jeeyoungk

Otto did not raise any rounds. Having external stakeholders would've made their shady deal even harder to pull.

The way I interpret it is, explicit patent license implies _less_:

- Explicit patent license specifies why / how it can be revoked.

- Without an explicit patent license, patent infringement case (by Facebook) against a party that uses Facebook's OSS would be become harder, because one may argue that such grant is implied by Facebook open sourcing the software.

Great thing about America is that no matter how rich or poor you are, you drink the same coke - Andy Warhol.

thanks for your contentful comment. I'm pretty sure everyone in HN will appreciate this.

"modulo" in this sense does make sense, because it's abstracting that part out and mapping it to a equivalence relation.

phantomjs is a lot of work to maintain, and the developer officially deprecated it, recommending people to use chrome headless mode instead.

Point of no return is when the VCs wire money to you.

These people tend to exaggerate their funding prospective, saying things like "they backed out". Ultimately VCs don't owe anybody money and startups are not entitled with funding.

Investing is just like any other purchase, and as a VC if you believe that a company is not worthwhile to invest then you should be ready to say no no matter what stage the conversation is in.

Ironically the fact that the company couldn't raise another round / continue without finding is a sign that VCs did make a right choice.

Unsafe allows you to dereference raw pointers and foreign-function calls, but you cannot go around the borrow checker, which is what's causing annoyance.

That said, you can create raw and dereference raw pointers, which lets you to do the above.

Your "x and x and and x" sentence is about hard to parse! I was wondering whether you hated handlebars and mustache also.

Only time I had C++ on my resume was when I was looking for my first internship and was desperate to pad my resume with _something_... Hey, I took a course in C++, so I can put it down, right?

I soon removed it afterwards after knowing what "knowing c++" implied.

Rust is one of my favorite programming language, and yet I learned how much I missed java after learning Rust. The fact that everything is dynamically dispatched and non-primitives are referential type allows you to program things without thinking too much. Plus, JIT & Hotspot can optimize these away - perform stack allocations for local objects and short-circuit dynamic dispatch for nonvirtual functions.

That said, my biggest Rust-gripe has been writing recursive / self-referential data structures. Borrow system is just not very convenient for that and you end up restructing the code to be a bit more Rust-friendly.

Agreed. It's very unnatural to represent data structures with circular references, or pointers in general. I had to re-think how I approach certain problems to make it more Rust-friendly.

See issues like https://engineering.instagram.com/dismissing-python-garbage-...

If you have to turn off a crucial language feature to increase performance, I'm not sure whether a language is considered "scalable".

It also depends on how "deep" you want to get.

A lot of built-in constructs uses unsafe under the hood. Vector (Rust's dynamic arrays) does memory allocation / resizing under the hood for example, and there's no safe way to do it, unless some safer array allocation primitive is exposed.

Also things like mem::swap(x, y) cannot be implemented at all with safe rust. in order to perform swap, you need a temporary variable. That temporary variable would be uninitialized, which Rust does not allow.

Note that in c++ it invokes copy constructor - http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/algorithm/swap/ - but Rust's mem::swap works for types that does not implement the Copy trait (Rust's equivalent to copy constructor).

Same can be said about slice splitting functions, which is primarily used to work around Rust's borrow checker.

Though, I think only "Issac" and "Yi Suk" are his names, and others seem to be phonetic variations of his first / last names.

is there a RFC link for this? I got bitten by this once by attempting to return a derived iterator similar to `x.iter().map(...).filter(...)` example you had, but I couldn't figure out the return type of such function as Rust forbids type inferencing for return types.

I'm assuming that since he's a high-profile hire from an acquisition with a lot of vesting cycles attached to it, there are more required legal procedures including time window to amend things.

To be honest, that is how the original civilization games feel like. Very sparse and unfriendly onboarding.

Yes, it is considered Opex (operational expenditure) with no asset to depreciate over time.

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/epic-story-dropboxs-exodus-ama... has an interesting story around their custom storage hardware solution.

I stopped reading when the chatbox obscured the screen also. I'm confused on what the author is trying to achieve.

Lego.

My favorite on this subject is "Monads are like burritos"

https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuiti...

What do you mean they are not exact numbers? 2204 does seem to imply 4 significant digits.

What do they mean by "microservice" in this context? In a microservice architecture there is a topology of services. Data & Requests move and fan out in this topology.

For algorithms "microservice" architecture is highly dubious. You may perform point-lookups (given X, categorize Y) but you may also perform a large-scale computation (given millions of X, categorize Y). In that case, moving _code_ around instead of data is much more valuable. Thus you get systems like SQL, Hadoop, Spark where code is shipped around instead of data.

"Facebook is the Facebook for X" is way I summarize it.

That is with some bounds applied to it - if we allow unbounded games (ko, superko, etc) then it is EXPTIME-complete.

> Some things are not as simple as playing out every possible solution and picking the optimal one.

That's the point. The branching factor of go is so high that with the current trend in hardware improvements it is impossible to play out every single solution.

In this case, client = server. If your computer is compromised then they can get access to both private and public keys of 1Password and 1Password Mini.

It also doesn't prevent MITM unless both the client & server. Nothing stops you from presenting a fake public key pair between the communication

How doe TLS work then? Because public keys are signed by central authorities. Who do we know what to trust? Browsers and OSes have default list of certificate authorities to trust. How do we know that we can trust them? Technically they should be communicated outside the internet. If the version of Chrome you download is compromised with a rogue certificate authority (ex: SuperFish) then you're hosed.

It's turtles all the way. Unless keys are communicated securely somehow you cannot guarantee secure communication.

you can't undo sending network packets containing sensitive information to somewhere else.

I can't believe that none of the people have mentioned Lakatos's "Proofs and Refutations" - such a good work, which shows the organical refactoring of a vague mathematical intuition into a formal system.