clin_

You can get session management by using tmux integration.

Terminal.app almost certainly does not do what you're describing by default.

My point is that her tenure in the executive branch extended beyond her involvement in the Iraq War. As SoS, she was also involved in Africa policy, led a push for proactive diplomacy, etc.

In addition, the comments about hiring Rice to secure government contracts is absurd in the opposite direction.

It's unbelievable the number of people commenting in this thread that don't comprehend the role of the Secretary of State.

False. In OOP you can do this using the visitor pattern. The difference is that Haskell makes this real convenient, with its algebraic types feature baked into the language, while OOP makes it very cumbersome.

I don't think we're on the same page here. I meant to say that Haskell protects against inconsistent states: you literally cannot create a dead player with HP and Inventory records. I don't have a strong grasp on the visitor pattern, but I'm not sure how it can be used to accomplish compile time guarantees that the properties of an object will always be correct.

It's still far more annoying when the language is lazily evaluated and has Haskell syntax.

Python:

  def f(x,y):
      print x, y
      return x + y

  f x y = traceShow (x, y) (x + y)

That said, laziness should not be an issue if you are simply testing that functions are correct, since most functions are pure and you will almost never use lazy IO.

If you need to debug evaluation order or a memory leak, that's much harder, and admitted one of Haskell's biggest weaknesses. My answer here is that you should almost always prefer strict data structures and functions unless you really need laziness. That's not a cure all, but it is a good policy when programming in Haskell.

Here's a handful of things I really appreciate about Haskell, although some of this apply to other ML family languages as well:

1.) Algebraic Data Types let you enforce a huge amount of correctness in your programs simply by how you define your types.

For example, say you have a data type that represents a player's state in a game. If the player is alive, he has a "HP" and "inventory" record. If the player is dead, he should just be dead—HP and inventory may or may not be set to 0 and None, respectively. In C or OOP languages, you just get a player object/struct and you have to enforce this state logic manually, and you can easily write a function that puts the player in an inconsistent state (player.alive = False, but player.HP = 15). In Haskell, you can define the player such that code that produces this kind of inconsistent state will not compile.

Of course, you should still write tests in Haskell, but it's amazing to me that the type system can catch the vast majority of programming errors before your program even compiles. It takes longer to get something up and running, but you make up for this up front cost with long term gains in maintainability.

2.) Functional purity enforces two very useful properties:

a.) Data is never mutated by accident. This ensures you never have to look beyond the scope of the function you're working on (or closing over, in some cases) to know what's going on. You can then compose these functions to create more complex programs.

b.) When you do need mutability and side effects to happen, Haskell forces you to be very explicit about this and enforces a strict separation between "pure" and "effectual" code. This seems arbitrary until you realize that almost all of your errors not caught by the compiler happen because of IO. Whereas you have complete control over the pure part of your program, IO is nondeterministic and full of exceptions and edge cases. Separating this part of your code makes it far easier to reason about what's happening, adding to maintainability.

As a side note on the last point: people make the argument that this separation makes Haskell impossible to do printf debugging. Not true—the standard library provides ways of circumventing the type system specifically for this reason.

3.) "Monads" and other fancy sounding abstractions can be hard, but with practice they become as intuitive as inheritance in OOP. The real barrier to entry is the awful, awful documentation everywhere. I make no apologies for that: it's just really shitty and the community needs to do a hundred times better.

Your confirmation email was sent to my spam folder.

Here's some things you can do to make your email look less like spam:

1.) Use Sublimall in the from field (never leave the from field blank).

2.) Include a physical address for your company somewhere in the message body.

3.) Use better english and include an explanation of what this email is, what triggered it, instructions to ignore the email if the recipient didn't request it.

I think outside of the box by avoiding cliche.

I like spaced repetition apps, but I'm kind of annoyed that this is just a sloppy landing page without a demo or a concrete description of what the app does. I would resubmit after the app is ready to launch, or you at least have some kind of demo.

Are there any working ports for Mac?

This is silly. "Government wasn't important to the construction of our transportation infrastructure" is an argument you're not going to win, and this conversation increasingly feels like you're grasping at straws.

I feel like the reasonable middle ground here is simply what Fred Turner is insisting: the two components are intertwined and symbiotic. Why is that so hard to accept?

Just so people who only read the headline or skimmed the post know the whole story, the author of this blog ambushed a random Google employee with questions about the treatment of Google contract employees in a private chat room and proceeded to publish quotes from the conversation out of context.

See post here: http://vpsexperience.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/googler-speaks...

This is clearly done with the intention of embarrassing Travis Collins on the internet, which is in express violation of Digital Ocean's policy which forbids using the service to harass or embarrass others. The author makes a bunch of terrible, incoherent excuses for his disgusting behavior and tries to rally support for his cause on Hacker News.

Pretty embarrassing and deplorable behavior on the OP's part, all considered.

What terribly written tripe. For an accomplished coder, Bryan Goldberg is surprisingly incapable of grasping nuance.

Plagued by a sense of immense emptiness, intrigued by the plethora of possibilities, born was the idea of Simpli5d Technologies with a vision to decipher the entrails of seemingly endless mystics of the digital age. An age defined not by the action but the reaction, an age where constant innovation is not the need but the compulsion, an age where Quality and Excellence are the sin qua for existence.

We at Simpli5d Technologies thrive hard every moment for the realization of this vision. Self motivated with funding from an angle, we are a bunch of professionals with multifarious expertise dedicated towards conquering the digital world. The words Techies, Entrepreneurs, don’t define us… We call ourselves Missionaries to En-(On)-lightenment.

oh my god

This is the single worst comment I've read on HN.

I've been inspired by this article to write a post titled "How to Analyze Big Data in Python" that walks you through how to make pivot tables in excel.

For Zizek, this was quite trite and meaningless.

Thanks for contributing to the spectacle, man.

You're awfully presumptuous.

The global economy functions with many, many different currencies, nearly all of which are managed by a central bank. It's widely accepted that currencies are best that which are regionally segmented, because the qualities and monetary needs of different economies tend to vary locally. See wikipedia on Optimal Currency Area.

Thus, we consider individual currencies on a case by case basis. By almost every conventional and widely-accepted measure, bitcoin is a terrible currency with little chance of remaining stable. a.) it's region agnostic b.) hugely speculative c.) inelastic, practically constant supply d.) difficult to centrally manage.

Please, tell me more about economic history.

Why are people replying to this post like OP is some kind of authority? It doesn't sound like he "studied economics" so much as he took a course.

Of course you can have a deflationary currency. The problem is that people won't spend it. The dollar is not naturally inflationary. Instead, the fed allows for a controlled amount of inflation every year to encourage spending. Automatically managed currencies like you discuss still suffer from inflexibility—as our understanding of monetary economics adjusts, or qualities of the economy change (as with the change in velocity of money during the 80's-90's), it would be difficult to adjust the algorithm to better stabilize the money supply.

More importantly, cryptocurrencies are region agnostic. I take it you learned about optimal currency area in your studies? Any arbitrary threshold would risk having inconsistent effects in different places. Expansion may be just the thing to encourage additional transactions in a recessionary region, but may encourage rapid inflation elsewhere. The result is always high volatility, making it unfit as a store of value.

Congratulations, you found a semantic exception but missed the entire point. The point is that it's not just some people hordeing money. The fact that ratio of spending has not grown proportionately with BTC value suggests that recent demand for BTC is almost entirely speculative.

Sorry if this is kind of a nasty reply, but I'm really tired of people with no comprehension of how money functions being in denial about their pet technology.

Were you worried about giving up bitcoin that could dramatically grow in value later? Or did you buy back bitcoin after spending it?

Your logic is bewildering. In your scenario, you're still essentially transacting in USD and using BTC as an investment or a store of value. You're not actually spending BTC, since you expect the value to continue rising, and you buy back the BTC. Another way of looking at it is that there's no exchange of goods in BTC, since the BTC you sell doesn't transfer to a merchant, but to another investor.

Either way, this implies BTC doesn't have intrinsic worth. The OP's argument stands: deflationary forces make it even harder to create a market in bitcoin since no one wants to trade an asset that they think will appreciate in value.

This is largely academic posturing, which is the case with a lot of critical theory. Pinker makes it clear throughout Better Angels that his working definition of violence is limited to the physical kind. He's also adamant that his choice of topic is not an endorsement of any specific moral hierarchy, and if you read the book, you would know the tone is not entirely self-congratulatory, but often somber and introspective.

What this article claims is Pinker's "exercise of circularity" slash discursive violence is merely a sin of omission: because Pinker chose not to make his book about modern problems, the author jumps to the conclusion that he is partly responsible for these problems.

By this logic: Yesterday I didn't have a single conversation about inequality or racism—I guess that makes me complicit! That strikes me as kind of absurd, I don't know about anyone else.

Hey! You're the guys I saw in the Avalon lounge Saturday night.

Hope my drunken pool playing didn't annoy you too much. Things seem to be getting off to a good start with Tablo—good luck!