Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | steveklabnik's comments login

  > Sorry to be boring but a simple timer seems more sensible.
Not all projects are about being sensible. This is "hacker" News after all.

  > And kitty needs water.
Water and food have different needs; an automatic water fountain like http://www.amazon.com/Drinkwell-Platinum-Pet-Fountain-168oz/... keeps a pool of water fresh at all times, without needing to dispense a particular measure of it.

Worth noting: Sean maintains Rails's ORM, ActiveRecord. This is very much NOT a port of it, but he's got a lot of experience in this area, and this is a project I'm really excited about.


I just watched a talk where Kernighan brought up this exact anecdote.

Yup, I would strongly agree. Diagnostics are one of those things that's easy to let slip by the wayside, but we've seen a huge payoff for users with all the time we've invested in ours. Glad to see other languages like Elm help raise the bar here too.

The "Erowid Recruiter" Twitter account Markov-chain mashes up Erowid plus reciter emails.

It's quite wonderful.


Wow. But is it reliable in the case of network partitions?

  > a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that
  > are incompatible with an open society.
Yet, a significant number of them also do. You can't generalize over a billion people like this.

For example, there are many Muslim-majority states that have had multiple women as heads of state. Sounds pretty progressive when you put it that way...

You can't generalize over a billion people like this.

Of course you can. The issue is not that such generalizations are invalid, but what conclusions to draw from them and what actions to take in response.

Also note that I have a black friend^W^W Muslim roommate (in fact a Hafiz) I get along well with. That does not mean I don't consider Islam as it presents itself today on a global scale a dangerous ideology.

For example, there are many Muslim-majority states that have had multiple women as heads of state.

And how many out gay politicians are there in such countries? And anecdotally speaking, remember what happened to Benazir Bhutto.

Not Jacques, but from a few months back: "White Supremacists More Dangerous To America Than Foreign Terrorists, Study Says" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/domestic-terrorism-...

  > At least 48 people have been killed stateside by right-wing
  > extremists in the 14 years since since the September 11
  > attacks -- almost twice as many as were killed by
  > self-identified jihadists in that time.

As Jacques says, "terrorist" attacks are only committed by a Muslim majority because we re-define any attack committed by a non-Muslim as "not terrorism."

Are you actually going to put some lone nut jobs here and there on the same level as organized and determined jihadists? If so, you need to include the tens of thousands of murdered people that ISIS has been responsible for. You'll need to include the Russian jet that was blown up, the attack in Paris, and all those killed by al-qaeda on 9/11, etc.

You'll also need to explain why the FBI terrorist list doesn't show that the government has a similar concern for white supremacists.


The FBI is concerned about white supremacists: http://thegrio.com/2015/05/12/fbi-white-supremacists-law-enf... (this particular domain isn't the best, but it's a story that was repeated all over the place) And stuff like https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/may/extremism_052212/e... , etc.

And they were in fact doing more, but a lot of it (along with funding) has gone by the wayside since 9/11.

This is at least in part due to their bad habit of depending on the partisan SPLC for "hate group" data. SPLC is in the business of making so-called "hate groups" into terrible bogeymen, because SPLC reaps significant financial rewards through scare-tactics fundraising the depends on the threat of such groups.

We define away the problem. White people shooting others is not usually considered terrorism (such as a mass shooting committed by a white person). Terrorism is used to label actions by people you don't like. Some politicians even make statements calling the president a terrorist because he does something they don't like. We don't call it terrorism when the American government kidnapped people, took them to other countries, and let them be tortured (rendition); I do think that was not only wrong but was something you could use the T word for.

White people shooting others is not usually considered terrorism

If those white people were part of a religious movement indiscriminately targeting the larger society, then of course they would be labeled "terrorists". Do you have an example of where I'm wrong?

calling the president a terrorist

If you'll recall, the White House referred to the GOP as suicide bombers over debt ceiling negotiations. That's political posturing when either side does it and has little to do with legitimate use of the word "terrorists" in the context of labeling organizations seeking to maximize loss of life and destruction through surprise attacks on civilians.

The Charleston shooting of 2015 comes to mind as the perfect example [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Confederate_flag_controve...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Confederate_flag_controve...

Edit: spacing

Mass murder and terrorism are not the same thing. Terrorism requires some political objective. The only the Charleston church shooting would meet that definition.

Most mass murderers' manifestos are political in nature. Whether anyone pays attention or remembers is pretty much the defining characteristic between calling one event mass murder versus calling it terrorism.

That's a very good research methodology. Excluding non-stateside attacks and arbitrarily selecting 2002 as the starting point to arrive at a likely preselected conclusion.

sure. let's start in 1930:

white supremacists: 11,000,000+...

As a citizen of the US, I prefer to talk about my own country, since I have more historical context. And 9/11 was a one-time event that hasn't and can't happen again, now that we've done things like reinforce pilot's doors. Removing outliers is a pretty common thing.

Furthermore, it makes sense to start post-9/11 since "we're in a different world now" and all that rhetoric that politicians have been spewing since. This is about today's political context, where 9-11 was the defining moment.

It depends. For a long time the UK was happy to call Irish nationalists and the IRA terrorists.

Terrorism is what other groups do.

Well they were, and the IRA would still be a terrorist organisation, were it to continue, you know, performing acts of terrorism.

This series has been really great. It's significantly more accessible than many other OS dev tutorials I've read in the past. I spent all day yesterday with a friend and the first few posts, it was such a good time. Nothing like seeing a machine boot up and print something, and know that you wrote 100% of the source code that makes it happen. Even with a tutorial, it's magic.


In case anyone is interested, the best OS tutorial I've ever found is here: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~exr/lectures/opsys/10_11/lectures/...

I've never been able to find a finished copy, but this one definitely gives you a good start, if only for 32 bit archs.

In any case, I'm pumped to try out this Rust one- looks very well done, and it's finally an excuse to learn some Rust!

It also takes you through the 32 -> 64 bit trampoline, which is nice, given your previous source. :)

I don't really know Scala, but...

Rust doesn't have inheritance, let alone multiple inheritance. We do have traits, which I assume work similarly, it looks like.

On to the ones that are listed under "myths":

IDE support is coming along: https://www.rust-lang.org/ides.html

I rarely hear people say that Rust has too many features, or if they do, they're comparing it to a language with a GC.

Rust's compiler can be faster, and it's getting better all the time. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sanxiyn/sandbox/master/rus...

Rust doesn't really have traditional OOP, so yeah, a lot of it does go out the window.

Rust doesn't have some Scala features like Higher Kinded Types that lead to this kind of perception, so it's not quite the same. Our type system can be hard for totally different reasons ;). The borrow checker stuff.


> We do have traits, which I assume work similarly, it looks like.

Rust traits are more like typeclasses. Scala traits more more like Java interfaces w/default definitions and some other things.


They aren't similar.

Scala traits can change behavior dependent on the order you specify them. Because they can specify fields and state.

Rust traits are as far as I know not like that.


It looks very different on my system.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact