parenthephobia

Yes. Non-recursive CTEs in July 2016, and recursive CTEs in September 2016.

https://mariadb.com/kb/en/the-mariadb-library/mariadb-1021-r... https://mariadb.com/kb/en/the-mariadb-library/mariadb-1022-r...

How are miners fees practically different from credit card companies' transaction fees?

I see no comments on the PR that I'd describe as unpleasant or unkind.

You can't. You can sell the right to have that domain name point at nameservers of your choosing.

By turning the "else if" into an "if" you introduce a silent bug when Color.yellow is added, since the final else clause would now have to deal with both blue and yellow correctly.

Adding a new member to the Color enum should break code that isn't written to handle it: which is any code written before Color.yellow was introduced.

I'm genuinely unsure if this is a joke. If you're running that on a modern computer, your server is spending billions of clock cycles starting up. What on Earth is it doing? :)

If I write a Go server, I'm unhappy if it takes more than 0.2 seconds to start.

> If it exits, who cares if the memory of the process is corrupted?

People care when memory is corrupted without the process exiting. It is usually better for a program to crash than for it to continue having corrupted its data. The former gives you x-ray machines which sometimes won't start, whilst the latter gives you x-ray machines which sometimes give the patient cancer.

I say better, not best. Best, obviously, is for as many failure modes as possible to be detected before the code is deployed. Particularly if you're programming a machine that can kill people. But in the comparison between Go's interface{} and C's void*, neither language has that option.

> Anyone can relatively easily become a domain registrar.

Relatively easily? It isn't exactly a cheap venture: e.g. $4k+ per year to become an ICANN registrar.

I think people shouldn't have to pay that much to exercise their free speech.

> It seems strange that someone would expect a registrar to defend them for the couple of dollars per year you generally pay.

I think that unless a registrar is legally compelled to unregister your domain name, they shouldn't take it upon themselves to unregister your domain name just because other people are offended by what you put on the web server that your domain name resolves to.

It wasn't necessary for Google to disprove Damore's arguments, because they didn't fire him over the quality of his science, but rather due to the controversy arising from his claims, whether true or not.

It's completely irrelevant to Google's interests whether his claims were unsupported by data, harmful [to society], or politically incorrect. None of those were the reason they fired him: they fired him because his claims attracted attention that could reflect negatively on Google.

The article doesn't say that you can't stay in business using DV certs, so that seems irrelevant. The article says that "Secure" falsely communicates to the average user the sense that it is safe to proceed without caution, and indeed was specifically chosen for that reason.

That's hardly controversial, I would have thought. If it's true, it's true whether or not the person telling you it sells EV certs.

Unwary PayPal users are regularly phished even though PayPal have EV certs because the average user doesn't know that authentic PayPal websites should always say "PayPal, Inc. [US]" in the address bar, and aren't concerned when the address bar says Secure instead.

I think the problem really is that we want users to be "safe" on the Internet without them having to learn anything, and the Internet just isn't there yet, and quite possibly never will be.

It's like trying to design a gun you can't shoot yourself in the foot with, because people won't put up with being taught gun-safety.

I do think we could benefit from new Internet users being made, probably by their browsers, to take a short training course in the basic aspects of what encryption really guarantees on the web, how recognise malicious websites, and the like.

"the extension of the franchise to women ... [has] rendered the notion of ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron"

Thiel either opposes capitalist democracy, or regrets the franchisement of women. (Edit: Or both.) Reading those words otherwise is, IMO, not charitable but delusional.

---

Having said that, the impression I get is that Thiel opposes democracy, rather than specifically democracy for women. He probably regrets extending the franchise to women not because they are women but simply because he regrets extending the franchise at all.

> Google is using human judgment

If you have proof that humans at Google are actually choosing which sites to reduce the visibility of in search results, that would be big news, and I'd like to know about it. :)

It's only a fallacy if it isn't true.

Is it not true that a supporter of freedom of speech would support other people's freedom to disagree with him without being doxxed by his supporters?

It seems to me that it is true, at least if the supporter's conception of freedom of speech includes freedom from harassment after speaking, which Damore certainly appears to be believe to be true.

Having said that, although I think it would be commendable for him to publically rebuke doxxers, it is fallacious to argue that his support for freedom of speech carries with it an obligation to do so.

This isn't censorship, this is HN readers saying they're not so interested in the memo that they need to have another post about it every hour.

Go permits struct fields to be public. Ergo, Go doesn't care about enforcing the notion that field access violates encapsulation. It is up to the programmer to decide what is being encapsulated.

I don't think computer games are the likely intended use of Wingnut's technology: I think Peter really wants to use it in film-making, e.g. live preview of compositing and effects.

Suppose you attach it to a camera rig, or just integrate the technology into existing film cameras. The problem of holding the camera up all day has been solved, and having to play the cameraman is the point of the exercise.

The nation isn't being held responsible. :)

It think it is reasonable to expect an organization to take reasonable steps to ensure the legality of its own operations - such as not ignoring the advice of its own legal experts.

AMP is a choice. Otherwise, this article wouldn't have been written!

Is hosting your site on Google Cloud Platform equally disgusting?

None of those comments are complaining about PHP being slow at repeatedly writing a string whose length is a multiple of the page size to standard output. That is a pretty niche case, and hardly refutes even the complaint that PHP is slow, much less all the complaints about PHP that aren't related to its speed.

FWIW, when I run the tests there's no substantial difference between Perl, LUA, or PHP.

> outright control of Parliament

Nobody has this! MPs are always free to vote their conscience, and sometimes they do. The Conservatives are not all of one mind about how to conduct Brexit.

The aim was not simply to increase the Conservative majority, but to try to make sure that the new MPs making up that increased majority were on board with May's hard Brexit, so there wasn't a risk of a backbench revolt scuppering Brexit.

The party used an "emergency procedure" for candidate selection that gave the party leadership more control than previous candidates.

* http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/05/central...

This isn't quite accurate.

On such bills there is an additional phase in the process where the English MPs can veto the bill, but they must also be voted through the full parliament.

> There's no way for the stream of consciousness to continue after that point.

How can you know that? How can you even know what that means? :)

What is a stream of consciousness? Why wouldn't it be replicated along with the physical body? If it's separate from the physical body, why doesn't it move from the original body to the new one? If you know the answers to these questions: how do you know them?

> Look at humans. Humanity didn't become a superintelligent whole.

But: look at humans. We are each a vast empire of trillions of cells which, for the most part, work together for the survival of the whole, and which certainly possesses intelligence beyond the capabilities of the cleverest single-celled organism.

> The assumptions behind a superhuman intelligence arising soon are: > ... > 4. Intelligence can be expanded without limit.

The only assumption required is that intelligence can be expanded just beyond human limits, which I think is a much less controversial claim.

Without further experimentation the best one can say is that you have a theory which covers that which has already been observed. This is not a useful theory, however: useful theories make predictions about future observations. Really useful ones make correct predictions.

An AI can certainly produce a theory which matches observations, but no matter how powerful it is it won't be able to magically produce only correct useful theories any more than a human can.

We had over 200 years from Newton's laws of motion to produce relativity from pure logic alone, but we didn't manage it. We had to reason from the evidence, and even then we didn't accept relativity as "true" until it had been experimentally verified.

From personal experience, if you're not jumping straight from no emails to a million an hour, your mail setup is good (SPF/DKIM/etc), you're not reusing a IP address that was sending spam last week (so be wary sending from cloud servers), and you aren't actually sending spam, then you can send from your own infrastructure just fine.

> Once we create an algorithm for something it's no longer AI, it's just an algorithm.

Yes. If we create an algorithm, what intelligence is involved: real or artificial?

Even using neural networks we're a long way from not having to give a high-level scaffold for an algorithm we've already decided upon. Present day neural networks are essentially a glorified spreadsheet "goal seek" function.

An apparently smart image recognition "AI" has really only distilled the intelligence of the humans that classified the training data, and generalized it to other images in a manner devoid of real intelligence, which is why image recognizers can report that specially-prepared TV static is 99% certain to be a peacock.

> few really mean that an 18 year old should have the same income as a 45 year old

Surely people don't believe that an 18 year-old shouldn't have the same income as a 45 year-old?

A 45 year-old shouldn't have higher income just because they're older. In the UK, at least, we have laws about that sort of thing.

Google US gives https://www.splendidtable.org/story/eye-of-round-is-one-of-t...

Google UK gives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_steak

Possibly this is because in the UK (and presumably wherever you are) we don't call that cut "eye of round" (it seems to be from roughly the same part of the cow as our silverside), so we're googling to find out what it is, whilst in the US people are googling to find out how to cook it.