skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, that is why I'm waiting. I'm on that list.
Non-intrusive-mpsc-node-based-queue
And? Retribution is a basic human instinct. The point of the criminal justice system is to manage that instinct in a large population. If you think about criminal justice only in terms of deterrence and rehabilitation it makes little sense to spend so much effort on what probably doesn't have much effect on would-be or convicted criminals.
People often misunderstand the idea of reproducibility in science. The idea is not that scientists need to given a complete, easy to follow set of procedures that will let anyone reproduce an observation. In some areas this is close to impossible. For example, in high energy physics there is only one equipment in the world that can reproduce (with luck) some key experiment. The idea is that, with enough effort and funding somebody else could possibly reach the same conclusions. If you don't agree with some published results, there is an easy way to do it: create your own experiment and publish the results. If the result conflicts, then a new step is to determine why and in which conditions there is a conflict. Science evolves through the debate of ideas and observations, not because somebody is sharing a cookie-cut recipe.
My computer also doubles as fan and vacuum cleaner.
'we built this with nothing but our bare hands' is more than just propaganda. sure, they had a sea port, but looking at what they have done is amazing. many countries have some advantage, but most do not use them properly. Malaysia is a bridge crossing away with just as much sea access and ample amounts of oil and other natural resources, yet I do not believe they have accomplished what singapore has done.

taiwan, south korea, china, and japan are bad examples to compare to singapore, though Japan in the meiji restoration was at least somewhat comparable except that all of the countries you mentioned relied on heavy industry to get to where they were, where as singapore had no land for such heavy investment in industry - let alone the materials.

singapore had to make a long series of specific-successful long term investments which played out very well, and that had little to do with wealth sharing. one of the things that made everything play out so well is the singaporean's culture of kiasu - afraid to lose. singaporeans are very determined and trying to get ahead rather than sharing wealth.

it was always easy for singapore to guide the ship with everyone in the same direction because people obeyed so much to economic incentives. the only thing it really failed at was getting singaporeans to have kids recently.
The original link is to a pdf of slides which summarize his ideas -- not the book itself.
> This is a myth, sorry to tell you this. Partners have been allowed in the waiting rooms for many years.

Parent post was talking about gay partners being forced to stay in the waiting room, meaning they were denied access to their gay partner's hospital room.

This still happens in the US.

Here's one example from 2011: http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/02/paul_hard_plaintiff_in_marri...
I had a system in C, with a goal of extremely low latency. This involved a small collection of threads, each serving a different role. Project goals would periodically change, and I would find myself needing to move some functionality from one thread to another. With some creativity, I was able to enlist the help of the type checker in assuring that a particular function ran only on a particular thread. This sped me up tremendously, as my tooling would point me to inconsistencies rather than having to reason them out myself.
I agree; saying "the brain is a computer" is much like saying "the universe is a computer".

We can simulate the universe with astounding accuracy on many levels (though not all) with computers. Furthermore, when studying the universe deeply we see astoundingly computer-like traits[1]. But to express this by saying the universe is a computer is very misleading.

Similarly, artificial neural networks simulated by computers achieve huge strides in AI, accomplishing things many said would always be impossible (e.g. art[2]). Also, we see many computer-like traits in the brain. But to express this by saying the brain is a computer is very misleading.

[1] http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+universe+is+a+computer+simulation

[2] http://googleresearch.blogspot.ca/2015/06/inceptionism-going...
This is a solid idea with a great team behind it. The challenge with this kind of product is to make it easy to deploy while delivering actual value to users, and looks like they've figured that out.

(It was great meeting Gadi in the speakers lounge at a conference in Hamburg and doing the YC sales pitch last year.)
Michael Wang Says Ivy League Discriminates Against Asians
Don’t Say Goodbye, Just Ghost
Do you know what philosophy is? Do you know what science is?
Over 2,000 years ago Julius Caesar described the people that lived where The Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany are today.

> They do not live much on corn, but subsist for the most part on milk and flesh, and are much [engaged] in hunting; which circumstance must, by the nature of their food, and by their daily exercise and the freedom of their life (for having from boyhood been accustomed to no employment, or discipline, they do nothing at all contrary to their inclination), both promote their strength and render them men of vast stature of body.

http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.4.4.html
The book linked here provides several examples of orgs that grew to hundreds and thousands of people without going command and control. So, while it's fine to be skeptical, it's even better to actually take a look at the research done here...
Columbus' arrival linked to carbon dioxide drop (2011)
Ok - sponsorship.

Donations is to my mind a charitable endeavour - the small amount of change is thrown over and not considered. In fact lack of consideration is probably the right legal term. Sponsorship involves some contractural form to occur - and so implies a trade of value.

To be fair you could have been saying get better at donations by rebranding them as sponsorship instead of better at soliciting uncontracted contributions.

But I still think we need to find a new and better way to monetise OSS contributions.
> In the future, almost every action user might do on an information system ought to be rolled back cleanly and easily once presented with higher priority key

This won't work well unless the world contains just the one information system. That scenario has other problems.
The height of this was probably reached in Britain, where minor details of language and behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_non-U_English http://www.helsinki.fi/jarj/ufy/24991_s113_150Ross.pdf were an infallible giveaway as to who had or had not been to public school.
A scientist should be able to describe all assumptions and manipulable variables that go into an experiment.

>It's reasonable for a scientist to ask for a certain level

Maybe, but a scientist should be able to specifically describe what that 'level' is.

Instead, this article seems to present many individuals who think appealing to an abstract 'level' of their own choosing and to which they seem to not be able to describe sufficiently to anyone else (which is fishy, because all of this serves, intentionally or not, to prevent anyone from attempting to replicate their experiment).

In my view of science, there should never be a case where 'misgivings' about a replication attempt should ever be expressed. Either the experiment will be accurately replicated or it won't, in which case we can probably determine if the replication was not accurate or if the original experiment was flawed (either in design, execution, and/or analysis).

Science gives us the tools to remove things from the influence and design of opinion and to examine them from viewpoints that are as free from subjectivity as possible. Once you start moving into the realm of opinion (expressed misgivings) you are leaving the realm of science and moving into philosophy, religion, or worse.
The main page for the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines:

http://centerforopenscience.org/top/
Well put. I think that that expansion of use under the War on Drugs is certainly a good part, if not indeed the main part, of the problem.
For those unfamiliar with the Yen: it's worth about 2 orders of magnitude less than the major Western currencies. As a rule of thumb, insert a decimal point 2 digits from the right to make figures make more sense.
You should read the book On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins. Pay attention to Chapter 6, "How the cortex works". Our "consciousness" is derived of the same stuff in all animals, we just have more cortical layers. We also have fuzzy algorithms which allow the brain to recognize patterns, and associate x with y.

http://www.amazon.com/On-Intelligence-Jeff-Hawkins/dp/080507...

I think to postulate that there's a yet undiscovered subatomic elementary particle that gives rise to consciousness is hogwash. "Consciousness" or awareness of self has been shown in other animals. Humans are distinct in their ability to couple self-awareness and toolmaking.

There is no "human energy" it's the same material as in all other animals, we just have more of it. The "human energy" could be classified as distinct fuzzy algorithms found in humans which aid pattern recognition.
Why Google Employees Quit (2009)
Are you still in Debt?
Here you will books that will help you with your debt and credit issues.
Universe doesn't have to be, just neurons and other brain hardware.

Of course you can always see quantum phenomena affecting outcome, you just have to rule those out as neligible / much lower than noize threshold.
The male guard did not help them escape he just was doing them favors to get art work from them. He didn't know they were going to try and escape. The authorities seems to believe him, the reason his bond is only $25k.
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/24/2nd-prison-guard-arrest...
Defending Zeno's Paradox
This is what I was hoping Atom would be more like when they released the text-editor. This takes some of the load from the DOM itself. However, I wouldn't limit it just to Python, but anything that can run a web server. There's text editors written in Go who could benefit from having Atom Shell on top of them as one example. There's plenty of use cases out there.
chrony has support for leap second smearing too. About to turn it on at work to avoid crashing stuff in the lab.

The amount of stuff that still runs an older Linux kernel is insane...
Another important concept for JS devs to understand is (macro)tasks and microtasks. This is becoming especially important in ES6 and beyond (due to Promises leveraging microtasks).

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25915634/difference-betwe... has a decent overview
I suspect that the reason South Korean children are taller than they were two generations ago is that two generations ago not having enough food to eat was a real problem in South Korea.
Nothing funny about sexual harassment and assault either.
Ask HN: Macbook Pro vs. ThinkPad w541
Between the Macbook Pro 15 and the ThinkPad W541 which would you recommend for a software developer? I have been using the ThinkPad T series and i've been happy with the laptop. I'm looking to switch machines and i'm open to change. I've always been a linux user and I don't have much experience with OSX aside from knowing that it is Unix compliant.

I'm essentially looking for a laptop that will simply work and let me focus on my work.
In fact there is no reason. I needed it quickly for another project and the common names was already taken on npm.
lol, thanks will do :)
> [lang X] doesn't handle [basic math] correctly among other things.

From a recent talk[1], what are x, y, z in the following?

x = 7 ÷ 2;
y = -7 ÷ 2;
z = .1 + .2 - .3

x y z

3.5 -3.5 0 # human

3 ? tiny number # c89; ? depends on compiler
3 -4 tiny number # ruby
3 -4 tiny number # python 2/3
3 -3 0 # bc
3.5 -3.5 tiny number # perl5
3.5 -3.5 0 # perl6

----

It isn't just basic math.

How "long" is the following string?

ปฏิบัติจริง

7 characters # human

len("ปฏิบัติจริง") = 33 # python 2
len("ปฏิบัติจริง") = 11 # python 3
"ปฏิบัติจริง".length = ? # ruby

(For Ruby, I've found "the core language does not provide a way to count [human perceived characters]". [3] Is that still correct or out of date?)

----

> Perl suffers from having too many magical operators that makes it hard to reason about a snippet of code. I feel Python strikes the right balance.

To quote Larry Wall, "Perl 6 ... has been rethought and rebalanced on every level".[4]

It might be interesting for you to pick a couple Perl 5 operators that you consider too magical; then we could look at the merits and demerits of those ops in Perl 5 and their equivalents in Python and Perl 6.

> It's very easy to express ideas I have in mind without worrying about the details [of Python, now, and Perl, back in the day]

This, of course, has explicitly been a deliberate focus of all the Perls. Part of the point of Perl 6 was to remove the bits in Perl 5 that were problematic (including some "too cute/weird" stuff) and to introduce much nicer higher level abstractions (eg grammars instead of just regexes[5]).

----

I've long encountered vocal folk who underestimate or misunderstand Larry Wall and Perl to an absurd degree. Perl has been focused for over two decades on making it easy to get the right results when doing basic practical things (like integer division and counting characters) and, imo, that ought to be obvious to anyone who looks at the matter carefully.

----

[1] http://www.slideshare.net/Ovid/perl-6-for-mere-mortals and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpu-3UF_b48

[2] http://www.reddit.com/r/perl/comments/2szv7m/beginner_progra...

[3] http://unicode-programming.readthedocs.org/en/latest/count-c...

[4] http://www.infoworld.com/article/2882300/perl/perl-creator-l...

[5] https://github.com/moritz/json/blob/master/lib/JSON/Tiny/Gra...
This is a problem that goes way back. Look at Burroughs B5000, System/38, KeyKOS, VMS clustering, NonStop... all architectures that prevented or easily recovered from all sorts of problems. Market almost always chose against them with only two still marketable. There are currently inexpensive CPU's, esp embedded PPC, supporting lock-step along with high reliability OS's. Avoided in most deployments even for important systems. The old security engineering techniques of specifying all good/bad states, simplified implementation, non-bypassable TCB's, covert channel analysis, use of guards, and so on have been largely ignored in security industry despite empirical evidence of their benefit. Tiny niche in defense & safety-critical, as author says, that still knows some of this stuff. Example [1].

Everything mainstream, proprietary or false, just seems thrown together for a variety of reasons with few exceptions. Even stuff that needs to be better doesn't get that way. Further, I'm not even sure most have ever heard of the approaches that work: can't even get a good start without a good foundation to build on. I think the only solution will be a killer app needing resilience that does its thing right, uses all the right techniques, is affordable, is easily extended, and creates awareness of good engineering practices when people try to imitate it.

I can't see anything else working. Btw HN readers, regarding Byzantine etc, the linked document shows Boeing's Survivable Spread leveraged a trusted component to reduce fault-tolerance cost f+1 replicas for f failures minus a few use cases. Do any readers up-to-date on FT research know of advances in past few years for similarly minimal-cost schemes for FT or BFT?

[1] http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a425566.pdf
ChatOps Demonstration in 3 clicks
> "Git LFS ... is open sourced under the MIT license."
Alleged liability. Many seem to think that those actions of the US government are not legally allowed. Most likely there is no real liability for not following a gag order as speech is pretty unambiguously protected from being regulated or circumscribed by the US government.
Women generally are less conflict prone then men. How many bar fights are between women?
Ask HN: Books on Product-Iteration of Blanks' “Customer Development” Model
I'm wondering if anyone knows where to start with thinking about product iteration after following Steve Blanks "Customer Development" Model.

For example, if you were building a software company about <x> topic, how do you further refine your initial product offering to begin validating with customers?

Thanks.
I absolutely agree that sometimes, you need to redo an experiment for good reasons.

In most cases I've seen, people do not know why they redo the experiment, though. They know it hasn't produced the data they expected, so they redo it. Maybe it was because a reagent was bad, or a co-worker left the incubator open overnight, or maybe it was because the model is stupid. Who knows?

That's my point, actually. Biologists are playing with systems they do not understand, changing parameters somewhat randomly without any control over them, and they then try to interpret whatever comes out, but ONLY it fits what they wanted. If it doesn't, then "Oh, the PCR machine is at it again!", and they throw the results away.
Show HN: Emit.js – Efficient minimalist event emitter in JavaScript
Isn't this actually an attractive ethical hazard† (in a very broad incentive sense) - and as such, to counteract it couldn't we actually encode an ethical obligation to immediately publish the data from any experiment, to counteract this hazard? Just in any old place, not as a full paper.

You could re-run your experiment of course if you thought there was some experimental methodological error, but as you disclose somewhere your first, your second, and your third dataset all showing the same data with more or less the same methodology, you would have to show increasing confidence in your fourth or fifth dataset (the one you would otherwise publish alone), because it has to explain all of the earlier datasets as statistical flukes only: you would no longer have the incentive to run the fourth experiment alone and publish it without reference to earlier trials.

To give an example, suppose anyone is rewarded by publicity if they show that flipping U.S. coins favors heads by more than 2%. This is temptingly easy to do if you don't publish experiments that don't statistically prove that: you just keep re-running the experiment until you get the result you want at the p-value you want, so if the reward for the result is more than the number of experiments you need to do to get it times the cost of each experiment (which can be truly tiny), the experiment presents an attractive ethical hazard.

But if you are ethically forced to publish (or even summarize) your earlier complete experiment and dataset really in any old place, then if there is no actual difference it becomes vanishingly unlikely that you can suddenly prove your theory and explain all of the earlier experiments as statistical outliers. You would stop exploring after your second or third experiment. (Which you would still quickly summarize.) This does however present an added burden to researchers, especially if they quickly test something before really refining the methodology to do so. So these quick disclosures could still be considered quite dirty and not very meaningful. However their disclosure would give a good indication regarding how strong a result really is. (i.e. by glancing at how much dirty data precedes the actual experiment being published.)

-

† I'd like to recall the words "moral hazard" because it does indicate that people are tempted toward the bad behavior. But economically I think that term is too specific (meaning risk-taking where someone else has to clean up in case of failure) -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
That is possibly one of the coolest things I have ever seen. I could spend hours looking through this.
So you are "in the process of" of building a rendering engine and a Javascript engine? What a joke!

You little scams! All you did was stealing other's code.

https://www.reddit.com/r/coding/comments/38vbme/13_15_yrs_ol...
> and my brain doesn't have a von neumann architecture

"Computer" doesn't automatically equal "von neuman architecture".

> nor does it run something similar to our software

A lack of software-equivalent is a pretty good criticism, though.
Not one elementary particle, but whole interaction of many of them.

Yes, animals have that same substance, but at lesser scale.

I make distinction between pure intellect, which computer can do fine, and other component, which I doubt that it can be accessed by computer without connecting silicon with biological material.
I hoped that it wasn't as bad in computational biology, or ecology, or any other biology field where systems and models are actually defined. It saddens me to read that your experience was as bad as mine...
"2. Our software vendors can push new software in automated updates..."

Question: Why does the software need to be updated?

Vendor: "Bug fixes."

Question: Can I look at the source code?

Vendor: No.

I agree with agwa that this phenomenon of "automatic updates" goes well beyond root certificates and browser authors such as Microsoft. It is pervasive and seems to be growing.

Perhaps a related line of thought, I find it interesting that we are seeing some again pushing for enabling browsers to have more control over the user's computer. Simply put, as I see it, a user visits a webpage and someone else gets to run their code on the user's computer.

Why stop there? Why not have email attachments that open and execute automatically?

Originally there was the "Java applet" idea in the early days of the www. Then there was Adobe Flash. These days the idea it has several different working names. Obviously neither Java nor Flash is the language of choice. And the browser authors have something to try to put users' minds at ease: "sandboxing". But I see no difference in the issues this raises for users.

Is there any "sandboxing" for the browser itself? The browser and its authors are inherently trusted?

In the same way that root certificates installed on users' computers are "pre-approved"? Who approved them? Are users involved in that approval process?

If the certificate/code in question comes from the browser authors then it must be both necessary for and desired by each and every user?

The problem with automated updates from my perspective is that there are very few software authors who will not try to give me more than I actually need; if I am not careful I end up with the "kitchen sink". Without user intervention, software is like a gas: it will expand to fill space.

As for the CA system, I am my own CA root. The openssl binary is the antithesis of the so-called UNIX philosophy. How many things does it do? Perfect for an example program to include for "testing". This goes to agwa's comment. I use this software but I know it is quality control disaster. Keep those updates coming.

In any event, the only certificates I "trust" are ones which I did not obtain over an untrustworthy network, i.e., the internet. That number is of course zero.

I will sign a certificate to satisfy a browser, but that does not mean I "trust" any part of the process. In practice, outside of organizational use, I see the whole CA scheme as a joke. (But not that its implementation has impeded the success of e-commerce.)

As a user, I play along with SSL/TLS and certificates only to get today's software to work. That's it. A nuisance more than anything else.
On the NYSE erroneous trades like that can be called back. This just shows you that there aren't "fat finger" trade protections built-in to all exchanges.
Well, the issue of "nobody checks the source" is not necessarily solved. Just because anyone can check the source doesn't mean anyone actually does. Additionally, just because a repository has been historically trustworthy never means it can't be corrupted.

There are real people behind all levels of these projects, and people are vulnerable to corruption, coercion, etc.