jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
The most immediate impact I'm noticing locally is a ~25-30% improvement in compile times from the JIT, which is always a delightful find in any release.

Synthetic benchmarks of the Elixir GraphQL implementation show a 64% improvement! Very excited to see how this plays out with real load, but this is very promising.
Is paying extra 3-10% of your already expensive invoice worth the premium support that you _might_ need? Not sure I would consider that customer obsession... more like insurance.
Guess what, “the people who want to make the software better” can start today! Just fork it, it’s all open source! Wait, why hasn’t that happened yet? Is it because those people have bills to pay? Hmm...
Yeh I know the pain. Both look and feel like am on eBay all over again.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five clouds." — not Thomas Watson
Right, now the goalposts have shifted. You aren’t donating because “you can’t donate specifically to Firefox, only to Mozilla as a whole”. What ridiculous excuse will you people come up with next?
I'd like to understand a bit more about how Bloomberg Terminals are set up from an infrastructure perspective. Apologies if you don't know anything about that, but the idea that there's just "so much data" that only a Bloomberg Terminal can handle it seems kind of suspect to me. Don't we have other options? Or is this all proprietary?
I suspect it had to do with sex-associated traits were split down the middle. I'm only an amateur, but I can see that the right side has a male's long tail feathers while the left side does not. I imagine there are other details that would be apparent to an expert.
Perhaps a bit combative, but yeah, he's got a good point about pretty over functional
It's not really a loophole. It's a fundamental property of the universe.

Consider currencies for example. Say someone in Tokyo was selling USDJPY at 84 and this was the best price anywhere in the world, then naturally anyone buying would want to buy from them. But the guy in London who wants to buy won't see the price of 84 until 90ms later, so he ends up buying from someone in New York at a worst price.

So the guy in London got a worse price and the guy in Tokyo didn't get a sale. Despite the fact that in an ideal world they would have been matched together, the fundamental laws of the universe conspire against them.

Essentially what ends up happening is that for any one currency you end up with a bunch of local market (NY, Tokyo, Singapore, London) all of which have slightly different prices from each other, which isn't a great situation to be in. Reducing latency won't make this problem go away, but it helps flatten out the markets and ensures that people get the best price globally (as opposed to just locally) wherever possible.
Github has been so reliable for me that their website was the last place I looked! When I saw:

Permission denied (publickey).
fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly

my first response was to check that ~/.ssh was unmolested.
YQL won't work for Twitter's streaming API - it's designed for standard request/response style APIs.
I think their designs are meant to be lagging, M1 isn't "just better" it's a lot more about media encoding and packing more types of cores together, which while innovative is not what ARM should be doing.

ARM makes prototype designs that you can extend, M1 is an absolute success of that model.

Regardless: you say they've failed as a business, your metric is how much they earn from being nearly everywhere.

I would pointedly disagree: they're everywhere, that's success, they're everywhere and profitable. There's absolutely no need to rent seek... this is unsustainable capitalist thinking.

They're able to innovate and turn a profit with their "modest" income, why do you need them to do more than that? How do you know they would do better with more money?

Intel (yes, apple to oranges) has many orders of magnitude more money, but most of it goes into bureaucracies.

See also: Microsoft, Oracle
The answer should be obvious. Countries that do use "democratic" means to decide these things produce absolutely nothing of value. Countries that let people vote with their wallet (rather than ideology) have produced just about every important medical breakthrough in the last 50 years.

In the USA the best of the best are put in charge of tomorrows medicine, and that is why they succeed while the rest of the world is just pitiful in comparison.
Discord is not end to end encrypted, and Discord, along with whoever buys them, will receive the complete plaintext message history of all of your conversations with those friends.
Note: id is case sensitive.
TS support has been improved dramatically with volar VSC extension and vue-tsc CLI tool.

When that was released (I’d need to check when but in 2021 or even late 2020) my React FOMO disappeared as I get full TS support in script and template tags.

Composition api + VueUse are wonderful together.

I’ve been lucky to start fresh with vue 3 mid 2020 (in beta?). But I and can understand frustration to migrate.

Having said that, I think it’s totally worth it.
The solution I use for this is group chats for my most important conversations, that have the other party and both of my phones in them.
That can not typecheck in Rust, unless you use something really odd like `Into<Cow<‘a, A>> where A: Add<B>` as your input types.

And in languages where it does, you need either ubiquitously mutable strings (which everyone’s moved from because it generally screws you up) or refcounting.
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/how-a-door-became...
I've just learned over the years that it can be ultimately painful to rely on a third-party API. For all sorts of reasons.

I used the words "If I can" on purpose.
So yes, if I could, I would invent my own.

And the peace of mind, and hopeful reliability that can provide, can go a long way in your creative mindset.
Wow, the NYT's actions on this one really made my blood boil. I don't even know how to process this... they typically put out reasonably high quality journalism that I read and enjoy on a regular basis. And then... this. They completely went beserk, like little children, with their heads firmly up their rears despite everything everyone begging them to keep Scott Alexander anonymous to preserve his profession and blog.

They lost literally hundreds of subscriptions (at least $20k worth). Yet they remained so stubborn... so closed to dialogue, and put out their little shitpiece. Can somebody reasonable explain why they would do such a thing? I don't care much for the 'liberal MSM' theories, I just wanna know what was in it for them. It makes no sense. Does it reflect on the entire newspaper to the point where I should stop reading it?
Well if you just remove the app and let them know where they can find you. They basically have no choice.
I meant social interactions in day-to-day life, but i am aware of the events that happened at around the time of my submission.
> We can’t really ask the shadowbanned people what they think of the moderation because they’re shadowbanned.

Just flip the showdead switch in settings and you can enjoy the infinite wisdom and feistiness of banned users. Can’t be easier. For instance, in this thread there’s exactly one banned sibling, making a gross, sexual personal attack.
I thought that applies only to non-US citizen Puerto Rico residents. Seems like you're right, thanks for correction!
I've never heard of Qubes doing significant in-distro kernel hardening, so if they think Linux does Qubes would too.
Not my post, but a comment that potentially explains what's happening here and provides an interesting viewpoint:

"I am a former parliamentary assistant with experience working on complex and controversial legislation. I do not think this is a bona fide attempt to pass the amendments.

1. Generally, the government lays amendments it actually wants to pass in the name of the minister leading on the bill. In this instance that's Lord Bates. He's put lots of other amendments on the list[1] but not this one.

2. In bill committees, MPs and peers often table amendments that they are not trying to pass. They do this to secure debating time, argue about the principles, and occasionally extract commitments from the government. They get the chance to make speeches and then withdraw the amendments without them ever going to a vote. I suspect the four peers who tabled this are trying to kick start a cross-bench movement in favour of stronger security laws. They'll use their chance to make speeches and then withdraw their amendment. (EDIT: They have since made clear that this is an earnest attempt to legalise the powers but as noted above, they are raising this without any co-operation with the government. Source[2].)

3. Even if this is a genuine attempt to insert this language, it is a highly irregular way to go about it and I would bet against it surviving a vote. Peers are very aware of the role they play in making legislation and they know they aren't supposed to ram in controversial language like this. It's for the elected members in the Commons, who have the democratic mandate, to make the crucial decisions and for the Lords to focus on technical elements. This would not go down well. In the Lords, the whole House votes at Committee stage. This means hundreds of peers, who are independently minded and relatively difficult to whip, would get to express their view. I would not expect them to let this by.

4. Even if it survived the committee, the Bill needs to go back to the Commons, in a process known as "ping pong". The new clauses would almost certainly be defeated by MPs because the Lib Dems would be whipped against it[3], depriving the government of its majority, and Labour has already said it won't support it either[4]. The numbers just aren't there.
I am not close to this issue and could not tell you what they are trying to do. This is all guess work. But it really does not look like a genuine attempt by the government, and I wouldn't say it stands much of a chance."

Sources:

Post: http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/2te41m/lords_...

[1] - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-20...

[2] - http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/22/snoopers-char...

[3] - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30870442

[4] - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/11/ed-miliband-sno...
thanks heaps for the heads up! This snuck through testing somehow.
Don't let the oil evaporate.
"I categorically reject the idea that the word needs to be "reclaimed" from script kiddies. If anything, I want the word reclaimed from money-grubbing bourgeois poseurs who happen to be interested in technology businesses."

I agree, I don't think it's so much reclaiming the word as making it to something new. Doing something out of curiosity, or just because it is fun, has always been a big part of hacking. Looking at actions alone Goldman Sachs would probably have some of the best hackers around.

I also think there are differences between the US and Europe, when it comes to programming as a business versus as a subculture. If someone has some thoughts on that from a North American perspective I'd love to hear them.
I accept Singapore is not a democracy and has less political free speech than the West. That doesn't make it corrupt. Singapore is ranked the 5th least corrupt country in the world.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov_cor-government-corrupt....

The PAP sues its opponents for defamation. Has your government ever done anything worse?

You mention one small piece of the pie of justice: political free speech. What about property rights, banking law, business law, immigration law, tax law, criminal law, etc? I think you need to show a much broader pattern of abuse to say the judicial system isn't fair.

I'm actually a libertarian. Its taken some time for me to reconcile that with my support of Singapore. Basically, I believe Singapore is more free than most Western countries although sometimes in different ways.

You can quibble about minor issues, but in my experience the government delivers good service, safe streets, a growing economy, and opportunity to the vast majority of Singaporeans.
Actually we generate game recaps for EVERY division I college basketball team. Which one did you not see it for?

Here is Duke: http://bluedevildaily.com
So, let's say that I'm ssh'ed into a headless Linux box (my linode). How can I run NetSurf?

I spend most of my day ssh'ed into one box or another, writing code in vim, so being able to run NetSurf would be a huge improvement over links, which is what I currently use.
The first sentence of my reply was in the hypothetical world posed by the previous message. As to the actual fight, I don't know who started the fight, or who had pure motives. The judgement of 'nice' is more to indicate that we are not talking about 'badass' guys who made a habit of fighting.
I do this too and stay off NYT for that reason.

Also my girlfriend doesn't watch me read for the same reason :)
That's very true.

Part of the culture of learning higher math however rewards/tolerates esoteric behavior where practicality is just not valued.

I think it is all about related rates. If you are studying abstract algebra now hard-core, then you are missing out on doing some cool Kinect hacks now. Or, you are missing out on chatting up the girls over at the pub.

I found math very ... addicting, and I wish I had learned balance sooner. Instead, I thought it was a lot of fun to sit down every evening and grind on problems from "Berkeley Problems in Mathematics"
True, very true. (Although I would change "naive" into "native" in your first sentence. Or otherwise I completely misunderstood you.)
Sure, I'm not questioning that the 21st century is doing relatively well (we had two world wars and several major attempts at genocide in the last one -- that sets the bar pretty low). Nor that we are, all in all, doing progressively better.

But I'm not sure that, it is meaningful to point out 2014 in particular as the best year in history. If we just go by "we're still making progress and third world nations are still becoming better places to live", of course 2014 is the best year in history so far. As will 2015 be. Or any year after that, world-wide catastrophes notwithstanding. But that's nearly tautological.

So depending on how you look at it, the article's claim is either trivial enough not to warrant ending up on HN IMO (any point along an upward slope is the highest point on that slope compared to those preceding it, by definition), or it's simply inaccurate (by sweeping the real problems 2014 surfaced under the rug and just saying it's all good).
When taking nukes into consideration, how much one spends for the rest of the army is irrelevant. Several countries have enough to destroy the entire planet.
Another option that was not mentioned is to make sure your HTTP server has caching setup properly.
thank you, very nice! i had to double take to click on 'All' to find the demos. an automatic next play / playlist would be useful. how about a feature that allows one to jump between videos, to refer to sections and insert video, comments, etc.? VJing with pattern presets..
No appetite for imperialism? I don't think there has been a huge change. The defense of colonies is strong and the likes of the Ukranian/Crimea debacle have happened. But further afield and longer ago there was Iraq, Afganistan, the sabre rattling of Russian and the U.S. over Georgia. Look at the Chinese relationship with Africa. The Trans Pacific Partnership and The Five Eyes are are thing down here in New Zealand. Things may be slightly more subtle and less bloody, but the behavior isn't much improved.
I don't disagree there is waste. I would say there are people who complain about non military spending though.
>but not in a meaningful way

That probably isn't the case, there will always be tons of situations overlooked where you already know or have a good guess about what the plaintext of a message looks like and then you can change that section of plaintext to whatever you want, for instance, in a contrived example, lets say that there's some hypothetical messaging app that starts every ordinary message between two users with a header consisting of some fixed bytes and some predictable bytes at the beginning like an account id or something like that. I, the attacker, can replace any known plaintext I want with any other plaintext relatively easily. This might mean replacing the message header with a different one that means, my OTP is empty, resend a OTP encrypted with AES key "password1".

Obviously a vulnerability won't be that simple but there is a good chance that there's something like that where an attacker can compromise our hypothetical OTP app by being able to change any plaintext he already knows. For instance, you can XOR the message text with 0x20 and you'll probably corrupt a lot of punctuation and spaces but that would invert the case of the entire message.
Sure. One of my favorites is still the doctest module in Python library. Elegant is how I would describe it.
Yes, that is the most likely reason for someone to think that he is a horrible person. Seriously, if you are interested in an answer you should just ask the question without answering it yourself with your strawman fantasy.
Can you tell me more about the native or full featured bash or zsh environment you're interested in? Do you want inbox bash/zsh? Do you want native coreutils? Do you want the full POSIX API layer? something else? Also, can you tell me about your workflow or what you envision it to be in this environment?

I ask because I work in the console space at Microsoft and am keen on understanding the features you're looking for and what scenarios you're attempting to satisfy.

We also have a user voice going where we've been fortunate enough to gather a lot of passionate feedback.

https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/266908-command-prompt/cat...
click this to install: http://getapp.in/mP7F

so i can track the source :)
> Formalisms can be impractically formal. The level of precision required by machines is beyond even what most mathematicians are used to casually (i.e., pen and paper, or at a blackboard). If you had to do math like you write code, mathematicians would go bonkers. Include this, type-cast that, ... nah, everyone knows what this and that is supposed to mean, right?

Mathematics only looks formal: compared to software it is really another natural language -- because its purpose is to communicate between humans, whereas software is ultimately not about communication but design of artifacts.

The point about practicality still holds though, but since the purposes are different it must be something of a different kind of practicality to aim at.
But, there is more to web apps than just distribution.

Could you expand on that? I thought it was pretty much all about distribution (deploy to one place and everyone can access it from any machine).
So far they have 38 atoms. I wonder what the price per kilo or pound of antimatter is... :)
This wouldn't happen with Apple's fully integrated (hardware + os/software as cohesive unit) approach.
I could see the correlation. Lots of new technology pushers are called Evangelists.

Also, many religions actually actively discourage certain brands. So maybe religious people look more to authority on what to like.
I admired Pike and Ken when I was younger, but I can't speak to why they came up with Go and I strongly suspect its design wasn't actually their first choice.

You overestimate the power they have in a company as highly political as Google.
How can you acquire a non-profit foundation?
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home

Google could certainly just give them a lot of money, and possibly get a board seat.
Has anyone tried to contact these sites to let them know about nofollow? Perhaps they are just ignorant of the technology, since it's not their core competency.
See also the slides from the Rubyconf2010 presentation:

http://www.slideshare.net/ShugoMaeda/rc2010-refinements
The federal reserve has everybody speculating with %0 interest rates. I suggest they raise interest rates! This will be a good thing as it will encourage capital formation.
<voice type="robot">
i am dumb. still do not understand
</voice>
His "data" is purely anecdotal since his sample is limited to those developers he has worked with. However it is possible that you can have many good immigrant developers and a disproportionately lower number who go ahead and found startups.

Not every developer wants to be a startup founder.
Maybe there would be no tax, but the cost of getting internet, energy and food supplied there would be very taxing.
(What good is a year's worth of ramen if you have no fire to cook it on?)
Perhaps a part of the overall solution (besides blaming search engines) is to better educate the average consumer about buying expensive goods from unfamiliar websites without first doing a little bit of research on their reputation.
Not that its a solve-all, but I get the sense that he's never used gmail.
Your approach works less well if someone re-orders one of the arrays, like `containers` or `env`.
I created an account solely to reply here.

What? How did you get around to such an explicit and unfounded gate-keeping of cycling?
Cycling is only 'good' if it has the purpose of commute? Cycling is only 'good' if you have a cheap bicycle? Sorry to be this direct, but this is utter nonsense!

I do not have an expensive SUV at home, I don't even own a driver's license, and I don't own a super expensive bike either, but I still go out in lycra to use my road bike as a training utility (almost) every day.

Why is it that we as cyclists have to gate-keep each other at every step and corner? Both hating on cyclists in general and and gate-keeping in cycling itself is stupid and should not exist, let's just embrace cycling whether we are on a super expensive road bike or a cheap mountain bike we bought second-hand.
There are two main ways to think about "hard". One of them is "not many people can do this". The other is "not many people could do this".

When people disagree over whether something is hard, I think the disagreement usually comes down to semantic disagreement over these two definitions. Also, some people think we can get rid of the latter ("not many people could do this") because it's hard/impossible to prove. But I think both definitions are an important part of what we mean by hard, and we can't get rid of either.
What?

How you gonna steal someone's identity just by knowing their phone number? You know that's something that hundreds of people and organizations already know?
There are edge cases but IME I rarely came across commands that could be valid python and valid bash. And you'll keep those in mind when you're running things so that you won't ever name a variable after a bash command you might use.

I ran it for a couple of years while I was in school, it worked great. I wouldn't run it on a production server, this is really for experimental work
As an American, I feel like I have to deliberately mis-pronounce 'coq' the theorem prover like 'coke' the soda.
> just agree on a place and time

It would require a commute longer than that of going to the office. An average employee has already organized their life around the necessity of commuting to the office. Office is probably a central location.

Most workers will be found within a circle of the tolerable commute time (isotropy assumption). Let for simplicity assume that all workers live at the same distance R from the office, and are distributed uniformly along that circle. The angular distance between any two employees is distributed uniformly in [0, pi]. Chord length is R 2 sin (theta/2). Integrating, we calculate the average distance between two employees: 4R/pi > R.