skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> even despite all of the outstanding issues with the US economy

There's a difference between a temporary setback and problems with the fundamentals. This is the case in the private sector and it is the case with sovereign entities, and the people who keep buying US Bonds obviously understand this.

> and the state of the US national debt.

Debt is only a problem if you can't service it. This is doubly true with sovereign debt, where servicing debt provides people a safe place to invest their money.

None of what I said is controversial among people who understand economies. The fact people whine and moan about the USA's debt is a function of how easy it is to score cheap political points by taking advantage of the ignorant.
In "the west" they get less than in 50s, but they still do.

The important thing is - salaries depend on their performance and on the demand for given product/service.
Bring Us Your Genes: An Icelandic company's quest to conquer disease
In C and C++ you can conservatively eliminate unused code for statically linked libraries using --gc-sections and -fdata-sections.

Go uses the Plan9 compiler architecture, which means that its linker knows more about the code and is responsible for more optimizations than its Unix equivalent, so it quite effectively eliminates dead code.

Of course, libraries are often highly coupled within themselves, so not much code can be eliminated, and then they might pull in additional dependencies, etc., etc.
For sure wind turbines are much less efficient than coal power plants at polluting the air. Apart from that, can you explain how could they be less "efficient", when they consume a free and renewable resource (ie, wind)?
The UK has 90% public sector debt to GDP, which is a steep rise given it was 52% in 2009, which does make me wonder where they are putting it, given all the austerity stuff, and we also have 140% private sector debt to GDP, down from 200% in 2009.
I've been working with coders for over 20+ years and yes there are exceptions but on the whole they're a picky lot. And even if they want to re-use code they tend to want something finished that's been well documented and field tested.

Also the ones who re-invent the wheel and make money are the ones who have a design concept that is different, so just re-writng code for its own sake is a hobby. If you want examples from the field Bill Gates purchased what would become MS-DOS. Or another example might be Steve Jobs basing NeXT on an open version of Unix rather than re-writing an OS from scratch.

But I think the key missing thing is having a finished product. This isn't to say that you can't ship with bugs (think of any Bill gates release) or ship with missing features (think of the MVP model) but ya gotta ship.
I don't think so. The gyrocompass relies on gyroscopic precession. The precession itself can be obtained by integration, which gives orientation. Of course, the precision of this process may well be very low or unusable.
I think the headline is misleading, I thought this was going to be some kind of article.
​The last seconds are ticking off the U.S. IPv4 network clock
The WhatsApp Moment: When the venture climate became a giant frothy mess
Just make sure your use of the light version won't impact anyone else who would mind the missing features.

For example, suppose you're developing an application, and you want to use a lightweight GUI toolkit, or roll your own as Spotify apparently used to do. Unless the toolkit is just a thin wrapper over the underlying OS's native GUi facilities, like wxWidgets or SWT, the resulting application is very likely to have accessibility problems, unless you do the hard work of implementing the accessibility APIs for your target platform(s).
Perhaps too many moving parts. Engineers are criticized for 'reinventing the wheel' and writing code when open source is available. But use too much open source, and you have too many moving parts, you don't know how they work, and things like locks and latency are uncontrollable. A familiar storey!
> Previously, skin tones for emoji were left up to the font creator. In practice, this meant that they were usually lime green, neon blue, or Simpsons yellow, all of which are cartoonish enough not to be evocative of any particular real-life skintone.

That's not true, IME -- in several of the popular emoji fonts I've seen that don't incorporate specific "skin tone emoji", most emoji for people that aren't expressly silhouettes are white, except a very small number which are black (in both cases, within the range of flesh tones usually associated with those as races, not cartoonish colors.)

EDIT: This is not true of "smiley face" emoji, but of other emoji representing humans or human body parts.
I think a non-result is still an interesting result. It could save you time spent on obsessing about Twitter buy buttons. There are hundreds of things I know I should be doing, it's a refreshing piece of information to hear about something that maybe I don't need to worry about at this moment :)
>Did you try to contribute to Chromium and Firefox to speed up fixing the Logjam issue?

No. The issue isn't that it's (so) hard to fix; the fix in 39 has been out for a while, they just didn't want to release it for the stable release, which means few people got it. (In fact, some distros apparently fixed their versions earlier [1]).

On Firefox, you could manually fix it in 2 minutes [2]

I'm not familiar with the codebases, so it would take me longer to make a patch, but it really should not take 2 months to release to stable a fix that affected 8.4% [3] of popular websites, especially for a company like Google.

The tinfoil hat in me says certain things about this, considering that logjam was likely known by the NSA, but then again I can't prove anything.

I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been more talk about this, actually. A major security hole going unfixed for months after public disclosure should have had more chatter.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9702061
[2] http://techdows.com/2015/05/how-to-make-firefox-browser-safe...
[3] https://weakdh.org/
<div is="dialog">
<h1 is="title">
{ this.props.title }
</h1>
<div is="actions">
<Button is="Cancel" label="Cancel" />
<Button is="Accept" label="Accept" />
</div>
</div>

Seems more expressive to me than <div className="dialog">. I understand the point though; the example provided on the homepage is very contrived. Few people are going to do something like <span is="span">. (Well, I could be wrong.)
Thing is, your one component might share styles with half the other components.

Then having a proper separation of code and style with class names to bind the two becomes your only sane option at scale.
As students we learn of the cpu/memory tradeof. In the real world it is engineering time/cpu/memory that is involved in the tradeof. Given how much money we make the business case often doesn't come close to existing for moving the tradeof to CPU time. Take Slack - they are adding tons of new users and their users love them, the company has a high valuation.
Focusing on getting that percentage down to nothing would have torpedoed their company.
I'm not really sure how that would help. Wouldn't all the phones be getting their DNS from the local router? How would that work without having each users have to configure DNS on their phones? Also how does running DNS server help? I don't expect people to know how to configure their router to point to some DNS server running on their local PC. Maybe I'm mis-understanding the suggested solution
Correct.

I would not be surprised if those two Golang projects take less than the size of the dependency. 2x is a degenerate worst-case.

With static linking, you only need to pull in things you actually need (and you can optimize from there!), whereas with dynamic linking you need to pull in the entire dependency regardless. (You only need to pull in one copy regardless of how many things are using the library, true. But you need to pull in one full copy always.)

There are very few cases where you actually use the entire library in a project - and if you are indeed using an entire library in a project your project is necessarily large enough compared to the library that it's not much overhead percentage-wise.
user overrides are also an option: http://www.w3.org/TR/powerful-features/#development-environm...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/greek-finance-minister-yanis-v...
A social-network illusion that makes things appear more popular than they are
Thanks dang et al for fixing the title so quickly!
Indeed. The regulation and centralisation is at the EU level, which isn't really supported by the democratic institutions. There isn't enough solidarity in Europe to make it work.

The US is completely different. No matter how bad things get in Detroit, nobody seriously suggests expelling Michigan from the US.
Due to accounting/tax rules, "qualified incentive" options are required to be priced at "fair value".

It's better for you to just ask for more equity.

However, realize that equity is usually worthless. If they already raised a lot of money, you're probably only going to get a tiny slice. If the equity is a factor in your decision to accept the job or not, you probably shouldn't.

Remember that the recent investors probably got a liquidation preference, which means they need to eventually sell for a LOT MORE than the price of their last round, or common shareholders may get nothing.
What if the code isn't written but generated? How would I inspect it with me editor?
It's easy to see how the world would be different if ESP worked - Wall St. would be run by psychics, not quants. You've yet to make any such predictions regarding genetic differences, except possibly vague allusions to some slightly different power structure which you can't even explain clearly and which is dependent on some unspecified assumptions about genetics.

I said that if minuscule genetic differences result in huge variance of power, there needs to be some super-linear correlation, or, if that is too cardinal, some amplification mechanism. I then said that whatever that amplification mechanism is, because intra-group genetic variance is much larger, that amplification would create a rather chaotic power structure, which is far from what we see.

You are assuming that whatever variation exists in power causing genes has huge in-group variance relative to between-group variance. This might be false. In fact, we know it's false for height, skin pigment, and a variety of other easy to measure traits.

Incidentally, in many cases, we also don't know what specific SNPs cause those traits.

But I guess it's completely impossible that some harder to measure trait might also exhibit similar variance.
What will make a smart watch look old in 2 decades?
iPod looks nostalgic now to a young generation while a Walkman looks that way to an somewhat older generation and while spinning a 45 label looks that way to my generation. What will make today's smart watches look nostalgic in twenty years. That's what I need to invent.
And you're giving what would be described as the exact opposite example to the parent post: why do node projects have hundreds of dependencies? Because those dependencies do exactly 1 thing most of the time (and usually pull in some other exactly 1 thing dependencies to do it).
Jane Street is using OCAML. That or F# is my preferred choice.

Having said that, the tricky part is sticking to pure FP and coordinating data structures. Not impossible, but it's a foreign area for many shops.
The most obvious way it manifests is through progressive performance degradation, delayed response or output delivery times, locking up and an eventual necessity to kill/exec again for usable operation.

It isn't about "feeling big" at all. You can have large, feature-packed programs that still respond quickly and don't fragment.
9 times yesterday, according to my browser history. It was a slow day, though.
The question I ask is: could it be built more lightweight? While there is certainly room for improvement, I really don't think you can have an editor that can be extended by most web developers with much less resources. You could write your own backend engines for js/html but now your using/wasting manpower instead of machine power. The same goes for Vim or Ubuntu: what could you cut to easily make it slimmer without hurting their purpose? Not much imo.On the other hand, the examples I stated have certainly many parts you could outsource to extensions or cut alltogether. To me, bloat means stuff that doesn't serve the software's purpose, and I still don't think the examples in the article have much of that.
I think if you get it into a German bank account before the crisis it would be safe.
Funny, I came to HN while waiting for a domain to propagate
For me, depends on the level of experience I have with the language/platform/library, ranging from once a month to a dozen times in a day.
> Debt is only a problem if you can't service it. This is doubly true with sovereign debt, where servicing debt provides people a safe place to invest their money.

> None of what I said is controversial among people who understand economies.

I have a degree in economics, so yes, I understand how sovereign debt works. The point is that even if the market never loses faith in the US's ability to pay back its existing debt, if it stops being the most trustworthy source of newly-issued debt, the US loses a great deal of power.
I prefer to colocate into 1 folder. index.jsx, index[.css,.styl,.scss, etc.]

Just like my JS requires different JS files, my CSS imports various files too. The preprocessor turns that into 1 css file (or n, if you want).
But Disneyland is a close second.
On the flip side, if you have a small tool that pulls in 1% of that 2MB library you only need 20KB of memory, whereas with dynamic linking you still need the full 2MB.

Ditto, static linking leads to a lot more optimization opportunities, both in terms of performance and in terms of size. I would be very surprised if that 13 x 60% of a 2MB library was actually anywhere near 15.6MB.
For me recently, it's constant because I'm working with Spring Boot and ExtJS for the first time. So I'd say how often you're doing web searches is a function of your familiarity with the techs you're using.
>As described, Reddit is an interesting example where people voluntarily fill the same community leader role that Aol’s volunteers did, although they do so with fewer restrictions and more agency. //

Presumably the current Reddit debacle is the stimulation for posting this now. The article mentions Buzzfeed and Youtube models too. Quite interesting.
I'm sure Apple will consider allowing proper web browser competition on iOS if either:
1) It's against the law not to do so.
2) Apple users flee iOS to Android for this reason.

Neither which seem to be the case, maybe in a couple of years?
I have no inside information on Reddit management, but as an outsider who's watched reddit grow over the years, I get the impression the core problem with Reddit right now is not Ellen Pao per se. Ellen Pao was brought in as a person to run Reddit as a business and make money and that's exactly what I presume she is trying to do, the issue here is the vision of the company as a whole, the people (investors, shareholders?) who thought Ellen Pao was a necessary and good candidate to be the CEO.

Investors, shareholders, founders, etc seem to have a very clear vision of turning Reddit into a money making machine, but no matter how you slice it this is not going to work out well with their community in the long run. It doesn't matter if Ellen Pao or Mark Cuban is the CEO as long their vision stays that way.

Not that there is anything wrong with a business wanting to make money, but in my humble opinion, Reddit is a particularly bad candidate for that and would be much better off adopting a non-profit model ala Wikipedia.
Because it is _not_ the same program. For one the spell checker is much better, for another it has added a grammar checker, for a third it now has change tracking and comments and lots of other goodies.

Don't complain that you don't need those features: it is on you to choose the right tool for the right job. If all you need is a light spell check and text editing, notepad++, vim or Emacs will do nicely. Plenty of people need the more advanced features.
> I always wonder if there were these old fogeys who complained when the first postal services were brought in in the 19th century.

The first postal services were formed long before that; there were definitely some in the late 17th Century, may have been earlier.
Basically when I don't have an example in my own codebase that I can use as prior art. I always want to find out what obstacles other people have found, as a way of making the process go more smoothly.

Nine times out of ten I end up at either Stack Exchange or W3Schools.
Or, you write the application as a plugin-centric architecture with very minimal core features, and go from there.

Not perfect (especially as writing things as plugins tend to introduce a certain amount of bloat regardless), but it can be better regardless.
Do you mention that you're available for freelancing when giving talks or going to meetups? Any particular etiquette I should be aware of?
There is a movie about it: Travelling Salesman (2012)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1801123/reference
It's an idiom from "Story of O". The comment was toward being happy under forceful limitation. But gosh, sometimes discussing things on HN feels like trying to talk about poetry with Vulcans. "ILLOGICAL, DIDN'T READ THE REST"
Chicago Residents Now Stuck with a New 9% “Cloud Tax”
Freelances live on contacts. If you don't have contacts you're out of luck.
that's webpack http://webpack.github.io/
Love it, street art using images of blurred out people from Google's Streetview pasted in the real life locations where the original images were captured.
That's mostly due to overall benefit levels staying constant or increasing due to unemployment, while taxation has collapsed. http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.co.uk/2011_05_01_archive.ht...

The austerity has largely been targeted at vulnerable people who don't actually cost very much in total.
import theme from 'styles/theme';
The fact that Safari would have even less market share if other browsers were allowed onto iOS is not the preservation of healthy competition, it's undoing the distortions of unfair competition that allow an inferior product to gain disproportionately high market share. Browsers should be allowed to compete on their merits alone.
It doesn't seem like it. It's very clear to point out the differences between AOL's mandatory time commitment and rules and Reddit's "suggested tips."
> It's the future.

It's the now. Elm is the future elm-lang.org
hi, I wrote the advisory. Here's some POC I just published here: http://owned.lab6.com/~gossi/research/public/packager/

The SalesOrder.rtf file is safe to try at work. All it does is lock your workstation. It should work behind Software Restriction Policy and Microsoft AppLocker (and Citrix Application thingy).
It's not always a business decision. GNOME, KDE, X, systemd, dbus... The list goes on and on. None of this software is business derived.

Honestly, an engineer that cares about the performance of their code has several options available:
- design the project first, then code later.
- design the code for the architecture (arrays of objects vs. objects of arrays).
- use tools that can optimize out inefficiencies.
- hand optimize after writing a functional slice.
- document the APIs and interfaces to explain the performance expected as part of their contract.

Unfortunately, it seems as though we've gotten into a bit of a rut when it comes to this -- we rely on the awful tooling we have to optimize the code we write (yes, LLVM and friends are light years better at this than GCC et. al., but it's still not enough), we never document performance characteristics of the libraries and APIs we create, and we (at least in the OSS world) almost never design our projects to the level of detail necessary to fully understand it.

Honestly, I'm not sure how we can solve these problems if the engineers have a lack of discipline. It's a hobby, after all, right? We do this in our spare time, and nobody wants to write designs or document because that's the least interesting part of coding. See also GTK's autodocs, which for /years/ lay around as nothing more than a simple enumeration of which functions were in the libraries. Even in self documenting languages we fail at this (I'm looking at you, Common Lisp).

Optimizing afterward is a simple, if lazy, way out but post-facto optimization can only take you so far if the design is simply broken.

Since we never document or design, the problem ends up falling to our tooling. Things like oprofile and so on work, but are usually so coarse grained that digging through the code to instrument it effectively becomes a grind nobody wants to do.
Maybe we need companies to develop free and open tooling for understanding the performance characteristics of the code we write. After all, the "modern" tooling we use for languages like C and C++ hasn't changed since the 80s, and it's often actually hostile to the end user, which just makes the job harder. Even our linkers often fail to do their jobs of optimizing out useless dependencies or symbols unless we explicitly tell them to do so.

Ultimately, the blame lies with us, the engineers who work on this code. New engineers joining our projects need to understand the code itself through and through. Our projects have become so large that without documentation no-one can make a clear, clean decision on what should or shouldn't be written anymore.

What I want to see is tooling that can semantically understand the code I write, and give me characterizations of the function calls I make as I write them. When I need to examine source to better understand it, I want tooling that tells me how often the functions are called, where they are called, and how. Raw text is great for writing prose, but we're not writing prose -- we're writing code. Our tools should reflect this, and give us as much help as possible.
Yeah the whole 'charging for government data' thing drives me crazy!

In almost all cases, the marginal cost of producing the 'good' (data) is approximately 0. Furthermore, because infinite copies of data can be made, there is no reason for price rationing. And there's no argument for granting monopoly through artificial scarcity (like there might be with patents and copyright) as the government would have produced the data anyway (often as a byproduct of some other activity e.g. income tax reporting).

Government data is a public good, in the strict economic sense (non-excludable, non-rivalrous).

Setting prices above marginal cost (i.e. 0) causes significant dead-weight loss; it is absolutely inexplicable and inexcusable public policy. This isn't complex economic theory. This is economics 101; you'll find this information in any first-year uni economics textbook (in the 'market failure' chapter). I can only conclude that public servants who do this kind of thing either aren't familiar with extremely basic public economic theory (which is a bad sign), or are actually trying to reduce public welfare (making the public service a rather odd career choice).

Conceptually, charging for government data is equivalent to levying a super-narrowly based and highly inefficient sales tax. The most baffling thing is that it's conservative governments that generally approve these kinds of policies, even though the net effect is to increase the size of government at extremely high efficiency costs.

It's nuts.