too, isn't it?
The thing about this is that as long as there is a private prison industry, or really any privatization of fundamental government functions, that makes profits, there will be investors that will replace anyone who makes some moral investment decisions.

I laud their efforts and there really should be more of these ethical decisions in investment by public organizations, but reality is those choices are simply a symptom of moral people compensating for the moral depravity of our own government.
Why Should I Learn to Code?
The difference is the provenance of the binary-blob supplier.

Would you be more likely to run a checksummed binary blob from your trusted Debian mirror, or one I send you via email?
Traitor on indiegogo
Shaping Tomorrow's Breakthrough Materials
No surprise there, Rich's code is pretty solid. I really like this sort of co-operation between languages.

Out of curiosity: QuickCheck is a property based test library? I know of test.check in Clojure and they mention QuickCheck as the inspiration, so I guess they re similar in this regard.
It's a teaser. Seeing what happens after he steps on the board is what they're explicitly trying to generate interest around.
With the greatest respect, there are no opposing arguments with which to engage at this point. The issue is political, and not scientific.
I have one and like it. Nice to have assorted information right there without having to dig out or find the increasingly larger phone. Great to have it monitoring physical activity, giving a psychological push to do a little more every day and think about what I'm doing - "fitbit" but better.

A nice watch can easily cost the same as an Apple Watch, which will tell time more accurately AND have lots of other nifty & useful functionality. Watch is what "smart watches" have tried to be for decades, but this time got it right. A few small design improvements, and like the iPhone a large fraction of the population at large will have one.
The problem is that these experts tend to follow the money. They get grants to show warming, so they cook the data to show warming. This would be much more difficult in a hard science, but "climate science" is not chemistry or physics.
"A year ago, it moved to a continuous system which has it rolling out new code to its servers 50 times a year."

Surely they mean 50 times a week, or a day? Deploying once a week isn't noteworthy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann's_agreement_theorem

I think after sufficient debate, reasons behind one of the party's disagreement can be boiled down to things like:

- stubbornness

- conflict of interest

- lack of comprhension

The problem is if the party, that is logically correct, is in the minority, or if the other party has significant social strength, then a lot of social psychology (bandwagon, group think, validation, etc) also plays a role.
"Ride it over a half pipe" is misleading as it makes people think of skateboards. The thing weighs a ton. "Slide" would be a more accurate description. Good luck trying to jump with this battle truck of a "board".
I very strongly disagree with not customizing your resume/cover letter. As a programmer it is not very difficult to have a template that you can slightly alter and, if required, throw a script together to insert pertinent details. As for applying for job that you are a poor fit for I disagree - you would also need to highlight different parts of what you have done if you are a bit more of a generalist.
When I was a kid I used to get sick all the time. Out of school probably two months a year and just never really felt well ever. We identified the source as pretty much corn products via an elimination diet.

The amazing thing is just how much corn is in the American diet. It's everywhere. Crammed into every inch of pre-processed food. Pretty much set us up for having to go back to making food from scratch and eating a lot of whole foods which has been my diet ever since. No soda, no corn chips, no cereal, except home-made granola, very few processed "box" foods. Instead I'm sentenced to a life of eating whole vegetables, fruits, meat and cheese... the horror! (j/k)

Eliminating corn from my diet while I was still young, I feel really set me up to continue eating healthy throughout my life and opened my family's eyes to the sheer amount of corn in everything in America.
It's certainly true that I've read more of Chomsky himself than the immense literature he spawned; and most of my reading of the generativist literature is at its messy edges where those explanations tend to be pretty unconvincing. Focus your reading on dubious generative accounts of morphologically-rich languages and it's easy to become disillusioned with the paradigm. "Principles and parameters" is where he lost me, but Chomsky himself has retreated from so many positions over the decades, when theory meets evidence, that it's hard to tell in a coherent way what his theoretical framework actually is anymore.

I'm not really "replacing 50 years of work" so much as speaking from a different paradigm. Linguistics is a discipline of multiple competing paradigms, and suffers the resulting problem of people talking past each other because they do not share the same premises or assumptions about the field of study. It's not my fault that Chomsky led a generation of linguists down so many blind alleys for decades. But I don't know how many people would defend something like "The Sound Pattern of English" over say, optimality theory.

I don't even agree that there are many linguistic "universals". Most so-called "universals" are rather implicational tendencies, which do not require appeals to native grammatical knowledge to explain. You don't need a "head branching parameter" to explain many head directionality tendencies, just the general human tendency to pay more attention to elements at the edges of statements and the process of diachronic systematization. True linguistic universals are very few, and frequently seem to me to be more general cognitive universals in linguistic disguise. https://www.princeton.edu/~adele/LIN_106:_UCB_files/Evans-Le...

Generative grammar itself does not attempt to explain the psychological reality of how living humans parse and process novel sentences, but rather to describe an abstract system of knowledge of a WEIRD and mono-lectual standard language known by ideal speaker-hearers (who lack such prosaic things as "memory limitations"). Idealizing language is one thing, but this idealization seems quite different from language as the semiotic practices, social conventions, and shared cognitive tools used for communication by multi-lectual human animals as a core element of their social behavior.
And facebook users are it's foot-soldiers. As long as people converge on Facebook and while Zuckerberg moves ever closer to his goal of replacing the internet with Facebook, the assault will not cease until the society has been subjugated and the internet domesticated.
And Google maintain a Pepper port of Flash.
"The real trick is to see how well your model extrapolates from the data you have out into the future."

That is the most common way to show the modeller is not shamelessly overfitting.:-| Another way, though, is less common but not vanishingly uncommon: the model may be so much simpler than the data it fits that overfitting is not a plausible explanation. (Roughly there are too many bits of entropy in the match to the data to have been packed into the model no matter how careless or dishonest you might have been about overfitting.) E.g., quantum mechanics is fundamentally pretty simple --- I can't quantify it exactly, but I think 5 pages of LaTeX output, in a sort of telegraphic elevator pitch cheat sheet style, would suffice to explain it to 1903 Einstein or Planck well enough that they could quickly figure out how to do calculations. Indeed, one page might suffice. And there are only a few adjustable parameters (particle/nucleus masses, Planck's constant, and less than a dozen others). And it matches sizable tables of spectroscopic data to more than six significant figures. (Though admittedly I dunno whether the non-hydrogen calculations would have been practical in 1903.) For the usual information-theoretical reasons, overfitting is not a real possibility: even if you don't check QM with spectroscopic measurements on previously unstudied substances, you can be pretty sure that QM is a good model. (Of course you still have to worry about it potentially breaking down in areas you haven't investigated yet, but at least it impressively captures regularities in the area you have investigated.)
> "What can change a nature of a man?"

Wasn't that Regret?

I really hope we can act before it comes to that.
>> Yet it will be interesting to see what happens to people's choices when after years of moving to easy to understand foods their health doesn't improve.

So you don't believe any of it. It will be interesting to see what people attribute the increase in people's health to then. Just keep in mind that modern commercial medicine knows nothing about prevention - only treatments that are generally not cures. So if we see a drop in disease in 10 years, what will you attribute it to?
The main thing that bugs me is that it seems extremely dishonest to converse in this way, where you bring up vague references to articles to support your position, when the real reason you believe in it is because of your religion.

You say you can still experiment and prove divine wisdom. Can you experiment and disprove divine wisdom? In your eyes, is it possible even in theory that it could somehow be proven that human activity is in fact affecting the climate? Because if you've already decided on the outcome and are just casting around for support, what you're doing is not experiment, it's just an exercise in cognitive bias.
I'm intrigued as to how you arrive to this conclusion.

Faith explains the "why", science explains the "how". And there certainly is support in Scripture to take good care of the Earth, following a more generic pattern of being good stewards of what God has entrusted us with.

This is why Laudato Si is nudging the faithful into action.
Lots of people have respiratory reactions to dry erase markers too.
Exactly. When modeling most data, you would hold back a validation set, but that doesn't really work as well in this situation. The only thing holding back the validation set is time.
I see comments like this, and wonder why that's strange. Is there a comprehensive list of reasons Django (or Rails, or whatever) won't scale well?

What do these companies switch to? Or is it more that things just become a mixed basket of specialized tech for each task in the stack?
I paid for it. Because I want to support the developer. Same as I do with music.
I look forward to the results however I'm not sure they stand as an unbiased controlled experiment and are as factually devoid as the methodology.

Many things are observable but the difference between correlation and causation are somewhat more subtle.

Please note, I'm no denier and think that we should reduce our emissions as they have secondary benefits, fully acknowledge that there is a slight raise in global temperature but to assign a cause is a little premature.

Add to that the incidental political involvement, funding and the 'facts' (of incidentally we have none, nor many viable theories) leads to a logical conclusion that "mu" (neither yes or no) is a better stance to take.
There is little to no evidence that current climate change is a natural event.

as per the article i mentioned

You didn't link to this article, so it's content is not useful, and it's likely it didn't say what you imply.

You can still experiment and prove divine wisdom

No you can't.
>The police, on the other hand, want...

someone to get arrested so it looks like they are doing a good job so the chief gets off their back, the chief wants this because re-election is coming soon and doesn't want to look weak on crime. Neither one of them can go pick up some random black guy for the crime any longer without too much media attention so 'forensic' evidence is what they try to use today.
Likely yes, but please be careful that the remedies do not cause more severe difficulties than the problem itself.
-march=native to the people! BTW, does anyone know whether the jvm compiles java code with processor-specific instructions i.e. beyond the common denominator amd64?
Probably a long list of ExxonMobil shill sites.
Here's a good one:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-...

44 Climate Models all fighting to out-panic one another, not a single one guessing low enough to predict the actual values for 2012 (when it seems the dataset in question ended)

... and a seemingly more reputable one showing roughly the same thing:

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator...
Are the quickcheck tests in the otp repo? Cannot find them, but I guess it makes some sense to leave them out since not all have the full quickcheck installed.
What's your pricing?

or am I missing something?
Maybe because often when we are wrong we don't ruin someone's life in the process, so it's ok. Here is not, I wonder what you would say if you were the one in jail.