skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Wow. This is such a fantastic comment; I am very impressed.

I think my experience with Perl ended at Perl 5 so my comment is a bit dated but the sentiment stayed with me, which I admit is unfair.

I also forgot to give Perl credit for another thing: introduction to regex.

Perl was a great language for me to learn and I should revisit my sentiments about it.
You only think that I'm making things personal because you think those questions, "what is philosophy?", "what is science?" are basic questions that it would be an embarrassment not to know the answers to.
> HN has become host to feminist shilling

Perhaps people became more aware of the causes of feminism? Whenever a belief of mine is very convenient for me I always try to tear it down just in case there is some hidden bias or other logical fallacy.
Nodemailer supports Apple Watch specific e-mail content
We can't it stand test of time? Wikipedia seems to do well.
Twitter Account Switcher for Chrome
"Finally, ad hominem arguments are fallacious on their face, and tiresome."

And where do you see one in my comment?

You're just flailing. You spend too much time on the intertubes and think what you're doing is discussing. Later. Well, never actually.
The issue is there is "failed" and then there is "failed". Yes, many times you have to repeat an experiment because of bad reagents, broken machines, little tweaks are needed to some obscure parameter, or someone left the lab door open...

However, if you experiment is well controlled, then the controls will reveal this sort of "failure". When I was still running gels, many times when first running a new setup we'd run only controls. If your experiment fails because your controls failed, then that's just science.

But I've also seen the other kind of "failure". The kind where the controls came out perfectly, but the effect or the association or the expression profile that the researcher was hoping for didn't show up. When these sorts of failures are ignored or discarded, then we do science a huge disservice.

I am encouraged, though, that there recently seems to be a movement toward, if not outright publishing such negative results, then at least archiving them and sharing them with others in the field. After all, without Michelson and Morley's "failure" we might not have special relativity.
From what I could tell, this is only the Web front-end client, not the backend server stack. Therefore, it is not possible to run a full Tutanota server using the open-sourced code. I would love to be wrong about this, but I don't think I am.
Huh, weird. It's almost as if scientists and researchers had to consider how to best communicate with people.
org-mode without the huge collection of emacs lisp code to generate agendas, export to HTML, LaTeX, etc., navigate rapidly, search, etc. isn't really of much use.
It's a .io domain, not a .com, so it's more hip
If a program crashes when idle I don't want corrupt data. If I leave a program open in the background and I lose power or my video card driver takes down the system I don't want corrupt data.

I can somewhat excuse losing data if things go wrong during a save. At any other time it should be robust enough that my data is safe.

This is not just about unplugging drives, this is a general sanity measure.
The actual paper by Nick Brown, Alan Sokal, and Harris Friedman (longer, but pretty easy reading): http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7006

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_positivity_ratio
Does Electron run on mobile platforms?
This seems like a backwards approach - if you want to write Python for Electron you should probably wrap Pepper API in Python, AFAIK Electron supports Pepper plugins because it supports Flash.

So compile Python as a Chrome plugin and use Pepper to communicate with DOM.
How much Japanese did you know going in? I took a couple years in it back in undergrad, but it's all rusted away from a lack of practice.
I'm not anti-gay, as those Mozille people I worked with who had my back (and I had theirs as manager and leader) know.

Your insistence that being against redefining marriage makes me "anti-gay" would make a lot of self-described gay people "anti-gay". I've heard this, of course: they're "self-hating" -- a disgusting, lazy, cheap shot -- also used against folks like Phil Weiss who are Jewish and critical of Israel. You are making an ad-hominem argument.

Anathematizing may work inside your circle, but for people not fully on-side already, it blatantly dodges the unavoidable arguments about essential differences.

Usually people do it to feel good and display status to peers. If you're serious about wanting to argue (no need; we both have other things to do, I'm sure), then drop the "sad little" non-argument comments labeling me with a slur-term for which you have no evidence other than a circular argument: that I'm against redefining marriage because I'm anti-gay, and I'm anti-gay because I'm against redefining marriage.
Even more than that: some real-world infrastructure does depend on time being synced to the rotation of the Earth. I work in astronomy, and taking leap seconds into account is extremely important for precisely pointing telescopes.
I've done this before. When I did it it was a conscious design decision to use price framing[1], so the site has a very expensive product, two mid-priced products, and a free product. It's nice when the very expensive product sells, but it's mostly there to make the two non-free products look like reasonable purchases.

I haven't A/B tested it, that's something I should do.

[1]https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-decision-lab/201109...
Has there been any serious quantitative research into the additive or multiplicative effect of tools on effective intellectual horsepower to solve hard problems?

For instance, if I put two groups of mathematicians in two different rooms and lock them up for three years, but one group has access to the internet and the other doesn't, how much more progress will they make on the same open problem?

What if I give both groups internet access but only one group gets to use modern search engines?

What about finer gradations of the same idea? Is a research team confined to using only Google to search smarter or dumber than a team that must only use Bing.

I'm wondering about how much IQ actually matters compared to tools. After reading Sapiens (which I highly suggest), I don't think the principle machinery for solving problems exists in our heads and hasn't probably since the middle ages, if not before.
Though, not all neuroscientists are on the same page nor agree with the claims some people want to make…

"The frequency of action potentials (APs) generated by neurons is correlated with different events; however, it does not mean that such events are ‘encoded’ in the brain using the firing rate or any other ‘temporal code ’ (e.g. interspike interval)…

…Simultaneous firing of action potentials (synchrony) in a neuronal ensemble increases the interaction of many- body systems and implicitly boosts the computational
power [7]. The well accepted model of ‘activation function’ that describes artificial
neurons simulated on Turing Machines does not approximate the process of ‘solving
equations’. Therefore, the popular claim that current artificial neurons and neural networks are ‘realistic’ models of their biological counterparts is misconstrued and untrue."[0]

[0] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.1983.pdf
(1) A computer is anything that does computations, and a computation is just a set of states that are partially ordered with respect to a “next” state relation.

(2) A universal computer is a computer that can simulate any other computer with some bounded slowdown in performance (the actual important thing about such computers is that they can simulate better computers).

So, while the brain seems to have a universal computer (since it can design and run universal computers), it’s not obvious that a universal computer can simulate a brain without infinite slowdown. Some evidence against brains being equivalent to Universal Turing Machines is that some brains can perceive real numbers. Thus, it’s conceivable that even if the mind (the thing that is realized by a brain) is a partially ordered set of states, it’s possible that the states themselves are not computable.

Now, I am not claiming that we cannot eventually build a brain, just suggesting that maybe the only thing that can simulate a brain is another brain.
Academic peer review has nothing to do with quality control and everything to do with maintaining the status quo. Don't take my word for it, read Retraction Watch: http://retractionwatch.com/
If you help us finding a fitting name with a free .com domain I will hug you in person!!
But then you risk thinking you understand the system, but you actually don't. How can you be sure the equipment failure didn't make you see something that wasn't there?
Domestic partnerships were, per wikipedia (cited above), equivalent to conjugal marriage at state law level, which was the only level at issue. DOMA prevailed at federal level; I'm on record as against it, and it finally got overturned on good grounds.

HN is hacker news, this site. Anyway, glad to have a real name. Also thanks for acknowledging that I didn't demonize.
Not so sure. Once I get to the stage where I have to stick printfs in the problem tends to be so localized and specific that once fixed I will never need to look at that area of code in that way again.
Out of date : "As for practice, I believe practice allows one to live to their cognitive potential – but not exceed it. With a lot of practice, a person with an IQ of 130 can become a decent physicist, but not someone with an IQ of 90."

It makes the common assumption which was used in the 19th and early 20th century that "IQ" was a fixed quantity. Versus Flynn's observation [1] that in every country they surveyed people's IQ increased over time.

More modern thinkers recognize cognitive impairment as a function of disease or damage, but cognitive ability is not a fixed scale.

[1] http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn1998a.pd...
Dmoz – The Open Directory Project
Deviousness? You're saying you're too clever to fall for their diabolical plan to give you the information you're looking for?
I think the real focus of a side project should not be the idea, but rather the learning experience that comes with that idea. That being said, a dynamic job board that pulls from many websites could be a fantastic way of improving one's familiarity with web crawlers and such.
Calling me anti-gay based on a circular argument is an ad-hominem. It makes me the issue. I think that's clear.

BTW it's not cool to downvote your counterparty here. Let others do that.
Trying not to feed the trolls, but:

Segregation and discrimination are far away from any of the teachings of Jesus. He partied and hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, and other social outcasts of the day. He was killed alongside thieves, and spoke to them without disparaging. He, as a Jew, travelled to the Samaritan towns (a people-group treated apartheid style by Israel back-then), stayed with them and treated them as equals. He spoke kindly to a woman caught in adultery that the community wanted to stone to death, and through his response to her, saved her life. He treated all sin (falling short of the intended perfect standard) as proving us all equally fallen.

His teaching boiled down to: All people are broken, and failed. No-one is better than anyone else, and any 'self-righteousness' you may think you have because of your religion, or background, race, whatever, is of no value in the end at all. But God still loves us, come back to him!

The Pharisees (essentially the fundamentalist evangelicals of the time) and other religious leaders slammed him for this, and it was because their power over the people being challenged by him that they ended up conspiring to murder him.

Please don't take the rude, abusive, hurtful, bigotted and unwelcoming attitudes of certain people who call themselves 'Christians' to actually be values originating in the teachings of Christ.
At GitLab you are very welcome. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
> Bringing the 1st stage nearly to a stop at some point mid-air should be way easier than landing it on the ground.

One thing to note about Falcon 9 is that it's impossible for it to hover since its thrust-to-weight ratio is greater than 1 at the time of recovery, even at minimum throttle. So you have to do a suicide burn such that you zero out velocity at your target.

Someone already pointed out the problem with helicopters capacity compared to the Falcon 9 weight. The idea is not without merit, However. ULA is considering a similar approach for the Vulcan. The big difference is that they plan to eject the engine core and catch only the engines with a helicopter. See http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/13/ula-unveils-its-future-...

The downside of this plan is increased complexity. Falcon 9's approach requires fins, some landing struTs and software. ULAs approach requires a system to eject the core, a shield for the cores re-entry, a parachute, a helicopter, and impeccable timing. I'm guessing that catching a parachute with a helicopter is an incredibly difficult problem just by itself.

I would suggest that you watch the Vulcan development to see how your thoughts play out.

Regarding the pool, I would assume that the issue would be finding an inert liquid, putting it in the middle of the ocean stably and enough quantities for a landing, and then getting the rocket into the liquid without damaging it. You'd likely still have all the same problems as just landing the rocket -- you have to zero horizontal elicits or the thing tips over and impacts the liquid too hard, and you have to zero verticle velocity or your impact is too hard. Ultimately you might as well just land the damn thing, which is also more versatile.
As the cultural and social power and significance of the institution of marriage starts to wear off, more people will start abusing it for the benefits. A lot already are -- my friend was telling of a guy who divorced his wife in the papers purely to get tax benefits, even though they're still together as man and wife.

Also conversely, another mate of mine was suggesting in complete seriousness to another friend of his that they should get married to get nice affordable housing benefits; both male (I mention they're both male because I think if the friends were male-female, social stigma would be stronger, but because they are old buddies from high school, this subject was discussed in a "hacking the system" mindset. It is very interesting to see that the institution of marriage is seeing its power drop, I think years ago people would absolutely gasp at someone doing this, now it's like "woah, cool trick, I'm gonna marry my friend and get in on this too!")
I've been lucky enough to work in outstanding labs, with people published in Nature, and other journals of that quality. I've worked in 2 countries, and for 4 different labs. I've also talked with people from all over the world, who have worked everywhere, from Harvard to the Pasteur Institute to Cambridge University. The stories are all the same. I hoped I would find some place where people were trying to do things the right way, but what I found is that currently, you don't need to to be published in top journals, so why bother?

It's really refreshing to hear you talk about trying to troubleshoot why an experiment didn't work the way you expected, I hear mostly of people retrying blindly until it "succeeds". What did you do with what you learned with the water causing the failure? Did you publish this, so that someone (or you!) could try to figure out why water was a problem, or at least so that no one would have the same issue? This is the other point: when people do bother about finding about why things fail, I've never seen any of them try to follow up on that, and figure out not only what made it fail, but why it made it fail. "Yeah, the annealing temp was not the right one". Ok, but why?

Of course playing with systems we don't understand is the point, but we have to be very careful about them. We should be varying 1 parameter at a time. This is mostly impossible in biology, but right now we're not even trying to do anything about it.
People can't downvote replies to their posts.

There's a minimum karma threshold for downvoting - about 500 or 750. A green account is unlikely to have that much karma.
I'm just imagining the subtle bugs that can happen if the developer can't assume a minute is 60 seconds and that each minute is the same length.

This seems like a feature for no one, as the people who really care about leap seconds are probably doing their own timekeeping already since computer clocks aren't exactly accurate to being with.
It's kind of funny because "catch it with a helicopter" is ULA's plan, with the caveat that they're only catching the engines and not the whole rocket.
The only superpower you need
Show HN: Zephyr Platform – collaboration for teams and freelancers
It's possible to pay attention to more than one thing at a time. Just because drought in California is much more serious problem than Vibrio vulnificus in the Baltic Sea doesn't mean we should disregard bacterias altogether. Gay rights are not a distraction from Something More Important, it's just one of many issues that have to be taken care of in parallel.
Yes same docker image, but with different environment variables passed in for dev / staging / prod.
The only problem here is your behavior. You only embarrass yourself, not Osine and Anesi.
Why would I use this over the native one? Just curious...
Outside the mainframes, the survivors are IBM i (System/38 descendant), HP NonStop, Boeing SNS Server, BAE's STOP OS on XTS-400/500, and maybe Aesec's GEMSOS. That's not many... And B5000 blew my mind as well: so far ahead of its time then, even now somewhat, that I can't see how they came up with it given designs of the time. Must have had a time machine that gave them brief glimpses into the future of computer science or at least one real wizard on the team. Occam's Razor is clearly no fun here. ;) The System/38 architecture was also brilliantly designed in that it chose right tradeoffs to have much robustness plus being very practical. Both described here [1] in detail with others.

There are new projects copying some of the lessons learned such as Sandia Secure Processor (SSP/Score), SAFE (crash-safe.org), CHERI (Cambridge), and quite a number of academic/proprietary works. I suggested on Schneier's blog we could do what Geer thought was impossible by straight up copying the old NonStop architecture (published in detail) while swapping legacy CPU's for security-enhanced variants like above w/ extra I/O security. Five 9's, linear scaling, immunity to most attacks, and support for higher-level languages. I'll take 10! In theory, it might get down to a few grand a unit for each logical processor with careful management of development costs & sacrificing multicore for first generation. Be a nice root of trust for other systems security, administration, and recovery needs.

[1] http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~levy/capabook/index.html

[2] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/dan_geer_on_h...
Awesome markdown writing tools
The female employee wasn't a CO and wasn't guarding anyone. She was a seamstress, working in the tailor shop in the prison where the escapees worked.

This is a situation of bad management and people asleep at the switch running the place -- at best. At worst, the entire staff from top to bottom is completely corrupt. Every detail revealed thus far has been things that have multiple layers of controls that were supposed to prevent such an event.

There's no way that people are cooking burgers on hotplates in cells (with convict electricians wiring cells to enable said cooking) without people knowing about it. It's pretty easy to find hotplates that don't belong. Outside food was contraband, and the guards were almost certainly doing a brisk business in smuggling.
Decko – 60 LED Circuit Board Watch
But wet lab scientists should be even more careful! They have way less control over the system they're trying to study than you do, so stats are the only security net we have to even attempt to do anything with the data we produce.

I also agree on the innocent until proven guilty part, but by now I've seen and talked to hundreds of people with the best intentions, who do not realise how important careful examination of the data is, so I'm growing a bit disillusioned.
Maybe Brython would have been a better alternative than setting up a whole server...

http://www.brython.info/
Chrome Embedded Framework Bindings for Python
I was thinking the same question and the reply would probably be "performance". I don't think untyped Racket can currently compete with SBCL and I'm not sure they'd be interested in Typed Racket. But I'd love to be proven wrong on both of those things ;)
Just wanted to mention that price is not the only reason why our customers prefer GitLab. The ability to run multiple servers to support many users is one of them, others are outlined on https://about.gitlab.com/better-than-github/
Sadly these scientists of DARKNESS do not communicate at all with people (and stay stupid).
http://ow.ly/MrQgy#hossenfelder
Btw, look at the Flex article and its links. It was some wild stuff. I'd love to see efforts to do a modern take on it with top security engineering principles used. All fitting in on SOC and cheap board, for instance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flex_machine
I am highly suspicious of a claim that some experiment from a few years ago can still only be replicated by a tiny number of the top experts.

I don't think you can find any claim on the order of "only a few top experts can do this..." in the article, the objections claimed to be against specific contract shops. As I understand things, biology experiments are still a matter of craft, of doing things by hand. Like any such thing (say, wood working or computer programming) there are going to be levels of skill involved with the lowest level of qualified people often being rather bad (for example lowest level contract programming shop). An analogy that springs to mind is whether one would want one's video game ported by the cheapest porting operation the business.

Of course, all this is me talking about what I can glean from the article compared to what others imagine the article says - until and unless someone with specific knowledge of the complaints and their validity or lack-there-of appears.
> Node utilizes as much of what's already available from the operating system's kernel as possible.

And yet we've seen a proliferation of fibre/coroutine/green thread libraries for Node which all reinvent the concept of threading poorly.
Well, that stdio thing is actually what I love about Hacker Rank :)
I don't think the boilerplate code is a problem, if you use a reasonable language. Racket is a pleasure to use over there, Clojure slightly less so but wouldn't call it irritating...

But yeah, I've seen some Java solutions on HR...
PyOtherSide exists and is maintained

https://github.com/thp/pyotherside
I still think that this complexity must stay where it matters and it must be removed from majority of software. There's a lot of broken code working (or not working) with timezones. Leap seconds are much more subtle thing that most of developers probably didn't even hear. Date/time infrastructure is complex enough and any simplifications will help.
The only thing that annoys me with this (and many other popular posts in our field recently) is that the author talks about "magic". I believe this started with the advent of Rails where some things seemed "magical" at first due to Ruby's meta-programming features. Many writers and speakers have adopted it since.

However, there is nothing occult about software development and we shouldn't use "magic" as an excuse for not understanding or describing things thoroughly. Just imagine your doctor explaining you a surgery in these terms.

Otherwise, a very good and refreshing read.
Python Resume
The software development industry is not young...