heydenberk

Just for fun, here's a version using `Counter` from the same `collections` module which makes that blissfully simple:

    #!/usr/bin/env python2
    import sys
    from collections import Counter

    for pair in Counter(sys.stdin).most_common():
        print pair

I agree that the title isn't useful, but I decided not to paraphrase or editorialize myself per HN guidelines.

EDIT: not that the HN guidelines are entirely inflexible, but I don't think that the title is misleading enough to justify changing it.

Is your assumption that Slack validates the possibility that HipChat can be a bigger business? The group collaboration software market is by no means zero-sum at the moment, but I'd still wager that Slack is causing more churn for HipChat than HipChat can replace with new sales.

Reminds me of one of my all-time favorite Wikipedia articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradeoffs_for_locomotion_in_ai...

If I understand you, this is indeed possible and has been recently implemented in Python. Take a look at dask: http://dask.pydata.org/en/latest/

> Users interact with dask either by making graphs directly or through the dask collections which provide larger-than-memory counterparts to existing popular libraries:

Is anyone willing to give a contrarian take? I'll give it a shot: Square is an ambitious company with some great engineers, stellar UX and a giant total addressable market. Their business loans are interesting and could grow into something important. Square readers are a fashion accessory for hip businesses. No sooner would a coffee shop be seen without a Square reader and an Edison bulb than its yuppie hipsters patrons would be seen without a MacBook or an iPhone. That brand equity might really be worth something.

You can also avoid reversing the arrays before reducing them by calling the method `reduceRight`.

It does help. Malicious users intending to share files can do so without having a public URL.

I find your metaphor agreeable but not your argument: I'd wager that many minivans are running far below optimal gas efficiency because their tires are under-inflated.

Read your writing out loud to yourself, carefully observing the punctuation. You won't become Hemingway, but you will find the most obvious flaws in your writing.

One of Pennsylvania's few vestiges of Quaker law is the self-uniting marriage[0]: a couple can enter into marriage simply by mutual consenting to marry and having two witnesses. I married this way and it was delightfully civilized.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-uniting_marriage

> By simply swapping carbon nanotube transistors for conventional ones in a > simulated IBM microprocessor, they were able to increase speeds by a factor > of seven or, alternatively, achieve power savings almost as significant, said > Wilfried Haensch, an IBM physicist who is a member of the research group.

In technology, one often comes across the use of the word "simply" to refer to something that's actually quite complicate (see the Druid docs[0]) but this is quite a doozy.

[0] http://cse.google.com/cse?cx=004325268462231820898:e4htgtatb...

Is this a native advertisement? The URL has a 'sponsored' token in it.

I was referring to the NCAA athletes :)

More, in this case, meaning "at all."

Or, conversely, make sure your crappiest demo is as robust and compelling as the web.

This is called a quadtree. Here's a comparison: http://blog.notdot.net/2009/11/Damn-Cool-Algorithms-Spatial-...

What's the rule for adding something to this? It seems like they're all links to github repositories that consist entirely of lists, but is it acceptable to link to an awesome resource within a repository?

It says in the article that they did not:

> The study’s biggest caveat, acknowledged by the researchers, is that they don’t consider a full “lifecycle” analysis of emissions—so things like making the car, drilling for oil, or transporting coal aren’t included in the environmental costs.

It's a shame you chose to dismiss the discussion rather than concede the point.

I mentioned that Gavin McInnes is a person who has made a living spewing incendiary, bigoted hate speech. You argued that we should still listen to him in order to not violate the ideal of freedom of speech. Other people eloquently pointed out that this is wrong, both by any reasonable moral standard and by the traditional motivating principles behind freedom of speech. You called those people trolls. That's a shame.

I don't find it funny, and I bet that most people in the groups that he's "trolling" (exercising hate speech toward) don't either.

Just an FYI, before you listen to what he spews: McInnes is a white nationalist, homophobe, transphobe and misogynist. This mediamatters post summarizes some of the outrageous things he's said or done: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/05/meet-the-hipster-rac...

You can understand why Vice would want to erase this dude from their history. I don't think they should be allowed to shrug it off, but I'm also glad that they try.

A lot more people love Taylor Swift than love you, me or anyone at Rovio. In terms of PR, it's a straightforward decision.

I imagine that these impacts are varied. For people of poor health with a diet of meager nutrition, or for diabetics with irregular blood sugar levels, Ramadan fasting may lead to worse health outcomes. For people who are not diabetic but at risk of becoming so, Ramadan fasting may lead to better health outcomes. Just a guess.

The subset aspect is indeed still relevant. JSONP callbacks[0] make use of JSON's just-JavaScript nature.

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

Nicola Twiley is a very engaging food writer and has a great podcast as well: http://gastropod.com/

Food is above trend; deaths, births, greenhouse gasses are well below. I'd say this reads as relatively good news so far.

Nerdy shows are more likely to reference the sorts of things you'd read about on Wikipedia, hence the frequency with which you might see shows like Futurama show up in the popular culture sections of Wikipedia articles. And, of course, Wikipedians are likely to be nerds who catch those references and rush to update the appropriate article.

Alternate title, given the article's conclusion: "Don't optimize Python with Closures"

Server code is much easier to test with unit and integration tests than UI code which is part of the reason that people dislike breaking changes in UI frameworks more than in other kinds of libraries.