jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
Digital copyright questions have nothing to do with counterfeing...
That's absurd.

Are phone companies liable when criminals use their products to talk on the phone? Are the developers of encryption liable for ISIS encrypting their calls?

Call me when CNN and Fox News get sued for lying, and when Sony gets prosecuted for starting trivial lawsuits to stifle free speech.

Then we can talk about censoring internet forums.
Ah, and the fact that Israel keeps Gaza under a total embargo, flattens it every two years or so, killing thousands of people - civilians for the great majority, and children- that doesn't play a role, huh? It's just poverty and ignorance... FFS.
Self driving planes...
Sorry.

Honestly, I wanted to help with something constructive here but I don't think we will ever solve the problem of crazy people in the cockpit.
What. I can't even...

This is non sense. Intelligence is not speed of processing.
While this doesn't sound like a great working environment, my advice while you're there is to ignore the tone of your coworkers' comments and focus on their content.

If a developer condescends to you it's likely (a) accidental, because they don't know how best to explain something simply+accurately or (b) aimed at your current knowledge, not at you on a personal level. It might also be (c) they think you should have solved it on your own, which may/may not be true. In any case, all you can do is focus on the information and let the rest bounce off you.

The best favour you can do yourself is to be rigorous about following steps, checking your work and documenting things (just scratch notes for personal use).

Senior devs should be happy to help you learn, but won't like helping you fix sloppy/repeated mistakes. If you are confident that you've done your work with care, then others' bad attitudes shouldn't affect you as much (although it never feels good).

You may be able to turn this into a good experience. However, you may just be stuck on a team where where the pressure is on and nobody has time allocated to mentor you. If the situation doesn't improve, find a new job -- look out for yourself first.
I read that the same way at first, but I think the implication is that other tradespeople don't necessarily need other /venues/ to practice. Or at least other venues that other parties pay to provide.
Hmm.. we get it within a few minutes.
This might be of interest:

Who, What, Why: How are cockpit doors locked?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-32070528

Apparently they need to survive a grenade blast!
The generalization of this point is "what's the case for live anything" which can be answered simply with "presence" or more broadly, shared experience.

Sport is only the most obvious example. Why doesn't everyone just record and watch the game at their leisure? Or just get the highlights? Sure, those are options, but the enduring appeal of live sport points to there being more to it than just consumption of information.
Get them to pay you right or get out. Maje sure we all know the name of the company - after you left.. :)
This HN submission smacks of Reddit-style clickbait. Adding "(CEO salary #1 predictor of success)" to the end would have been sufficient.
Trust your gut (and your wife) you will.

Then "...the universe will open doors where there were only walls."
- Joseph Campbell
Since you can't validate beyond the SMTP server you're going to have trouble when two or more people are behind the same server.
It would be a zero-day if exploits had already started at the time of discovery. The OP implies that attacks are already underway, possibly predating the discovery, but doesn't mention having solid proof of that.
You should check out http://put.io. It works best for videos since it has built in streaming.
For a web application, the code might make the entire thing operate, but it never affects the user the way the design or interface does.

Without the back end the site wont do anything... therefor your "design" is useless...
Your argument is what I was thinking of when I said "not eliminated, but lessened". I'm against it for that reason too, but I am pretty sure many people are resisting simply because it would be a tax increase.

I also think that the stealth nature of the tax is the actual reason it is being discussed, but I figured that was getting political, and what I posted was fairly defensible on (relatively) objective grounds.
Ideas are the easy part.
Hey friend, you have no reason to apologize. That idea comes from a former endurance athlete turned fitness blogger named Mark Sisson. It’s quite a famous article amongst competitive long distance athletes, mostly because it ignores how we actually train.

Mark Sisson’s entire idea is based off of the idea that long distance athletes train at what’s called tempo pace. Tempo pace is about 80-85% of maximum heart rate.

He went on to argue that consistently training at long distances increases cortisol levels and said this is bad.

There are two problems with this. First, distance runners don’t do all of their training at tempo pace because that’s stupid. Second, cortisol isn’t all bad - the body needs to be over stressed at points in order to create the adaptations that we are exercising for.

Point being, you’ve got to be careful just like you are with any form of exercise. If you destroy your body day after day for long enough, bad things will eventually happen to you.

The important thing to always remember is that more runners die from drinking too much water than die from not drinking enough. Everything can and will kill if taken to the very extreme.
Just for the sake of being the devil's advocate - I think this is highly debatable.

One, you have the not-so-uncommon addiction to porn. Because of the wide and free availability of porn content today, it's very easy for a person that's susceptible to addiction to fall into a vicious hole.

Secondly, it can lead to spreading aggressive, potentially dangerous fetishes. I might be wrong about this, but I think a lot of the dangerous fetishes wouldn't necessarily exist (or at least wouldn't be so popular) if it wasn't for them being so readily available on the internet.

Sex workers would be an entire discussion topic on its own - but I think it's safe to say that the information available on the dark net crosses all lines - from legal to human rights.

I'm not suggesting we should shun it or disallow it completely - but I think celebrating would also be an extreme that's not worth the consequences.
I've actually looked at ways of combining die rolls so that there are an x and y variable applied to them and they produce as Gaussian distribution:

Increasing the x would decrease the range of the distribution, while increasing the y would increase the magnitude of the distribution.

I never found something simple enough for what I wanted to apply it to (a game).
After using them heavily for several years, I have sadly come to the conclusion that Google Docs and Spreadsheets are toys

I entirely agree. There's going to have to be a lot of heavy lifting to get them ready for what I described.
The increase in supply is not caused by the final net position. It's in what you see when you look at the market.

Suppose there are 100k shares issued. Some traders decide to naked short 50k. Actual holders of the shares say, "Oh crap. Half the company is for sale - better dump my shares while I still can." So they put up a total of 75k for sale.

Now 50k of the 75k of actual shares need to be purchased by the people selling short, but if you look at the total number available for purchase at that point, you'll see 125k shares for sale - more than were ever issued.

Of course, this same issue can bite the short sellers in a "short squeeze". Suppose we own 60k of the shares in the company. If we see someone selling 50k, we know they are doing a naked short, and we should buy it. When we do, we will own 110% of the company. Obviously, to make things go to 100%, the short sellers need to buy the remaining 10% of the shares from you. You get to pick the price.

* Edited to add - you can see a recent example of a short squeeze in Volkswagen around October 2008: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE49R3I920081028
I think there are plenty of good descriptions of the basics of short selling here, but I wanted to help explain the "who are you borrowing from" aspect.

When you trade, you must trade through a broker-dealer. A broker-dealer is authorized to trade on behalf of it's customers. A broker-dealer must uphold certain regulatory requirements put in place by the SEC, and policed by a variety of government and non-government entities, including organizations like FINRA.

Originally, shorting was managed by the broker-dealers. It was the responsibility of the broker-dealer to manage finding an entity to "borrow" the stock from (usually a large institutional client). These institutional clients own very large positions in the stock, and the broker-dealer normally provides a guarantee that it will be returned. If for some reason this process was mismanaged, when the trades cleared and settled, there would be a "fail to deliver" (meaning they weren't able to come up with the stock) This is a severe problem for the broker-dealer, and can result in them losing their license. Abusing this system became known as "naked shorting" where you never made an attempt to "locate" (borrow) the stock. Naked shorting was severely curtailed in 2005 under Regulation SHO.

You may also be curious how a customer knows what stocks its broker-dealer can borrow. Originally there was a black-list of sorts called the Hard-To-Borrow list. This list was stocks that were relatively illiquid and that couldnt be shorted freely. If you wanted to short these, you had to request a "locate" from your broker for a specified number of shares, and they would go looking for someone to provide it, and confirm how many shares they could find. Under Regulation SHO, this changed to a white-list "Easy-To-Borrow" model where you were only allowed to short stocks on the list freely and had to request locates for the remainder of the symbol universe.

Finally - another interesting note on shorting called the "uptick rule". The uptick rule was originally put into place in the 1980's under Rule 390. This rule was built to prevent a stock from being run into the ground by repeatedly shorting it while the price was already falling. It required that in order to short, the previous print (quote) must have been higher than the one before (the stock was heading up). This really didn't help the problem too much, and was repealed in 2007.
Then how come I get really bad headaches when eating the stuff, but not with sugar, HFCS, or saccharin?
yeah, the dual-license and selling stuff is already something I mentioned and have counseled against (not that they were really considering doing it yet). Still exploring alternatives.
How can a computer know what my beliefs are? ;-)

Overall, I agree with you. It should be possible to define some objective criteria about what is interesting, and then some algorithm could check all the new articles from mainstream dailies, weeklies and monthlies, and return let's say up to 150 articles monthly which should be interesting. That I think could be an useful service.

For example, Vanity Fair has 1 or 2 articles monthly which are interesting, but I don't have time to read VF every month to see if I discover something good...if some algo can do that pre-selection, that would help.
The trading example you mention illustrates how organizations can benefit by allowing people to innovate within the business units, see what works, and implement the successful ideas in a more scalable form.

Most often, the organizations I've seen see this more as a problem of lack of control and wish they could stamp out spreadsheet use entirely.
LZH is still in wide use by the Japanese.
Treat notebooks like other code - separate onto staging and production, with defined promotions between them - it’s possible. You can run tests in CI/CD pipelines, etc. You can set permissions so nobody can update production notebooks manually, ...
What is this premake binary, and where are the sources for it?

EDIT: you can just install premake from package management, and use that instead of the checked in binaries.
Also cloud-based fake news disinformation social media viral crypto-cyber warfare hacking of mobile devices on and off device with singularity deep transformer convolutional attention-based recurrent neural networks YouTube Facebook Instagram Apple Twitter Microsoft Google.
You say your "product is partially complete", how did you get there without speaking to customers? If you've spent time on HN in the past, you've probably read about speaking to customers before building, or building to solve your own problem.

Since you say you are offering ML models through a web-service, who else is doing that now? How do you think they find their customers? Can you leverage their customer base to find people that may be wiling to switch?

Step 1 is to identify who needs your product. Then find out where those people are. It's a bit more difficult with Covid due to lack of meetups, etc, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

However, if I were you, I'd take a serious look at how you got to where you are? How did you build a product without knowing how you were going to get customers? How you are going to know if you've built the right product.

Rather than looking for "customers", at this point, I'd suggest looking for "advice", find somebody who has the problem, and show them your solution. Then ask them if it's something they need. If not, why not? Find out what they do need, etc etc.

Love the problem, not the solution.
Great point, r5.metal instances have 96 CPUs and 768 GB of RAM. Lots of "big data problems" can actually be solved with a single big EC2 instance. Cluster computing should always be avoided when a single node will do.
Prediction of phenomena in a repeatable fashion is the hallmark of all good science.

Very few of what pass for sciences today in our world, save for the sciences of chemistry and large parts of physics, have achieved such precision of prediction in the laws they have been able to come up with to describe the universe.

Parts of Medicine largely fit the bill but other parts aren't yet that far along.

Psychology and psychiatry are at best a crap shoot and do not have solutions that work for all, in a repeatable fashion.

Economics and social "sciences" are at best a set of theories with varying degrees of merit or applicability but are mostly a set of opinions and authorities who like to argue with each other about their own pet theory.

It's amazing how far humanity has come thanks to the advance of true science but it's important to not forget we have a long ways to go still.
Disregarding the quibbling about what is waste and what isn't, there's a difference between the work done to validate blocks and work done for the PoW based Nakamoto consensus. You want block validation to be as fast as possible which is a separate concern from deciding on a chain which is where you want lots of work.
Oh, you just don't do correctness proofs over the same type system that is used for dispatch (i.e. "the Julia type system"). We already use an expanded lattice internally for reasoning about Julia code, so there's really no problem just doing something completely general.
Some print shops (commercial printers) would contain joke calendars that showed each week with two Fridays. Thus making it more likely for jobs to be "completed before the weekend".
It does, it's ambiguous to have `Constructor.fun` for this reason.
NIST shouldn't be trusted anymore. Period.
Excellent, you're here so i (we) can address a couple of the points in your talk.

1) DBI is not a core module, nor to my knowledge has it ever been.

2) I'm the current maintainer of CGI.pm - i am not the author. This is an important point because the module is 20 years old, and like any software of significant size/age/importance it has been through several different hands (over 30 according to the git log, which only goes back to 1998 so is missing 3 years).

It would be great if i could just release a version of CGI.pm that removes the list context behaviour of ->param but that would massively break back compatibility for hundreds, if not thousands, of users. Not all of these users have the knowledge or resources to fix their code, which is why for the time being CGI.pm will warn when ->param is called in list context. This has actually broken some software (anyone that has set warnings to be fatal), but this was the least harmful way i could get out to users who maybe blind to the issue that there is indeed an issue.

And yes, as many have already stated this was an unfortunate consequence of the list context behaviour of CGI.pm. Knowing the difference between scalar/list context in perl is a classic gotcha. This behaviour lurked in code going back years - the examples you cite would all fall into the "legacy code" category. You're making the classic mistake of someone who doesn't know perl: looking at code from over a decade ago and thinking this represents modern perl. It doesn't.

A couple of other examples of critical bugs that were revealed in 2014: shellshock and heartbleed. Should we dismiss bash, C, etc, as terrible languages because of these? No. People make mistakes, don't RTFM, misunderstand language features, and bugs can exist in legacy code for years and years. Usually critical bugs.

You could have made an excellent talk from the work you did in exposing the bug(s) you found. You failed. Learn from this.
The GC had at least one fundamental flaw:

If your app used GC then everything your app links against or loads at runtime has to be GC-compatible. So Apple had to make all of it's frameworks GC-compatible. But many 3rd-party frameworks didn't.

Also: If your app used WebView to load a web site which contained something with flash (YouTube, ...) then your GC app would crash immediately because WebView loaded the Flash plugin which was not GC-compatible.

Thus using a WebView to load arbitrary sites was incompatible with GC.
> Why can't an introvert put on headphones or simply disregard irrelevant conversations in an open office?

You can't disregard your peripheral vision. People walking behind me all day stresses me out in a predictable fashion, as it does with most introverts I've worked with. Unfortunately for me, most startup programmers these days seem to be extroverts. Which makes sense, I suppose, given the large percentage of apps focused on all things social.
Everybody just assumed that first-person shooters were going to be the big thing in VR because [Doom 3 BFG Edition] was the initial demo. But very quickly Oculus learned about the issues with simulator sickness. Comfortable VR experiences had to be these seated cockpit games and you’re diverging from that at your own risk. The great games are the space sims and driving sims and these experiences where you’re basically sitting at a table with nothing happening in front of you. A lot of interesting things are evolving there. There are great games that can be made.

I suspect that stimulating the vestibular nerve is going to be the detail that makes VR.
This exactly. For me it's manageable (I'm mostly extrovert), but I can completely understand how some people would not work well in such an environment.

At our workplace we have some "meeting rooms" that are effectively small offices. Some of our team who don't like the hustle and bustle of a more open workspace effectively commandeer such rooms almost every day (on days they're not working from home).

Given how email/IM based we are, it seems to all work out fine (for me). For others or folks who don't have the proper layout (i.e., private 1-2 person room available ) then it could indeed suck.
Pool allocations are still allocations. If you look at the implementation for Pool.get, it works a lot like malloc:

http://golang.org/src/sync/pool.go

I've programmed without pools or allocations, where everything had statically allocated storage. Both for microcontroller firmware, and telephony software. It's noticeably harder.
Something is "possible" if we have an expectation that it might come to pass. How should we analyze possibilities except by looking at what actually happens? The premise of my counterpoint is that there is a probability distribution attached to what's possible, and that the distribution is not the same for everyone.
This looks great, and I would like to use it, but the pricing structure is frustrating. I help maintain a couple of static websites for small businesses run by friends. Since these are real businesses, the co-branding of the free tier is not viable, and $100/year is 3-4x more than we're paying for an S3 site. Low volume, I know, but if you are interested in that slice of business, there is likely a niche of people willing to pay for free tier infrastructure + no branding, and in my case also willing to make year-long commitments.
For the most part, mental health is highly subjective and relative. Psychiatric and psychological diagnosis are based on relativity to the average, or normal mental state of the masses.

So, if all consciousness is merged into one, how could we make any relative judgements?
You libertarians.

Please address their point about antivaxxers.
I'd love to see the domain added to the end of these, like they are on HN itself. For example, one might wonder why NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit is shorted to CUDA Toolkit... unless you see that (nvidia.com) is after it anyways.

It might add some context to some of the edits.
Being condescending and assuming bad faith isn’t a great look either.
All it takes is one person doing something against YouTube's terms of service and his account will get banned.
Regarding your 2nd point: commercial grade NoSQL db's can do all of these things now. I think the notion that they cannot is from the v1-2 era of Mongo about 7 years ago. You should read the Dynamo white paper and subsequent documentation on write consistency, transactions etc. and also look at the feature set available on Mongo V4.2.
My go to interview question to test basic SQL knowledge is use of “HAVING”.

It’s a surprisingly good filter.

EDIT: To clarify since this got more attention than I expected...I don’t disqualify any candidate based on the answer to a single question. I just use that question to assess their actual SQL experience. If you’ve spent any amount time writing raw queries by hand for reports or just to pass through to a web service, you’re going to have run into HAVING. It’s a simple part of the basic SELECT syntax without needing to involve joins, subqueries, index optimizations or specific knowledge of database internals.

It’s a fair question and the only way you wouldn’t have run into it is from working purely with ORMs or NoSQL. There’s a lot you can do without it, but it goes a long way in determining my ability to ask you to open up a query analyzer in different environments. It’s also going to tell me a lot about the way you think about data problems and where you are going to gravitate for certain types of logic.
Thanks so much for your reply, you opened up my eyes and knowledge to something that is so trivial; its amazing it took me this long to figure out such a simple thing. There are so many things in life that are like that, and that is why I enjoy it :)
I don't think speakly badly of is the same thing as "framing" though
What really bugs me are Vim modes that don't allow you to easily add new keybindings that abstract combinations of keystrokes, i.e. map <key> <keys>. For instance, I love to bind "s" to "go into insert mode, insert one character, exit insert mode". I feel crippled without this binding, but making it happen in Sublime 3 with Vintageous is daunting. It involves understanding the Sublime API and constructing some complex block of configuration code with way too many commas and brackets (JSON sucks). In Vim, configuration is a bunch of one-liners and I love that.
This was a dumb comment, I'd delete it if I could. Sorry.