skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>> educated, smart people can be convinced by some of them

I love this implication that you're probably dumb if you think the government sometimes engages in conspiracy. Like mass surveillance. Or bacterial experiments in San Francisco.
The title seems to be a little overboard considering the actual content of the article. It didn't seem that vehemently bad.
Testing in Golang
How is the Apple Music DRMing of your own music not randomware?

"We encrypted your files. We won't ever give your real files back. Pay us or you can't use them anymore."
I think when you submit something that has already been posted it will add a vote the existing submission. So probably you got there first and a load of people tried to submit 7 hours later.
Please don't misrepresent a 6 month span of a full time gig as a short term contract. No one ever expects a FT employee to stay only 6 mos.
Great points. Non-submitters seldom realize how often new content goes ignored around here. Unless you're one of the top 20 most recognized names here or unless you're writing about fad-of-the-week, submissions are mostly ignored.

is never good because it breaks the integrity of the service.

vote manipulation is called hustling these days. it tends to be okay if you're in the blessed class allowed to manipulate people or are doing it for a good cause (a private for-profit startup needing "exposure").

They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter. http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html
Raw Food SOS: Rescuing good health from bad science
I'm interested as well in alternative ways to do this kind of thing which are more "psych friendly" though I don't have any warm leads at the moment.

I don't think of CH as being a way of doing verification, as you mention it's not even a very good way of doing that necessarily, but instead a note that human reasoning can be accurately transcribed in types. The formal verification angle on this is just window dressing.

Also LC is not even seen as the "right" way. It's obviously too simple. But it is at the core of other more "right" ways because it as a notion is very composable.

PFP is an important part of this research because it's got the most complete type theories. Impure arrows can be modeled too, but they're harder. Nice impure models share more similarity with PFP than with standard imperative programming, too.

I suppose in my mind PFP has had tons of victories... but they're just not in the domain that you're looking in. That's fine, I believe some will exist there someday. I'm not actually much of one to proselytize for PFP in industry ;)

And on arrogance I am completely with you. When people get a little power it goes to their head and if you make a transition from "practical" imperative programming to "mathy" FP you feel like you just leveled up a lot. Then you ignore that "mathy" imperative programming (and "mathy" OO for that matter) exist and are healthy and probably have a lot to share, too. That's sad.

Finally, I agree with the idea that at least somewhere in PL there ought to be a UX discipline (see my writing elsewhere around types as UX for more on this) but I am also pretty convinced that this is not the entirety of PL research.

Types should be studied even if it is conclusively proven that humans cannot stand their UX. Why? Because they are as powerful a language for expressing formal thought as humans have yet invented. We'll figure out the UX someday, but if we step away from the seat of utility then we'll have lost something vital.
It's a next generation book, it should understand my locale and translate units automatically. How about that?
Marbles: A puzzle game
I noticed the same performance hit. My impression was that it was graphically clunky and poorly written, but I can't prove that nothing sinister was going on.
> it was a violation of the Nuremberg code

How so? The article is a bit biased in calling humans the subjects of the test, where it doesn't sound to me like an objective definition of the word supports that framing in the least. A subjects of an experiment is the entity being observed and on which data is being gathered. In this case, it is the bacteria, and the data that was gathered was their movement through the city. The humans were part of the environment the subject was tested in, but effects of the bacteria on the humans was not part of the hypothesis, and believed to be wholly negligible to humans.
I recommend looking into a large company that lets you move around (specifically let me recommend Boeing). I have changed groups several times and there is very little stigma assuming you can get yourself up to speed in a reasonable time frame and you're not, "leaving behind dead bodies".

Consider reading a book called, "The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at All Levels". It's contents helped me gear my interviews towards how and when I would add value to a new group. I believe that is the key to changing jobs - average time to positive ROI from the new group's perspective, not average time spent in a group.

You have some great recommendations in this thread, so thank you for asking!
Particularly in concurrent contexts escape analysis offers you no help.
Raspberry Pi Text-To-Speech Tutorial
Agreed with all that, but I'd add that it's not truly necessary to do cardio "for at least 30 minutes." High intensity interval training (you can google for HIIT if you're interested) is proven to be just as effective, if not more, than longer steadier cardio workouts.

Personally I alternate between both.
I think of it as a "where do you want complexity?" tradeoff in this whole debate. Monolithic codebases have complex code but easy deployment and monitoring and coordination (in the sense you deploy and manage one big thing). Microservices have simple code individually but have complex deployment, monitoring and interface coordination. As my team (40 people) moved toward microservices, we spend extra effort ensuring passive changes. Then we have to update and release the multiple services that need updates to gain some new feature. In the past, what was some complex code updates is now complex packaging and intricate versioning. Less code changing...but in more places.

For several reasons, I think our move toward microservices is a good one. But in our case I have seen complexity move from code to coordination.
I once drove my car during a flash flood, and wound up flooding the engine and ruining it. When my grandfather found out, he asked "Do you think this Osama Bin Laden guy could have had anything to do with it?"

"No, Grandpa, but thanks for your concern. I don't think there's any mystery here."
You can get a really quick overview of your state's energy profile on the Energy Information Administration website.[0] As you mentioned, the smaller states mostly use nuclear and renewable sources. The clear outlier is Massachusetts, which is about 60% natural gas.

[0]http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=VT#tabs-4
Correct, and Java's String(char[]) makes a copy of the array for that reason. This article's benchmark gets a boost by avoiding that.
I don't think javascript miners would have ever been remotely viable
I am nationalizing Intel and Microsoft under God's direct control through an divine oracle.

God temple must be perfect.

I am not interested in a new exotic and obscure platform. I am taking control of IBM PC compatible computers to direct along a path to perfection, home to God's temple.

I am not interested in silly fring hardware. I am taking control of 400 million IBM PC desktops under the control of God's oracle.
Heh, as soon as you mentioned looking at the wrong browser's history, I thought of the Casey Anthony trial. Oops!
What do you mean by that? You look at Android and iOS and say small fish?
"The Universe" is huge and empty and completely hostile to life. Most matter is in stars which are not empty and completely hostile to life. (And which are huge compared to us, but which are like specks of dust compared to "The Universe").

Our planet is a speck of dust rotating at a fortunate distance around another speck of (shining) dust. By mass, the majority of the planet is useless to life. Everything alive on Earth exists in a very thin skin between lifeless rock and lifeless, airless, freezing space.

Then, on any timescale meaningful to "The Universe" individuals are tiny blips. Species are around longer, but not much. Vast majority of species are killed off by cosmic events regularly (we are on something like the 6th major extinction event, IIRC).

All of humanities struggles with itself, with ignorance, all of it's artistic expression, have taken place within the context of that thin skin of warm fluid surrounding Earth over a shockingly short time frame.

The best that can be said is that we now know the score: that "The Universe" is fascinating, vast, hostile, empty, silent, and our entire species is the rough equivalent not to a mewling baby, but rather to, perhaps, a single microscopic insect gestating in its egg, just beginning to break the shell and look around.
Voxel8 Pushes Boundaries of 3D Printing
>it is never good because it breaks the integrity of the service.

So you are trying to imply that HN(or any other link aggregator) have integrity?
There really isn't an algorithm that can make algorithms, so no.
I think the problem is how easy it is to game HN, how effective it is to game HN, and how random and spurious it is if you don't game HN.

It's really difficult to just have your post get to the front page organically. It's possible (and probable) that when you submit there just aren't enough people looking at the /new page, so a lot of it comes down to sheer luck. A lot of good/great posts go by unnoticed. Getting 1 or 2 friends to upvote would probably increase your likelihood of being on the front page by 90%.

I've been gravitating towards things like http://lpushx.com, both because they're smaller, and because everything has more of a chance to "survive."

Ironically, this post just exposes how helpful it is to do the behavior it discourages. When you're trying to kill a lucrative behavior (especially something that exposes a loophole), saying, "Please don't do this behavior" is probably the worst way to do so. Now several people just figured out that you can game the system. I would recommend dang kill this.
>I hear this sentiment often, but don't really see any truth in it. Nobody is forcing you to update your code to be in line with the latest JS trends. If it ain't broken, don't fix it, and if it is broken, it was always broken and that fact has nothing to do with how rapidly the JS ecosystem is evolving.

This is a really shortsighted viewpoint. Cue 1 year later where all your libraries have fallen behind and you want to integrate a new library which has dependancies on newer version of your outdated libraries.
Unfortunately, yes. Your recruiter and/or hiring manager are definitely going to ask you this and make sure you have a ready-made answer for this question which doesn't involve "boring".
I think it's unreasonable to assume programmers can cope with an API that is free to change its algorithmic complexity, particularly when that API is part of the core library for a language. In other words, I do not fault the Java programmers who assumed that the algorithmic complexity would not change in a minor update.

The end-game for what you're suggesting is that all Java developers who care about performance, and do heavy string manipulation in their performance critical code, should re-implement the String class. I do not find that realistic.
This is just how things on the internet work.

Think about it logically. Not every person is going to see every single new submission. It takes time for the submission, if it is any good, to gain momentum and rise to the level that more people will see it. The more people that see it, the more votes it will receive.

Unless your submission is really popular or noteworthy for some reason, 8 hours seems fairly typical for an average submission.
As I remember it, Kickstarter was initially focussed around patronage. eg, give some money to a musician or film maker to make a new album or film, and your 'reward' might be access to a work-in-progress blog and a digital copy of the album/film once it was complete. ie, the rewards had a low marginal cost, and didn't consume most of the money raised during the funding period.

At some point pretty quickly Kickstarter turned in to a speculative pre-ordering service.
I find this logic itself unreliable, because it presumes that all opportunities are created equal. In a number of cases I've stayed less than a year at a place where I really could see what was wrong a couple weeks in, because you get several offers, and once you choose one, everyone else evaporates.

I've certainly had to put my shoulder into getting past this, but it's shocking how common it is for basically any hiring manager to assume that the behavior of past hiring managers was correct.

In this way, hiring managers can be replaced by LinkedIn.

Also, keep in mind that your recruiters are contacting us when we're happily employed, and that at a recent meetup in San Francisco, I'm told someone raised their hand to say, "We're hiring", to a room of booming laughter. ;)

UPDATE:

I was thinking about this, something I think about a lot, and certainly one could say, "But how do you end up with several bad managers in a row?"

I think that once you have a resume that is off the beaten path at all - and mine was almost 10y off the beaten path before my recent spate of job hopping - it's tough to get hired by anyone except the desperate, who can't fill their position. You can learn and grow in these positions for a few months, but you look around and see stagnation in people who stay longer. I also worked for a number of managers who had never been a manager before, for a CTO who hired someone 3 months a year to do a job that he otherwise insisted on doing (badly), and for someone with an MIS degree that often talked about having been taught to intentionally foster dishonest and manipulative relationships with his staff.

I'm hoping the new gig sticks for a while, but you have to give respect to someone who keeps trying. Otherwise, I will say, in the past six years I've interviewed at over 200 places and worked at aybe six, and over 100 of those companies were the same bush league situation, and usually they had terrible diversity, and even though I'm a straight cis white male, the "bro" factor was way, WAY too high for me.
Just for the record, 6 months of training and 1.5 years of work is the same ratio as 8 months of training and 2 years of work.

So if you're okay with someone taking 8 months of training and staying with you a total of 2 years, what's your objection to the shorter cycle?
Huudlr’s Top 5 Music Festivals
Adventures in creating a JavaScript image carousel
> While blatant voting manipulation may be the status quo at a certain other startup-oriented link aggregator

As I was recently told...

> No acerbic swipes on Hacker News, please.

Let's try to avoid double standards, OK?
JavaScript Closures in One Sentence
From MDN:
"Closures are functions that refer to independent (free) variables. In other words, the function defined in the closure 'remembers' the environment in which it was created."

Wow!

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Closures
Chinese shares up 4.5% as momentum spreads
A k-nearest neighbor classifier could be an example of a "simple" algorithm for intelligence, assuming of course, that you've collected a tremendous number of accurate (input, intelligent response) pairs!
I see your point but - according to the way I was thought - you shouldn't use operative concepts so "freely".

If you use e.g. "vision" in your research as a basic concept, then you should do a thorough state of the art inquiry and state exactly what you understand by it (using, of course, the state of the art). I don't believe this was done when someone thought of naming these fields as they did. I also don't think that beginning researchers do this basic "background" check; they try to achieve "vision" (or "intelligence") without a clear (and at least commonly accepted) definition of "vision" (or "intelligence").

As I said above, I can see your point, but I wouldn't do this in the scientific community. Nothing wrong about saying in the news that you want to make a computer see, but e.g. having a journal with a misdefined or malappropriated concept in its name is - IMHO - wrong.
Ask HN: Why Does LinkedIn Messenger Suck?
The UI looks like it came straight out of the 90's, is it not a popular feature?
Additionally wouldn't it make sense for them to get into the instant messenger (for business) game?
So Yuggoth must lie out in the Oort cloud?
The problem is that the "direct and economical way" tends to basically enforce bit rot and lack a reproducibility. It also tends to screw whoever inherits the project.
They cost more to run in electricity than they generate, sure. But if it's the user's electricity, the person running it might not care. People still do CPU mining with stolen AWS servers even though CPU mining is inefficient.
For me, the question addressed by the article isn't even the interesting one. The author talks about "intelligence" as in how we process environmental information and perform reasoning tasks. From that perspective, it does seem obvious that some form of computer will one day be able to do it. I don't really care if the algorithms for doing so are simple or complicated.

For me, the real question of interest is not about that kind of intelligence, but of "awareness". Computers may process environmental information and perform all sorts of logical operations based on it. But there is zero reason to think that any computer has any awareness whatsoever. It has no experience. There is something it is like to experience the color yellow, as opposed to merely classifying observed light as being of a certain wavelength; no computer has begun, in any way, to make that leap.

It seems like a lot of people, including the author, don't even notice that this is a question. They seem to assume that computer-like information processing is all that happens in a human mind, and that awareness itself doesn't even exist as something to ponder. So they equate any doubt about whether a computer can do what we do as a form of vitalism.

But with just a little bit of introspection, the fact that there is something it is like to experience the color yellow, as opposed to classifying a visual stimulus as being of a certain wavelength, or logically classifying it as having the attribute of "yellowness", is absolutely clear -- and absolutely fundamental to our existence as human beings (although many would assume that many other forms of life also have this basic ability to experience, if not the same ability to process information in computer-like ways).

This is why, for me, the Turing Test is orthogonal to the question of whether a machine is actually conscious. I have no problem imagining that a software system, even on hardware that is basically the same as what we have now but bigger and faster, will one day be able to pass the Turing Test. But that doesn't prove it has any experience of the color yellow; it merely means it can mimic the output of an entity that does.
I think a cheaper/easier solution is to just reintroduce the beaver back into the habitat and let them get to work.

http://www.resilientdesign.org/how-beavers-are-coming-to-the...
You've spent the first several years of your career figuring out what you want. That's ok. But I would be worried about your time at BigCo, because it seems like you didn't ask the right questions and understand the environment before you signed on. That would make me wonder whether you understand how my team works well enough to know that it's what you want. Based on your history, you've now been in just about every situation out there, and are old enough that you should know what you want and how to ask the right questions during interviews. So at this point I'm expecting that you're going to commit to something long enough to see it through to completion, and I'm going to be asking you tough questions along those lines, mainly to be sure that you know what we're doing, that you're excited about it, and that you intend to finish. If I did decide to hire you, I would probably be looking to structure your compensation around retention through the completion of whatever project I'm hiring for. That said, there are positions where the ramp time is very low and I would basically assume you're like a short-term contractor, and for those positions I wouldn't care. If you find one like that, it's a low-risk opportunity for both sides. The drawback for you is that those positions don't always pay well and are often the first to be eliminated when business slows.

I guess that highlights for me the biggest problem: you've talked a little about what you've done, but nothing about what you want to do. That kinda matters. If you want to be an engineer, you need to prove that you can stick with something from concept to at least the first upgrade cycle (you'll learn more from an upgrade cycle than you will from shipping ten products and then walking away from them each time). That might be a year or it might be ten. If you want to do operations, you need to complete projects and then stick around long enough to learn from what you did. An in any case, hiring managers will want to see that you've shipped something, because that's the only way to be sure that your work was good enough to use. Repeated departure well before shipping (or completing an internal project, etc.) is a big red flag, much moreso than the length of your tenure. And not staying in one place long enough to learn from past mistakes greatly reduces your value. Again, it's not the calendar time, it's what you did and learned.
The Dangers of Floating Point [video]
NASA made a tool to help visualize daylight on Pluto by letting you know when during twilight the Earth is getting about the same amount of sunlight as Pluto does at noon.

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/plutotime/
> Does this mean I am unreliable and my career is going in wrong direction?

Self-awareness is good step forward in managing your career. Be upfront with potential employers on what you've learned so far. And be prepared to address concerns they may have over your decision-quality, stick-to-itiveness, and maturity.

Relative to your next move(s) suggest that you create a scorecard-- get clear about the types of environments & work you find appealing and intellectually challenging. You must probe for those things as you explore new opportunities. Put some serious thought into evaluating if the next job is a strong match.
Tiny fpgas are sometimes used just to add a bit of glue logic next to a MCU. Or even just as reconfigurable routing for future-proofing a board. I've seen them as small as 600 logic blocks, which certainly isn't enough to do anything remotely advanced - but they're getting real cheap these days :)