skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Scientific Retractions Are on the Rise, and That May Be a Good Thing
Does anyone know of any book or website or other resource that has before and after examples of good refactoring, or something similar?
I think SICP states it best:

"In our study of program design, we have seen that expert programmers control the complexity of their designs with the same general techniques used by designers of all complex systems. They combine primitive elements to form compound objects, they abstract compound objects to form higher-level building blocks, and they preserve modularity by adopting appropriate large-scale views of system structure. In illustrating these techniques, we have used Lisp as a language for describing processes and for constructing computational data objects and processes to model complex phenomena in the real world. However, as we confront increasingly complex problems, we will find that Lisp, or indeed any fixed programming language, is not sufficient for our needs. We must constantly turn to new languages in order to express our ideas more effectively."

At a certain level of software design tying together different programming languages that are each the right tool for their job becomes just another type of programming. I currently do data science work, but even then in a given week I typically use R, Python, Lua and Java (and often Scheme in the evenings for fun). Trying to make any one of those languages do something the other is much better at is a phenomenal waste of time.

On the system level, once prototyping ends, if there's something that Java does phenomenally better than R, but we need both, that implies that you have two parts of the system different enough that they shouldn't be tightly coupled anyway. If you write a deep learning algorithm in Lua, but want to do some statisitical analysis on the results of that in R, it's good to force these things to be separated because if in 5 years you find a better model for the Lua part (maybe some better algorithm in Julia) you want to be able to swap it out anyway.
I don't really agree with this. It's one thing to not have the flag flying at a capitol building and quite another to stop sales of all Dukes Of Hazard toys.
The stock market is up 35% since March. I don't understand what's being reported.
What I think happened is that gay rights activists realized they would get better standing to fight for equal rights if they called it marriage. That was a successful tactic and I'm not quibbling with it. But I know there are people who would have been pacified as long as it wasn't the word marriage because I have talked to some of those people. If those people also are afraid of gay people in their hearts, that's terrible - but it actually doesn't equate to opposition to civil unions that are only a boring legal matter as opposed to the sexy, apocalyptic "attack on marriage."
Curious. What are the differences in features being asked?
Двери из массива сосны
Great talking again, Kevin!

Good question! We're not selling to politicians or political organizations. Our PAC is running candidates that are part of our community. People like you and I; professionals in tech that wouldn't mind making $170k to do literally nothing but proxy votes for their district.

Regarding what candidates need to tell voters, we're really looking to run a very centralized campaign, where people can come to our site to find out which name to vote for. We've found ways of legally hacking the election system so that we get ballot access, and differentiate our candidates in a uniform way. So we still see ourselves as a consumer product.

Is it wrong that we are adamant about remaining B2C? I want to find the best possible path, but I don't see how turning politicians that are so used to political donations for favorable voting will decide to shun their financiers to listen to the people they were voted to represent. It feels like that is a practice in futility.

We both agree on the last point, since we've spoken, we've picked up 11 new candidates in California and 9 abroad. We are trying to saturate the 2016 ballot with candidates.

Half our team are data people (I'm an algo dev myself) so finding the best conditions is something we are sorting out with data right now.
Your sentiment, while admirable, is a libertarian pipe dream. Even the most liberal countries in the world still get involved in marriage. While I am by no means a social conservative, I do agree with conservatives that the family is the foundational institution of civil society (and a lot of anthropological research supports this argument). Governments will be more or less involved with it to some degree, both to foster it economically and encourage it socially. To see the American social contract as having been set up to never have to encounter or acknowledge any spiritual/religious institutions is bad history, we have simply always held that the government cannot be in the practice of encouraging one over the other.

Taking the long view, conservatives (and others) should be rejoicing. This ruling is a broad expansion of the definition of what the government will recognize as a family, a definition that is of consequence to numerous helpful social programs, and an affirmation of what family is in civil society. The ruling will have enormous social benefits for our society.
> For the sake of argument, if you want to marry your sibling, and your sibling consents, are we to judge that? Aren't we holding a double standard if our religious or moral standards are opposed to that?

Most of the US puts a value judgement on incestual relationships and I can't say I agree with them, but I do believe there is an argument to be made against incestual marriage: because of the genetic risks to offsprings and the historical tendency to abuse, it is not in the state's interest to promote or encourage incestual relationships through marriage, the social advantages don't compensate for the issues.

> Or are you saying the government should still deny those marriages?

For the reasons above, yes I would say that. But I'm open to the idea that it's only a rationalisation of separately-held beliefs.
This does not sound related to IRC at all. It sounds related to a specific network and unintended target audience. This in no way would affect a corporation or organization that decided to use IRC. You can determine on your own IRC who is authorized to connect, make channels, etc.
I made a special detour to ride one of these in Kobenhavn in the Axelborg building. If the statistics show them to be safe, I think they should be preserved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T49PsI6maMg

For most human traffic, they are less tedious than elevators: less waiting, no stop and go, a constant sense of motion. I don't think their riders would feel trapped the way I sometimes do in slow, busy elevators.

I think of them like a compacted escalator. I wonder if they actually are more compact.
If we are only concerned with nebulous "resources," we won't change anything. Obviously that should not be our only concern.
There is more than a way to do it. Coffeescript is a nice language, it can be a good choice, depending on the task (for example, atom is written with CoffeeSCript).
And don't forget it "is simple JavaScript", you can mix both.
ES6 on the other hand will be a great improvement. I am sure CoffeScript will evolve the transpiler to target ES6 too.
Shouldn't the company (Atlas) have just left it up to the police? That is, filed a police report and let the cops investigate the poo?
The other ship is the "Of Course I Still Love You", too.
Awesome job! Very impressive for a first project
Indeed. An excellent example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

More so, by expanding the institution of marriage to gays (as it was not long ago expanded to interracial couples) it will ultimately help build public support for redefining marriage.
That is because largely these laws won't be weaponized to stick it to them. There was a youtube video of a guy going around to Muslim bakers trying to get them to bake him a gay wedding cake, which they of course refused. And the US media collectively mouthed a we-do-not-give-a-fuck.

>And aren't they the most powerful political grouping in the country?

If they really were, they would have stopped this ruling presumably.
A while back I worked with team that had just brought on some new developers. Some of the developers were eager and would learn with out human intervention. Others would require and ask for some mentoring.

Neither way of learning is right or wrong and I appreciated both groups but one thing I did remember was one guy that did exactly what you did and it was highly irritating as a project lead to see relatively random files (given whatever sprint we were on) that were considered stable to show up in the source control change list with out some consideration of discussion. I would have to waste time and look what change he made to see if it was ok.
Awesome new video of the second landing attempt. Glad they identified the issue, can't wait to watch the next attempt! Also looking forward to them trying this on land. I live in the Cape Canaveral area, so it'd be pretty cool to be able to track a rocket coming in for a landing.
I thought the article was going to be about the new Ubuntu release.... what a dissapointment!
The catch here is that in competitive swimming, as mentioned in the article, FINA said that you can not go past ~15m underwater from the start or turns. The reason was that it is faster. Since they block that from being too long then they effectively prevent changes to the strokes from taking advantage of that too much. So while it's faster, possibly, it's not really possible to be used.
> "Shall I leave another Queen here?"

I realize it was probably obvious in your case, but I would have been bothered by the ref making a comment or question like that during the game for fear of tipping off my opponent.
> At issue was whether it was officially recognized or not, which has been fixed.

They can now be legally recognized. It is still up to churches whether to religiously recognize them.
I seem to remember reading that Kara Swisher of Recode is going through one...
There is no reason why governments should be involved in it, except that people can't keep their grubby hands off of it.

Doesn't make a lot of sense for us to subsidize people to do something which they are supposedly doing because they want to. The only reason there are all these fancy tax breaks is because politicians get ahead saying they are "for families".

It isn't the government's job to "acknowledge" every religious custom you have at church by also writing it into law or something. The government has its own jobs.
And the skate technique in cross-country skiing (https://www.skiinghistory.org/history/cross-country-skating-...)
I think it's a little nicer...
This sounds really good. If mobile base stations are the right first customers, go try to get some of them to agree to buy your chip (if you deliver it as planned), and then go try to raise a seed round. After you deliver the evaluation units, try to raise a $10-15MM seed round.

I'd focus less on academia and government. They are usually difficult investors and difficult first customers. Non-dilutive funding is nice, but dilution is not so bad in a binary-outcome situation, and venture investors are usually far faster and more helpful.

I think taking over the "small" HPC market first is a very good plan.
Top 20 Finance Apps of the Week
Tell that to the widow who lost custody of their children since their state didn't recognize their marriage and didn't have 2 party adoptions.
I'm still waiting for an actual reason to rename the operation be forced to edit a few thousand statutes and negotiate or renegotiate a bunch of international agreements.
Look, they're not the same thing. Volvo is a Swedish corporation that makes heavy vehicles and their engines, e.g. buses, trucks, construction equipment and ship engines.

Volvo Car Corporation is a subsidiary of Zhejiang Geely Holding Group. They used to be owned by Ford or something.

It's totally their fault that it's confusing, though, I'll give you that, but you're still wrong.
We picked a reservation concierge service first, as it is a vertical that is immediately testable in SF with easy to understand mechanics for consumers. With the increasing mass-media fueled foodie culture, our hypothesis being that people don’t want the trouble of deciding where to eat and making the reservation - they just wanted a curated experience. And that made it a good candidate for our platform.

The other 2 verticals we considered were 1) a marketplace for on-the-ground, region specific collection of data and 2) travel planning in countries with low internet penetration, namely bookings and suggestions by locals.

With Loft, we have 20 customers paying us $10 ~ $20 a month, but we haven’t grown beyond that due to limited marketing, as we focus on nailing the operations side of platform. The agents are currently just the both of us, and we can afford $10 - $15 an hour per agent if our economics hold.

All in all, we have our vision of what the future of jobs can be. Loft is an experiment towards that which has seen mild traction, and that’s why we really want your advice!
Yes: questions like these need to be asked, and at least tentatively answered, before legally sanctioned poly marriage can even be put on the table for discussion. In particular, there needs to be a clear idea of what happens to the children under the various possible scenarios. I don't think just letting people make whatever agreements they want is going to fly, at least not once any children at all are involved. These things could get very very complicated. There needs to be at least a framework, a sense of what structures can work, as borne out by experience.

I have a suspicion that in the end, it will turn out to be best not to make any special legal provision for poly marriages. The law will recognize couples, and those couples will be free, as indeed they are today, to make whatever informal arrangements with other parties they wish. In a few areas -- hospital visitation rights are a good example -- I think it would work to detach the right from legal marriage altogether, and just let people declare who may visit them, etc. But the legal system has to know who is legally responsible for each child, and I don't think it can be more than two people -- even two is often problematic, as we know from long experience.
Very good insights about marketing material that is "useful".

The idea reminds me of Vaynerchuk’s Jab, jab, right hook strategy http://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2013/10/11/13-memora... (sorry for the popups)
Ah yes, taxes. Good point.
You're confusing two different issues.

Issue 1 is: can a baker be forced to make a cake for a gay couple? The answer is yes.

Issue 2 is: can a baker be forced to make an X-themed cake for some value of X? The answer is no.

AFAIK the only difference between a cake for a gay wedding and a straight one is the little statue on top. I suppose one might quibble over whether a baker can be forced to put two little groom statues on top of the cake they've made. But no one is actually fighting over that. What is at issue is whether a baker can refuse to make a cake -- any kind of cake -- for a gay wedding because they don't believe in gay marriage. And the answer to that is a definitive no.

(And a baker can choose to offer delivery or not. But if they offer delivery, they can't refuse to deliver to a gay wedding -- or a mosque or a synagogue or a satanic temple.)
I'm also excited about the on-land landing attempt. Should be August 9: http://spacexstats.com/mission.php?launch=25
> I think that questions almost answers itself

I think you should ask a better question.
I think you will have a hard time claiming that the project is open source except the data which you keep and monetize.

I strongly suggest considering other models. Why do you want to "open-source" this at all? Why not just make it hardware and software you sell, and recommendations about how to grow based off of your large data set, but very hackable?
GPU Accelerators Radically Boost SQL Queries
GPU Accelerators Radically Boost SQL Queries
June 26, 2015 Timothy Prickett Morgan

In-memory databases are all the rage for very fast query processing, but you have to have the right balance of compute and memory for queries against in-memory databases to really scream. Sometimes, a large number of relatively small cores and a reasonably beefy chunk of RAM can radically outperform clusters with hundreds or thousands of server nodes running parallel analytics platforms based on Hadoop or in-memory architectures. This is apparently the case with a forthcoming product called MapD, which is a massively parallel database and visualization system with an interesting history.

MapD was founded by Todd Mostak in September 2013 after he had seen some impressive performance results with a GPU-accelerated database he created as much out of frustration as curiosity to help him do research for his master’s thesis. As part of his thesis, Mostak was trying to correlate some 40 million Tweets relating to the Arab Spring revolution in Egypt to voting districts in the country. The idea was to map the tweets and test the idea that people were more radicalized in poorer areas in Egypt; sentiment analysis for ranking the Tweets came from comparing them to forums and message boards.

Article continued here (http://www.theplatform.net/2015/06/26/gpu-accelerators-radically-boost-sql-queries/)
>> champions are afraid of losing, everyone else is afraid of winning [1]

I found this to be true of myself. Chess afficianatos probably know better than me, but wasn't Bobby Fischer a big proponent of alternative rules for chess that removed the advantage of "merely" memorizing strong opening games and mid game strategies, something the soviets of his era trained specifically for? please correct me if I've got that wrong.

[1] billy jean king

Edit spelling
Yes, and they produce other models of cars besides the beetle.
From the article: "You should not publicly expose SSH on any server, if you can avoid it! The vast majority of your estate would of course be locked away and protected by some sort of proper VPN (IPSec, OpenVPN etc), wouldn't it?"

I'm curious about more details -- to what degree is SSH (with public key auth only of course) more vulnerable than VPN, and for what reason? From academia I'm used to access to computers around the world using public SSH and port forwarding for most things, and in my world VPN was something people used on Windows, or just because it lets desktop applications act more normally, but I didn't think there was a security difference...

(Yeah I don't do sysadmin work, rest easy)
That the bubble has likely popped in Chinese equities.

$2 trillion - roughly 20%-25% - has been shaved off their markets in just two weeks or so. One of the largest, fastest stock market drops in world history in sheer dollar terms.

To put that in perspective, about 8%-10% of China's household wealth just disappeared in two weeks (80% or so of all investors in the market are individuals). The stock market run has been helping to bail out a lot of homeowners that had previously bet on the real estate market continuing to go up perpetually. If both crash at the same time, it's going to hammer China's fragile economy (that has shrinking across the board already: exports, imports, PMI, electricity usage).
I think it's such a rare incident that the state not be concerned about sibling marriages, or whoever wants to get married at all, so long as they are capable of forming a marriage contract (of age, human/entity/Delaware C corporation, just kidding sorta, sound mind, without duress). But the true keyword is whether or not it's in the "state's interest"--and that reminds me of China.

Interestingly, Americans love pure-bred dogs despite the genetic problems these pets have.
MySQL performance optimization: 50% more work with 60% less latency variance
"It's not about being involved in regional, relatively minor conflict, but about avoiding annihilation. I did not say we have had no war, I said we have had no global wars of the scale seen fairly frequently until WWII."

Global wars were fairly frequent? Perhaps in the 20th century, but throughout history most wars have featured only one or two nation states or uncoordinated resistance to the rise of empires. WW1 and WW2 were anomalies, we hadn't seen anything like them before or since. If the only recognisable form of war is now a world war, do we have to discount the smaller, more frequent skirmishes that are found in every known era of our time on this planet?

"TL;DR: We live in a period of unprecedented peace, even if it doesn't look like it looking at TV. Most Western countries even abolished national service... Nuclear weapons and MAD are a very likely contributing factor."

For Westerners, yes, but that's not exactly universal. There are some areas of the world that are a real mess, including parts of Latin America, Africa and the Middle East (plus North Korea in Asia).

My personal opinion is that people barely think about nuclear proliferation any more. Bar a few scare stories about Iran and North Korea, the common view seems to be that it was a Cold War era problem. No country would get away with using them anymore, so they're not seen as much of a threat. Furthermore, conflict frequently happens at a level where such weapons would be complete overkill (that's all the time really, but I doubt we'd ever accept their use on anything less than a global war). Yet, people still die from conflict every day. There are people alive today that will be dead next week because of conflicts stirred up by the actions of the Western world (and I'd include the 'war on drugs' and 'war on terrorism' in that list). What do we do about that?
What's the context for why this is linked? I doubt JvN is new to many here..?
I find that argument ironic. Whatever religious connotations it may or may not have, marriage is a legal construct. It's an arrangement created to deal with a whole host of practical legal problems: inheritance, property rights, etc. Even before modern government, when organized religion administered marriage, it was a function of the legal side of religion.
That's a red herring, almost concern troll-esque, argument. This ruling isn't a slippery slope towards moral depravity and chaos, no matter how much religious authorities will attempt to paint it as such. We can definitely know that civilization as we know it will not collapse because two guys/girls are allowed to kiss, hold hands once in a while, and receive acknowledgment from civil authorities that they share tax returns.

An important distinction between gay marriage and other human taboos that I'm guessing you're referring to (pedophilia, cannibalism, etc.) is the presence of mutual consent and respect. The ability to consent derives from the uniquely (adult) human ability to reason about the future and one's self-existence to an unusually sophisticated level. Children lack the experience necessary to reason about such things, hence why pedophilia is such a long-standing and widespread taboo.

If two fully consenting adults want to do something that celebrates their shared bond between each other, who or what is anyone else to tell them they shouldn't do that?
it's in progress of getting deployed (https://travis-ci.org/mirage/mirage-www/builds/68516629) -- raw source of the security page at https://github.com/mirage/mirage-www/blob/master/tmpl/securi...
7 Ways to Beat the Odds and Run a $100K Crowdfund