beeworker

It's safe to use "420", the cops don't know man.

You don't need to be rich. It costs very little to fund a $30k life insurance policy, which will get your whole body suspended with Cryonics Institute. Alcor is more, $80k for just the head.

One difference is flow control. When you call a function, all the arguments are evaluated before being passed into the function. If you want to delay evaluation, you have to wrap the argument values in a function. When you call a macro, the text forms get passed with no evaluation.

Say Clojure forgot to ship with the boolean "or". "or" should evaluate its arguments one at a time (to allow for short circuiting) and return the first non-false value. You could do this with functions, but you have the source-level overhead of manually wrapping everything, and performance overhead of defining and passing an anonymous function for each argument. With a macro, at compile time you just translate the "or" macro into a simpler form that uses "if". This is how Clojure actually implements "or":

    (defmacro or
      "Evaluates exprs one at a time, from left to right. If a form
      returns a logical true value, or returns that value and doesn't
      evaluate any of the other expressions, otherwise it returns the
      value of the last expression. (or) returns nil."
      {:added "1.0"}
      ([] nil)
      ([x] x)
      ([x & next]
          `(let [or# ~x]
             (if or# or# (or ~@next)))))

I second the other comments suggesting to at least treat online advice with a grain of salt. That said...

I burned out some years ago and have been struggling with recovery since, depressive thoughts aren't far away but by now I've found coping mechanisms. It's annoying I don't feel I can talk about it with my real ID because I still don't feel like my performance and drive is even 80% what it used to be, and I fear that would impact my future chances of switching jobs if they discovered my inner struggles. But my performance seems to be enough for my coworkers to value me, so I keep going another day. I too almost lost my previous job during the early periods, but at the end of it I was valued again. (I just observe external praise, I never feel it. Whatever.)

I'm anti-big-med for myself, but I won't discourage you from taking them as a lot of people say they help and some even report total elimination of depressive thoughts. I would encourage you to see if extra caffeine helps you at all while you wait, especially as the big drugs tend to take 3-4 weeks before kicking in at all and caffeine seems to have a more immediate effect. How much caffeine do you take per day? If you don't take much, you may want to get a box of 200mg pills and try for 200-600mg per day and see if it helps you at all. Caffeine has some anti-inflammatory properties, and depression is increasingly being recognized as an inflammatory disease, plus caffeine as a stimulant itself can help with the focus. Anecdotally, what cripples me some days is never-ending introspection about my value to the world and my performance. Sometimes taking more caffeine than usual that day will allow me to shut my mind up about itself and think about other things, and that allows me to get things done. (Work, laundry, going to the gym.)

Last year I finally did start feeling like I was recovering a little bit, then my mom unexpectedly died. Expect life to continuously shit on you. But whatever. If you keep on keeping on you'll develop your own coping mechanisms (those that don't die) so even setbacks won't necessarily send you over the edge as you've been there before. Lastly, killing yourself in a nice way would take effort, it's not worth it. Just look forward to sleeping instead. You might also consider getting a pet, or a house plant -- something whose continued existence depends on your existence.

"Come up with"? Absolute monarchies actually worked pretty well overall, we don't need to "come up with" anything when we can just restore the Stuarts[0] and their system, for instance. Okay, the current elites (who have the most chance of making such a change nonviolently for a large number of people) might want to make some alterations for modern technology and to transition away from the incredibly egotistical viewpoint of the People thinking they know anything about governance, and they might want to make sure the guy they put in charge has a philosophy and will at least approaching that of the late Lee Kuan Yew.

But really we just need anything that gets power, perceived or real, away from the People.[1][2]

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Stuart

[1] http://www.constitution.org/eng/patriarcha.htm

[2] http://www.amazon.com/Critique-Democracy-Guide-Neoreactionar...

Anything that even smells like the financial and banking industry is considered shady by a lot of people, not just programmers, after our Great Recession. A necessary evil at best, and for programmers one that pays very well. In any case, it was a good zing.

If you have the ability to MitM a high value site like facebook.com without getting caught, I think it's worthwhile to do so regardless simply because you'll get some portion of the users who bypass the warning. In my scheme, the only people who won't see the warning are those who have never visited facebook with that browser before, so they may or may not have an account to login with that you can hijack.

I agree in that scenario it's hard to say whether one is more likely to be the true certificate than the other. If we're assuming attacks that aren't targeted towards specific users (e.g. from state actors, or just a corrupt hotel wifi admin, who are attacking whoever happens to be on the network) then we can't say without more details about the network you were connected to on Monday vs. Tuesday. If we're assuming attacks that are targeting you specifically as an individual, perhaps A could be considered slightly more likely than B due to coming first... Visiting the site on Monday leaks the information that you visited the site, so an attacker may believe you will visit that site again. But if the attacker is keeping logs of your traffic habits, they may have just chosen Monday to poison your fresh DNS lookups. So again it looks like we can't say which is more likely.

While we're making art style changes, why don't we change the experience for self-signed certs?

When the user first visits an HTTPS page with a self-signed cert, they get the content, and the URL art style has a broken lock or something warning it's not known to be secure. (It's better than raw HTTP but it's not trusted.) With certificate pinning by the browser, the next time the user visits that page, if it's different, then they get the current experience that warns them in big scary text and requires several clicks to get past. There's a question of if it's different in that the server owner upgraded to a paid SSL cert should it show a warning or not, but if there's a way to sign that upgrade with the old cert that the browser can know about there shouldn't be a problem...

People enjoy overcoming challenges. (People also like to brag.)

Not really, sorry. I had forgotten that the first letter is compared case sensitively as I remembered from Nimrod it was all insensitive. But I still think for nearly all cases in real world code you can instead of using nimgrep be equally served by a case insensitive search on (nimidentifier|nim_identifier) even if it's technically possible to have other variants or a mismatch, which you can grep out as a second step anyway, with the capital N.

You must not use grep with regexes very often.

Aha reminds me of STOKE: https://github.com/StanfordPL/stoke-release

No, they're not. At least, children in general don't enjoy the full rights of a legal adult person. Traditionally children were viewed as property of the parents, and in many senses that's still true. Read 'adult chimpanzees' if you must.

I agree we should be able to give evolution the middle finger. But I disagree we can do so in any effective way in the timespan of 5 years, unless we somehow hit the Singularity by then. You overestimate man's intelligence and strength of will. I mean in general, let alone people with IQs in the 80s. Until we actually have either the knowledge and technology to do genetic engineering or mind uploading so that we can make modifications against living human mind architectures, or as a longer-term solution the sustained political will to do eugenics (the kind where we don't kill everyone impure or force people not to have sex, just the normal kind we do with every other plant and animal species besides humans where we restrict what breeding outcomes are available), we will remain slaves to our adaptions, with the most intelligent and self-reflecting among us only slightly more able to control themselves. From a predictive standpoint, knowing through evolution what is can tell us that, barring eugenics in some form or another, there's no way we can get to what ought to be for certain values of what ought to be, and so many attempts by liberal-minded people predictably fail while wasting resources and upsetting the social order. The best we can do now is take what is and align the incentives for the greatest amount of people so that things can be relatively stable and peaceful until we get to the point we can truly give evolution the middle finger. When I look at the culture that kick started the industrial revolution through a liberal lens, I see a lot of evil people with a twisted social order. But from a non-liberal lens, I see order, order instead of chaos (the inverse of what I see when I look at the typical results of liberal interventions through a non-liberal lens) and I see aligned incentives, and I wonder if that sort of society is what it's going to take to get to the Singularity.

While this is sort of true, this attitude contributes to the problem another commenter mentioned about how working with FPGAs is like taking a trip to the 70s. There's no reason you can't use a full-fledged programming language like Python to specify your hardware with the strict HDL subset at the RT Level, then use the full language's power to test it off-FPGA, and use all the software tooling around your full language to make the whole experience as pleasant as possible. In fact, that's the approach of MyHDL: http://www.myhdl.org/

There's always personal BigDog robots...

There was an interesting talk at PyCon 2013 about programming using only your voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SkdfdXWYaI Might be worth looking into for your case.

It's worth mentioning that the guy did this for himself due to severe RSI in the hands, but there was another talk on using a stenographic keyboard to program and I remember this guy stood up and said he wished he'd known about it earlier as it's another approach for people who suffer from RSI since there's less typing.

Last submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7051611

Consider using Shen. https://github.com/hraberg/shen.clj http://shenlanguage.org/

It's really easy to memorize if your teacher presents it to the tune of pop goes the weasel... Whether it's worthwhile to memorize or not, use a computer or not, the valuable conceptual struggle teachers need to focus in on is in what the answer means, and when to apply it, not in deriving the formula, though that can be a useful struggle if you doubt the power of proof or the rules of algebraic manipulation.

I know right, I totally hate having to match Map<String, Map<String, Object>> foo = someMethod(withMethodArg1(), andTwo());

Let's all just use Forth, and implement washing machines as simply as:

    : WASHER  WASH SPIN RINSE SPIN ;

The problem with "survival of the fittest" is that people don't understand that "fitness" is a technical term in evolutionary biology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29 And once you understand the technical meaning.. the phrase is really close to being a tautology.

I'm going to use that last line next time someone makes a perfectly reasonable request like "sod off FAA," or "please mr. bully stop beating me up."

I don't think that's it. One should worry about toxic choices. I just don't think a culture of asking people out is toxic. Something I do find toxic is an environment of conformity that imagines itself so fragile that it overreacts to the slightest deviation from what those in power say as if it were an existential threat.

Sure.

What's wrong is, after it's clear the advances are unwanted (a single but firm "no" is sufficient), continuing to make them. What's also wrong, though a lesser wrong since the signal can be missed, is the initial hitting on someone who has already signaled they don't want to be hit on. Wedding bands once served as a great social signal for this, "Don't hit on someone with a wedding band" is a simple rule to observe and follow, but marriage is dead, so it's not as useful. "Don't hit on co-workers" is also a simple rule to observe and follow, but come on. Enforcing that would eliminate a lot of happiness couples derive from such relationships, whereas enforcing the wedding band rule when marriage meant something wouldn't.

You're right I don't see anything wrong with the situation as presented. It's funny, guy has some balls to ask for a date after that. I'll agree he was pretty stupid about it. But I see all the time much stupider advances that actually get accepted instead of rejected. I'd say forgive and forget but I don't see anything to forgive. Asking for a date is how you get dates, even if the context for asking is unusual. I'd like for shy men to still be able to hear the worst thing that'll happen is "she'll say 'lol no, loser'", but now the worst thing that can happen is she'll be so offended she'll throw a fit and publicly name you and destroy your career. Thankfully that hasn't happened here yet. "This made me feel upset. How should I handle this, random internet people?" is a reasonable way to approach this if you don't already have a philosophy that says "chill out and move on".

There's a side conversation here that I'm sort of interested in. There is a certain moral obligation to protecting the company you work for and not putting it under risk with thing like discrimination-based non-hires -- but why should sociopathic lawyers get to decide what risks are actually there or not? It's immoral some of the things many companies do in all legality, risk-free. You won't stir up an internet shit storm for every one of them, even if you can get a few. Not so long ago the behavior this woman reported would have not been cause for such outrage and moralizing displayed on this page. What changed in humans since then? I really don't think we've gotten all that more moral. I'd say instead what changed is the sociopathic lawyers became even more powerful, and saw a great and endless revenue stream for themselves by making it easy to destroy people and businesses for these very basic and human drives, faux pas mistakes at worst.

What if he's a 0.5x engineer and firing him would be good anyway? I was merely illustrating that just because someone acts in an outrageous way doesn't make them a liability, net. There's no rule saying effective companies must be filled with saints, even if that would be nice.

> (If he's that creepy, he'd get her the job and hit on her then)

This may not be creepy so much as the optimal strategy for avoiding internet outrage if she rejects your advances... Does everyone here seriously have no idea how much office hooking up goes on in the world, or is it only okay if the date is asked for after work hours on the elevator?

What if he's a 10x engineer? He's a massive PR liability because of our insane outrage culture, but he's a very valuable asset for, you know, his actual job.