skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"Almost all women—and therefore men—use a form of birth control at some point in their lives, yet contraception is so politically and legally radioactive that legislators and pharmaceutical companies avoid funding it. So it’s no coincidence that the money behind the Colorado initiative, the St. Louis study, and Liletta all came from an unnamed philanthropic source—they all were from the same discreet foundation. Very few people will discuss The Anonymous Donor on the record, but tax filings, medical journal disclosures, and an archived interview with a foundation official show the funds come from Warren Buffett, the chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway, and his family."

I'm glad we don't have to rely on democracy for progress :)
> And maybe we will see it catch up with Lua 5.3

For those that think that LuaJIT's 5.1 compatibility isn't too far behind 5.3, be aware that Lua changes a lot in its minor versions.

To give you an idea, 5.2 introduced changed how scope works (both some stuff with lexical/global scope, and by redoing environments), introduced the `goto` statement, finalisers, and changed how `break` works.

5.3 introduced integers (Lua was previously like Javascript with only one Number type which was backed by a `double`), and utf8 support.

This means that upgrading a Lua version can be a big deal and break all of the programs written in it. For instance, redis and WoW both still embed 5.1.
Yes, it is a quartz movement with a capacitor that is charged by a mechanism similar to a mechanical auto-winding watch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_watch#Automatic_quar...
Are you talking about IQ from Shadertoy?
You can check out his stuff here:
https://www.shadertoy.com/user/iq
Actually, the test pilots tell him it's such a poor design that they lost to F-16's in the mock battles:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a16248/test-pilot-f...

Rather than denying it, Lockheed's response was that it was intended for "long range" dominance. Axe's claim was that it would fire off its payload and be destroyed in dogfights by any planes that survived. The pilot's remarks and Lockheed's support that this is true... even if they have their older planes. ;)

Far as long-range, there's concerns even if we take Lockheed's word their stealth is great. Their word hasn't been reliable so far but let's pretend it is. That leaves two problems: engine being picked up by upgraded infrared sensors on next-gen aircraft; fact that tests showing long-range dominance were done with weapons it doesn't even have and still aren't in the program. Both mean it might not perform as well as expected with one being straight-up deceptive.

So, the evidence in dogfights, Lockheed's response, and their cooked tests show this plane is worthless. Upgrading proven designs that are each great at their respective missions would've been a better investment. Far as aircraft engineering, I haven't met one engineer that in private will endorse F-35 or existing VTOL aircraft. They all mock both while praising their choice of prior aircraft.

F-15's, A-10's, and F-18 Super Hornets get my vote for upgrade dollars. That's air, ground, and multi-mission. Maybe try to make the F-22 cheaper while they're at it. Improve some drones or human, recon craft. Throw in improvements on an ECM craft. All adds up for most bang for buck. Collective capability would rival a bunch of F-35's. Military with with the F-35's. Should've chosen Option A.
The intro level humanities courses may not have as clever nicknames but they bear the same relationship to upper level courses and the discipline as a whole as those classes do.

A 100 level history course aimed at non-majors looking for distribution classes isn't going to teach much "real history". Not even close. At best you are getting a small morsel of the methods and philosophies of the field buried deep inside a large scoop of crowd pleasing "and then, and then" readings and discussion.

Not that there's anything wrong with that approach to pedagogy for either the scientists or the historians.
Who the fuck would read ANY sort of Performance article from Facebook in regards to Android.

Facebook for Android is the single worst Android app in existence due to the horrible number of hacks they proudly put in it. It's a huge memory and battery hog. If I install it on my phone again, my battery life HALVES, and that's not an exaggeration.

Ironically, Facebook Lite supports push notifications, uses less than 10MB of RAM and works perfectly.
They've acknowledged it and with OSX El Capitan and iOS 9 the focus is less on features and more on performance/polish. Remains to be seen whether they deliver or not.
So these people feel like their leg is prosthetic in a way ? I'd still be tempted to keep that well-functional-free prosthetic. Then again, we are talking mental disorders of course.
I use multiple cores for some tasks, such as the fluid sim - I only have not moved loading scene data into a separate thread.
do whatever you want to do, so long as in doing so you will not prevent anyone else from doing what they want to do, now or in the future.
I worded this incorrectly. We have quite a lot bilt. We talk about code design for each part before we build that.
I have 150GB in iTunes Match a lot of it live or remixes.

It definitely does do acoustic fingerprinting since I've never had or continue to have issues with my music being swapped out for something else.
Which seemed to mostly be Joe - and I support Joe's criticism. It has to do with gender norms, society constructed and "helpful to market" or not.

Where do tomboys fit into this? Where do transgender women fit into this [3]? I'd be put off from attending due to all the emphasis on "girly things" and the fact that I don't know if I belong or not (without doing some more research at least).

On the blog here [0] there is a mention for "Yay Python", seemingly headed by some Django Girls. It caught my interest so I went to the page [1]. Glitter, art, and sparkles. Beautiful (used 5 times on the one page) and imaginative. A child-like connect-the-dots with flowers and pink and "girly typography".

I'm sure it's, on a technical level, a great book. But it comes off as "this is girly, made by girls, and it's meant for girls [2].

In their attempt to make "squirrels feel more welcome" they've marginalized even more squirrels further by showing that these "tomsquirrels" don't even belong with the squirrels!

>The book will build on the Django Girls tradition, with "a good dose of emoji and funny little quirks".

So girls have to use a lot of emoji and be "quirky" (cutesy?)? I'm feeling less and less like I belong...

[0] https://lwn.net/Articles/651833/

[1] http://yaypython.com/

[2] Usable by anyone is a cop out. Girls can play with Hot Wheelz and action figures too, but they aren't the target demographic. The book is obviously marketed towards girls even if it is usable by anyone.

[3] http://organize.djangogirls.org/attendees/index.html | I did more research, though I'm still confused if I would be encouraged to be given priority or not? Not renumbering to show that I checked after writing everything else out.
ShotPut (YC S15) helps fulfill product orders at a price that works for startups
I agree with your comments in a general way, but argue that in many organization, the system with the fewest overt rules and processes devolves into a complex set of covert rules and processes.

It appears simpler at first glance, because the complexity is deliberately hidden. The oft-quoted example concerns “structureless” organizations:

http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm

This is not universal, but something to guard against: That the “simpler” system is not, in fact, a structureless environment where manipulative individuals will create an invisible complex system.
I liked lego much later than cuisinaire but lego was not based on a unit cube like cuisinaire.

Lego has a different unit height than unit width.

Cuisinaire were better for flat math rather than cubic math ziggurats that I dimly recall building.
I'm actually pretty sure their main expense - at least when it comes to expanding internationally - is lawyers and lawsuits. I mean Uber drivers get threatened and their cars wrecked in France, where the existing taxi companies - that have to pay a lot of money and / or have certain connections to be able to drive a legal taxi - have protested against Uber vigorously.
Its usually better to be explicit and use aggregates like MAX or MIN instead of a LIMIT of 1.
The easy way to do it is to just ask, "When have we been unable to destroy enemy vehicles or structures due to extra planes?" We did it in Iraq faster than ever with our current configuration of various, specialized aircraft. What you're mentioning can be done with F-18's and A-10's against most countries. The top opponents are investing in, again, aircraft specialized for certain types of missions that will dominate F-35 in any performance test.

China's F-35 is already better than ours for instance. I'm not sure if they sent Lockheed a thanks for all the free R&D. ;)
The traffic is more than likely caused by Facebook crawling your page before launching the campaign.
How to send product recommendations to mail chimp users
Hello guys, I am trying to come up with a solution to send email newsletter with product recommendation to our users. This is what I have:
1. User-list on mailchimp.
2. All users segmented into different categories.
3. Products with unique url, price, and description stored in my Parse.com database.

What I need:
1. Find out products for each segment of users and send an email campaign to that segment.

What I have done:
1. Run a cron job to find out products and send it to Mandrill to the targeted segments.

This solution is very slow and takes forever to finish as it is trying to send a transactional email to each user.

Ideally I would like to just get the products list and send it to a campaign on Mailchimp for each segment.

If anyone has an experience in such integration, pointers to it would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Much more readable analysis here. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

It's hard to say how much we'll ultimately spend on the F-35 for complicated reasons. For example, it's hard to guess what jet fuel will cost in, say, 2030. Might be cheap, might be crazy expensive.

I am not fond of the program for many reasons, however, it's important to clarify what's going on with that number. I think your number of $100 billion is right. We have not yet spent $1000 billion on the program. One key point about the cost is, they projected using the fighter for 50 years rather than the traditional 30.

IMHO, it's the last wooden warship. I'd rather spend the money on unmanned specialized drones. But, i can grind that axe elsewhere. Thanks for the links, it did clarify some of my thinking about the F-35.
This reminds me of an anecdote that a Marine officer once told me.

He said that when the Air Force builds a new base, they're given a certain budget and they build every part of the base, gym, mess hall, rec facilities e.t.c. and use the entirety of the budget to make the base nice and comfortable for the airmen that are stationed there. Then, when the base is almost completed, and over schedule, the party in charge asks for more money, and more time because they still need to build the most important part of the base, the flight-line.

I know this is most likely an embellishment, but being involved with government work in the past, it doesn't sound far off from the truth and felt it fit nicely in this situation.
> I recall a long time ago reading something about potential uses of a 128-bit CPU architecture with 128-bit addressing.

Go back to the IBM System/38 and the AS/400 and that is exactly what you have. Programs are actually 128 bit oriented bytecode, so the actual CPU architecture isn't visible, doesn't matter, and has been upgraded many times over the years.

They also did virtual memory differently. Everything is in the same address space, which means everything can (after access control) communicate and cooperate. Task switches are also very fast. They also use tagged pointers, but it is a single bit outside of what the apps can see, and marks a pointer as modified. Consequently pointers can be given out, and the kernel knowns if the app has tampered with them.

I highly recommend reading the architects book about how all this stuff worked, mixed in with how business machines should behave. Many things are very different than conventional Unix/Linux/Windows NT kernels, and a good way of broadening your mind. The second edition book is good - later editions may have removed earlier interesting detail. http://www.amazon.com/Inside-AS-400-Second-Edition/dp/188241...
There's not much new in this paper; it's basically a survey. Read the original IETF mailing list posts for extended-random and OpaquePRF. Both proposals were discussed, and the presumptive reason for both of them to be standardized was to make TLS acceptable for deployments on USG networks that had weird crypto requirements.

What you're quoting from Bernstein's paper is the rationale DoD had for requiring a change to TLS for its deployment on their networks. This too was discussed on detail on the mailing list: their interpretation of the requirements of Suite B were that the randomness in a crypto transport had to be of arbitrary length, contributed both by client and server, and tied to keying.

Nobody at the time claimed that these were requirements for Internet cryptography. Just that DoD had these requirements internally, and it was better to define a TLS extension to meet them than to have DoD running some horrible custom protocol that the private sector would eventually have to implement too.

The "compatibility" I'm referring to is with DOD policy, not a technical measure.

I am not arguing that NSA was pure of heart in proposing OpaquePRF/extended-random. Perhaps they had a key escrow plan in place for their own networks? What I am saying is that there was no serious discussion that I can find for the deployment of OpaquePRF/extended-random on civilian networks.
Now if they ask me (wouldn't that be odd? "let's ask one of those guys on the Internet...").

After the F-35 program is cut back from a couple of thousand to a few hundred craft, and then completely cancelled, this is what I think should happen:

1) extensions and upgrades to old platforms. Aesa/irst and modern bvr for all craft.

2) Make a new cheaper "4.5 gen" multirole platform with low operation costs, and no silly budget-breaking features: no full
Stealth, no jumpjet. Instead just low radar cross section, supercruise, and lots of payload (f-35 can carry very little because of stealth and jumpjet design constraints). Looking at the Gripen, this should be possible at a fraction of the cost of an F-35.

3) tell the marines they can stop using jumpjets and use choppers or drones or whatever. Jumpjets are a dead end.

4) Make a few more F-22's in case the ultra expensive air superiority is needed.
A 12kg weight hanging 6 feet in the air seems a little dangerous to me. Definitely less dangerous than a kerosene lamp, but I'd be worried about poorly attached weights falling if someone bumps their head on it.
Hm, tested this on real landing page: cost.remoteyoda.com. And saw some leads, not seem like robots. Buy the way if you upload only one image for an ad, it doesn't happen.
The asymmetric threat should make the carrier extinct pretty soon, and this should have been taken into account even during the JSF project. The carrier is what the major battleship was in WW2: a basket for too many eggs.
IRC has definitely been a great place for me to learn from and interact with the developers of OSS. Not too long ago, I had a strange un-googleable (that's a word now, I insist) error in Canvas LMS (an open source learning management system), and ended up in a dialog with one of the developers. Turned out to be an obscure (to me, anyway) 32/64-bit bug that I wouldn't have ever figured out on my own, and I contributed a patch to fix it. A great experience.
Sadaam's had trucks, tanks, and planes IIRC. Most Middle East targets don't operate entirely with shoes and camels. There's plenty of machinery to target.

Remember, though, that these programs exist to put money back into Congressional districts more than anything else. That's why they do nothing about Pentagon being a financial sinkhole with broken accounting. So, they have to do upgrades, need a lot of money to move, and everyone wants a piece of it. Option A: invest small amounts to upgrade a few proven planes with their contractors and subcontractors; Option B: invest as much as a war into an unproven one with cash across many districts and capabilities a compromise across various branches. Option A is best for taxpayer but Option B is best those paid with taxes. Washington and Pentagon 101. ;)
The A-10 is built around an absolutely awesome cannon, but it is vulnerable to shoulder-fired missile launchers. I don't know how many of these ISIS has, but there are plenty of them out there in the world, and they are designed to be used by irregular forces.
What connection?

Just in what people do: If they can't
do the simple work on the
easy to see
label on the bottle right, then
can't have confidence in the
more difficult work less easy to see
for the contents of the bottle.
"The government is projected to pay $1.51T over the next 50-plus years" is a very different statement from "The government paid $1.5T for it."
The whole long-range dominance idea reminds me of early-Vietnam era F4 Phantoms - they were supposed to use the early models of Sparrow and Sidewinder missiles exclusively for air-to-air combat. So when they actually got into combat, the armorers started strapping externally mounted gunpods on them, so that they could have a chance to dogfight with the mostly cannon-armed MiGs they encountered.
For those are are totally new to Flatbuffers, here is a good video by Colt from Google. It was primarily created for game developers but technically any app can use it - those who are not relying on a library that handles networking and has implementation for JSON.

He also mentioned Flatbuffer use in his recent at Android meetup in San Francisco and we debated it's benefits again. It has a learning curve but well worth it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQTxMkSJ1dQ
Dual_EC was actively recommended, on the auspices that deployed cryptosystems already depended on number theoretic security guarantees, and that it made sense to minimize the number of things one's cryptosystem depends on.

Extended-random was proposed as a way to allow DoD to deploy TLS on its networks, rather than using custom crypto protocols. OpaquePRF in particular was explicitly about getting TLS to play well with the Suite B policies. It was never recommended as a deployment default.

You have probably never used a crypto tool that used either Dual_EC or extended-random, for what it's worth.
For anyone wondering postpartum IUD implantation is one of the most effective forms of birth control known [1]. You catch women right after they have gone through giving birth and have a strong incentive not to have the experience again. They are also already at a location that can do the implant so the extra effort needed to get them to come back is not an obstacle.

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25439838
This shouldn't be news - it was revealed in the late 90's and chronicled in, among other places, Munger's biography.

https://books.google.com/books?id=LhMGSDiQghEC&pg=PA137&lpg=...
Show HN: Drop in Sentiment Analysis Microservice
We don't have access to their pitch deck - market size, roadmap and traction. If we were privy to that info, am sure some of this would make more sense.
Don't companies need all those beautiful people (tm) so that the engineers have someone to date, rather than boringly dating each other?
In a discussion I had recently we started talking about metaprogramming, which in practice is only the tiniest and most minimal execution of the implied idea: writing programs that operate on programs. Modern convention is to treat programs as black boxes that only the developers of that specific program can hope to reason about. And so metaprogramming is when a programmer writes or very carefully uses a component that operates on the program, but the result is just the program – you can't run the program without the applied metaprogramming nor can you apply metaprogramming to a program and expect it to work. Except debugging.

Underneath the suggestion in the paper I see something similar. "Programming" might be an overly specific term. But a call to apply reasoning to systems and computation. Not applying reasoning to specific systems, as a programmer might analyze or test a specific program (what we're already doing), but to systems as a whole. I can see this in other computing developments. Operating systems are the result of reasoning about hardware. The result looks very different from coding directly to the hardware, especially in our mature state. But programs still are binaries with machine code. Before the OS of course was the program itself. And so what would it look like if we applied this kind of reasoning to programs?

But oh, we already apply so much reasoning to programming! But in a certain way. We apply reasoning to compilers, which programmers use as they will. We build libraries and hope they are used well. And then we pull these together to some actual purpose in the program. And we assemble programs into systems. Each step empowers the next layer, but we don't apply (much) software to explore, verify, or extend these layers. Our tests are typically written as binary pass/fail systems, with no generalized attention to WHY something fails – and we can't apply generalized attention because the program is too opaque.
I wouldn't have remembered that I actually used this if this wasn't posted here!

I don't recall when or in what depth, but I definitely recall them being involved in my education when I was learning addition and maybe even multiplication.
Just curious. Is there any estimation of the cost of maintaining 6 seperate aircraft versus 1 ?

That is a lot of duplicate parts, engineering effort, training etc.
Constant strings have always been interned. I don't think any others are, though I haven't looked into it in a while.
I quoted authirs saying ""Cryptographic parity" is not a common phrase among cryptographers. It is not defined in the document, and its intended meaning is highly unclear." What was written by NSA that was clearer then? Link or quote? If it's "the randomness in a crypto transport had to be of arbitrary length, contributed both by client and server, and tied to keying" then it's just a somehow rephrased "the public randomness for each side should be at least twice as long as the security level" which I (and the article authors before) also quoted as a DoD excuse.
Seattle hasn't failed, instead it is booming. There's almost too many startups, too many job offers. I don't want anyone else to move here, we have too much traffic, home prices rising almost too fast (I say that even though I own a home :-)).