andreasvc

No but then again there's barely anyone to talk Lojban with.

Why don't you agree with the poetry definition put forth? Do you have a counterexample or alternative definition?

I don't see the point of this. Either you trust your cloud provider, or you don't put it in the cloud. You could think of a technical solution to prevent monitoring, but how can you ever be sure that your provider has actually implemented it? Plus, I don't think providers would want something like this; if there's something gravely illegal going on, you want to be able to know and ban that user from your service.

The distinction is not all that useful, and is blurred nowadays. You could say that CPython compiles code to bytecode, but the bytecode is then interpreted; however, none of that matters, because it's doing very little optimization and that means it's slow. Javascript is typically also not compiled ahead-of-time to native code, but it can still be very fast because of JIT; at the same time it's still very much a dynamic language which makes it share features with interpreted languages.

I'd say JIT is neither about compilation nor interpretation, but about optimization.

Specifically, an interpreter without JIT. I'd reckon that LuaJIT or Javascript could come much closer to C.

Nitpick: that creates a list, not an array. It could be faster, but it's not the same benchmark. When you get to the point where the speed of loops matters it's better to reach for Cython, Numba, PyPy, etc.

Not just close to native speed, this will get you the exact same C code for the inner loop.

I wouldn't call it theoretically the best. It is affected by outliers and doesn't make any generalization at training time. This latter point raises the questions whether it deserves the name learning. I would say linear models are typically a better learning algorithm; I wouldn't know what to call "the best" algorithm, but it might be deep learning nowadays.

Perfectly reasonable? More like fighting windmills, I'd say.

I don't see how difficulty has any bearing on privacy or copyright issues.

Yes, when you submit a comment to HN you intend for it to be published on the HN site. However, using comments for text mining purposes is a different thing and in principle consent is required to do that. The default case is that user submitted content remains copyrighted by the author, with an implied consent for the site to publish the material on the site. There can be an explicit license such as with Wikipedia or StackOverflow; in that case text mining may be explicitly allowed.

I fail to see what your point is. I believe there does exist an appropriate perspective for questions such as these. Are you arguing that it doesn't exist, that the one I suggested isn't the appropriate one, or that we can just ignore the problem? This is basically about framing issues, something which is generally recognized as a crucial factor in debate.

The problem with "the GPL is freer than the BSD license" is that it's the wrong question to ask, because the perspective is too narrow. What matters most IMHO is which license will lead to the largest and most viable ecosystem of free software. If you take this perspective of a whole ecosystem instead of the license of a single project, a lot of complex dynamics and unintended consequences need to be considered, and it may make more sense to investigate empirically instead of armchair arguing.

You listed two serial killers with a high IQ; however, the merits of IQ can be debated, but more importantly Kaczynsky stands out because he holds a PhD and was a Berkeley professor.

Would be best to disallow mixing types I think, except for the legacy behavior with primitive types you describe. Those hidden conversions are a source of subtle bugs.

> The noble savage is another Victorian invention.

Are you sure? I would have expected them to take the opposite view of "savages", namely the Hobbesian view that their lives were "nasty, brutish and short".

My advice: simply remove Comic Sans from your computer.

That argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's trivial to obtain legit sounding names for spamming purposes. It's better to report actual spam than something indirect such as names; being able to report accounts just for their names is asking for abuse.

I can think of at least one reason. Copy-pasting from a terminal fails to preserve tabs, while commas are fine.

Tabs might be somewhat less frequent than commas in data, but you're still gonna have just as bad a time when they do turn up. And don't forget quoting and escaping. Without proper parsing you can neither read CSV nor TSV safely. My go to solution is pandas.read_table()

I also find the "for Humans" thing annoying, but not for the reasons you list. The examples you list are all specific and informative. In the case of "for Humans" what is probably meant is something like "straightforward" or "simple". The thing is, there isn't anything that is NOT designed "for Humans", so the label is meaningless, IMHO.

This story doesn't check out; I don't see a package named "openssh" (on Jessie), but there is a package "openssh-client" which only installs the client.

But regardless, starting sshd on installation shouldn't matter because proper passwords and firewall should be the first step.

I agree that defaults are crucial, but it's weak passwords not rate limiting which is the fundamental issue here. Rate limiting doesn't help if you get in with the first try of admin:admin. Passwords should be generated from a secure random source and specified on a label on the device.

I use a similar technique based on DNS: http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/zero/

NOx is not laughing gas, nor a food additive:

"NOx should not be confused with nitrous oxide (N2O), which is a greenhouse gas and has many uses as an oxidizer, an anesthetic, and a food additive." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx

The gap that Julia has to fill in terms of library ecosystem is definitely large.

Numba is specific to numeric/array-oriented code. Cython is general-purpose and can also be used to implement e.g. datastructures.

All manner of transportation and industry is contributing to global warming. Unfortunately, that is typically not an important factor in these kinds of decisions.

> Small-minded attitudes like yours would have kept us living in caves because people in mud huts were the "undeserving rich".

Not having such cheap flights might ultimately have been for the better. Flying has become very cheap, but we're not paying the true cost in terms of environmental damage.

This:

    >>> [x for y in (range(i) for i in range(5)) for x in y]

can be simplified into:

    [y for x in range(5) for y in range(x)]

The matrix multiplication on lists could be used for the cartesian product (see itertools.product). However this operation is rather uncommon so there's no good reason to use an operator for it.

It wouldn't incur any overhead, don't know why you'd think it would. Each method of any object only needs to be stored once, not again for every instance. The overhead comes from pointers and data fields such as the length.

> Teach them ways to become autonomic, to find their own path through life, and addiction will calm down by itself.

How is this any different from the "premise of curing addicted people"? It seems naive to expect problems to go away by themselves.

Your comment seems to present some sort of anti-psychiatry narrative, which is a dangerous and irresponsible set of ideas, IMHO.