jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
Not all dynamic languages implicitly declare variables, I'm a Smalltalker and this just isn't a problem. If I make a typo and try to save it, it'll tell me this variable isn't declared and ask me how I'd like to declare it.

Using the wrong variable, I just never seem to have that problem as well named variables make the code just look wrong when it happens and secondly because I'm writing the code while the code is running in a live environment. I see immediately when it does work because the first thing I do is execute it on a live object to make sure it does what it's supposed to do. This handles the null issue as well. Incremental live development just side steps about all of these issues, and is something static languages just don't let me do.

More often than not, I've found type systems to prevent me from expressing what I want to express even when the code would work perfectly fine simply because polymorphism isn't granular enough. In dynamic type systems, polymorphism is based on method signature alone and is not bound to any kind of class/interface/type class which gives me the most flexibility in expressing myself. I prefer that flexibility and incremental live development over any gain any static type system might give me.
Someone got Ellison, Jobs, and Ballmer in ONE ROOM!?
Can't you just set Cache-Control: no-cache to fix that?
>they don't have unjust control over my computing

I don't understand this. What is unjust about a software author charging for their work? I and many others are happy and willing to pay.
Fail. I've ran it repeatedly over and over and it doesn't run forever. It segfaults or exits. But....you did cover a corner case I hadn't considered. Thanks!

https://gist.github.com/zedshaw/81edf35857e137ccd7d3 is the results.
Please don't do this here. I agree that the comment was unpleasant while pretending not to be, but this takes a strong turn for the worse.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12305558 and marked it off-topic.
You're describing a possible world, but you're not describing the real world. Responsibility, especially in the corporate world, is not straight forward. Truly holding someone responsible for anything is a rare event. The modern corporation is very good at presenting the illusion of responsibility without the accountability of it.

Workers aren't stupid. They see the bullshit and want protection. And the bullshit is so pervasive it's everywhere, so it's not like changing jobs is really going to change anything.

So you can lie to yourself and say 'no this is how it is,' but you're not going to convince anyone by just asserting that your ideas are how reality work, especially when trying to convince people who are already aware of your ideas and rejected them because they do not match reality.
Is it really a better comparison though? What is being compared? Seems like a legitimate design decision.
It makes more sense to eliminate air pollution.
It's ironic that Android isn't on the desktop, given how much greater access they would have to expand their brand.

If they made a single touch/click that pulls the top menu _all_ the way down, then it would be easier to use on the phone and on the desktop.
I don't cooperate with ants.
GNOME has pretty great screen reader support built in (I think this was work that Sun did before Oracle bought them). The native apps have good screen reader support in my experience, unfortunately, support for the web is lacking (a lot of the new ARIA stuff is unsupported or broken).
Previous discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8832919
Why aren’t we using SSH for everything?

Because "Use X for everything" is a terrible design decision? SSH uses flexible transport with some desirable features and may be underutilized in practice.

This question is starting to feel like people who want to staple every pie in the sky idea to the bitcoin blockchain because it too has a set of desirable properties.
I wonder. What about microgravity?

Could the lessening of gravity's influence distort the structure of both the drug compounds and the chemical receptors in the body in unpredictable ways, so that they no longer chemically interact with one another?
why more useful for your friends?
You're right. I guess your other suggestion was really still making a "wide screen" but a super high res one out of two squarer ones :-) That seems a reasonable solution.

I have 2560 pixels wide but I have a 27" iMac and sorta consider the screen almost a "freebie" with the computer (considering how little extra the 27" costs). A similar stand alone screen is crazy money though..
Hell, I would like if OKCupid let me know my percentile. If I thought I had a hot shit profile that actually rather sucks (by real user analytics feedback), it would benefit me to know.

[edit] People are taking this far too personally. You didn't get rejected as unattractive, your profile got rejected as unattractive. There are more ways than one to rectify this. Remember, these people don't know you, they can only view a tiny slice of you via your profile - one that you are in 100% control of. Perhaps your failure is not that you're irredeemably ugly, but rather that your profile inspires no attraction. Conversely, if you "won" the profile attractiveness game, it may not mean you're nearly as attractive in real life as your profile suggests.

This reminds of the PUA mantra as it has been related to me: "she didn't reject you, she rejected your approach"
If the methods by which they measure attractiveness overlap with the methods by which they measure racial bias (covered in one of their blog posts), then they could very well be implying (whether they mean to or not) that attractiveness is correlated with race.
The problem is, you're not telling your partner 'I would like to buy at $20'. You're telling him 'I would like to buy at $15', but as in any negotiation you have a max price you are willing to pay and he has a minimum price he is willing to sell, but neither of you announces that to each other.

However, he basically has the ability to read your mind and see that he can negotiate you up to $20, while you lack the same ability to reciprocate.

It's an unfair advantage enabled by large firms having the money to buy better access to market mechanisms and powerful enough computers to exploit them.
Where does it say "exactly how wrong the standard view" is? The example is only arguably "bad" because the number of reported witnesses to the murder may have been exaggerated.
http://doublecommand.sourceforge.net/
Shit, I'm so screwed.
I would still recommend Emotional Intelligence. I haven't been keeping track of new books, so there may be better or more up-to-date books, but Emotional Intelligence is a good place to start. It's simple and concrete. The part about young kids making friends is a good example. Goleman describes how a kid approaching a group of other children playing observes what the other kids are doing, joins the group quietly, and mimicks what the other kids are doing. The child is careful to fit into the vibe of the group, and he lets the other kids lead and direct the activity. Later, after establishing himself in the group, he might assert himself more.

That example got my attention because it was counterintuitive. It sounded like a really passive and loserish way to fit in, the kind of approach that would guarantee you would be looked down on and pushed around. I had heard that kind of advice before, but to me it always sounded like, "Look, you're a loser. Here's the easiest way to get along as a loser in society." I wasn't interested in that at all; I wanted to be respected. But according to Goleman the compliant approach was the approach taken by the most socially successful kids. The kids who took less harmonious approaches encountered rejection and exclusion, turning many of them into wallflowers or bullies. Well, being humble and compliant was a much more productive (and less stressful) approach for me, and I could rest assured that I was establishing myself the way a respectable somebody ought to, and my demeanor would not automatically classify me as a pathetic nobody. Wielding power in a group is a different skill, but it turns out to be founded on sensitive to the group just like cooking is founded on the skill of tasting food.

As for #4, Emotional Intelligence drilled into me that empathy was the basis of social understanding, and that we use ourselves as a model of how other people think and feel. We project our own assumptions and feelings onto other people. I got pretty good at using that method to see my own shortcomings through other people's eyes. What I didn't immediately appreciate is that if your view of yourself is warped in any way, including in a negative way, you will misunderstand your social interactions with other people. For example, if you don't like yourself, you'll never really understand that other people like you. Hating yourself is a cognitive handicap, and what's worse, it selectively makes you blind to the best things in life. You're blind to the value you have to other people, blind to the respect other people have for you, and blind to romantic opportunities. That actually offends people who don't know you (who take your obliviousness as rejection) and frustrates your friends, who do understand. I thought devaluing myself would give me a safety margin against accidental antisocial behavior, but it actually made my antisocial behavior worse.

I was a little late figuring out how I irritated other people with my lack of sensitivity, but I was REALLY late -- I mean decades late -- figuring out that other people like and appreciate me. I'm still working on it. Thanks for your contribution ;-)
I was hoping for a denouncement of China's actions in Hong Kong. One can dream.
Random interesting factoid: the guy behind Scala.js (and lots of other awesome Scala libraries) is actually the son of the prime minister of Singapore. I discovered this when talking to some Singaporeans who were quite surprised to hear the name in the context of programming language libraries. This means that if like his father and grandfather he eventually becomes prime minister, it'll be the first to-Javascript compiler maintained by a head of state.
I believe they are significantly better for cycle lifetime as well.
Here's an idea, for anyone reading this to run with.

Sell account packs, say 50 accounts for 10 bucks. Or maybe 10 accounts for 5 bucks. Or maybe 20 accounts for $30 a year? Adjust it for both sustainability with your tech model, I dunno about that.

But the idea is to minimize the number of payments required per account and per network, and allow one person to pay for their entire group.
The real preparation to protect the power grid is fairly simple.

A> Someone has to be authorized to shut down the grid, and willing to do so with no consideration of politics, nor profit, in the hours before the proton flux hits the earth.

B> Everyone has to obey those instructions despite the politics that will inevitably happen as the bean counters attempt to eek out the last drop of profit and push things too far.

C> The Black Start plans that grid operators have, which would restart the grid from everything off, to a fully functional network, have to survive contact with reality.

The Carrington event cause high voltage discharges in telegraph systems. The power grid handles lightning strokes all the time, way more voltage and current all at once.

The real danger is the large low voltage DC currents, the could cause the iron in the core of transformers to become saturated, after which they will stop working as transformers, and simply become very large heaters as there is suddenly no inductance to stop the flow of current through their primary windings. If the system is off, the currents can flow, and no damage will occur.

TL;DR - if the grid is OFF, it is safe... and someone has to have the authority to make that decision with some lead time to allow it to happen in an orderly manner.
It looks like Griddy is going out of business so anybody who owes them money may be able to avoid paying.

ERCOT hasn't paid the producers yet (because they don't have the money as the article says) so they may end up paying them cents on the dollar.
> If your mother in law can't even pick a username and password, how will she shop on Amazon, sign up with Google, book a flight?

Here's a clue: Millions of people go about their lives without ever doing any of these things.
Order that data by the final column (deaths in the last 7 days) descending. Spain and Italy were both hit relatively early, and many European countries are suffering second and third waves because of lockdown fatigue and libertarian propaganda on Facebook. But the US winter has been absolute mayhem and it was all driven by trump trying to get re elected by hook or by crook.
My impression was Russian/Georgian or similar too, but slanted wrong. Perhaps mirrored?
There are two kinds of reading. Reading that is hard and reading that is easy.

Nobody who reads 100 books a year (or even 50 as the author cops to) is reading anything particularly difficult. It's either fluff self-help, or fiction that vacuums your attention in, or a medium article by some MBA blown up to 250 pages by a publisher, or something you should be listening to as an audiobook on your commute. Look at what the author of the article is reading! Come on, this stuff is embarrassingly easy. It sure as hell ain't Knuth.

I'm an advocate of reading about 6-8 books per-year, and it is miserable. About 300 pages into a nonfiction technical book and I'm pacing around the kitchen island, djent in the headphones cranked up to 1,000, jaw clenched on my nicotine gum, 12 cups of coffee playing chicken with my guts, muttering to myself, scribbling nonsensical notes in the margin. Miserable.

It sucks. I absolutely hate it. I don't understand 30% of the goddamn thing. But, I learn a hell of a lot.

So, I strongly distrust anyone who brags about reading, and I listen closely to anyone who bitches and moans and complains, but slogs their way through a small number of serious, technical, nonfiction books per-year. The difference between reading SICP and reading Simon Sinek is immeasurable.
I first thought about the problem when I read about the history of the Kashmir region, but actually, it's pretty universal in history. Ask any Mexican about how it is to be the neighbor of a much more powerful polity. Or a Lebanese person. Or an Okinawan. Or an Irish person.

I don't really know the details of the deal, but it seems to me that even if you do get a good deal at one point, the fact is, the UK has very little negotiating power in comparison to the EU. If the EU decided, much like the USA decided with Japan in the 80's, that the UK should sign an unfavourable deal like the Plaza Accord, the UK would be able to do very little but sign it.

Obviously, as you've pointed out, there are a ton of countries that, for some time, step their way around all the pitfalls of this kind of position. But none of them are as large as the UK.
OK, so what about if you are hosting public conference calls they can join about how much their company sucks, and they cut your phone service? Analogies are a stupid form of argument, but I'm trying to surface the problem here somehow. (In this analogy they're not the conference call provider, they're just the phone service provider which enables you to use the conferencing service over their lines, if that wasn't obvious. They're a pipe.)
Did you see his neck move weirdly though? Totally not a morbidly obese man just struggling to fit inside a collared shirt.
I think that there's a big difference between "news stories" and low-level exploit details. The audiences would be very different.

There are existing sites with a good niche, such as https://0x00sec.org/ which might have more direct input though.
"ok everyone, the drive noticed, time to rotate tape colors!"
Greed, not fun motivates people, that's what it looks like in this case anyway.
Capitalism is an entire scheme for running an economy, because it answers questions like:

* How do we decide how many factories to operate? (A capitalist might bet that we need one more.)

* How do we motivate the people who are needed to build and run them? (The capitalist hires them.)

* Where do the raw materials come from? (The capitalist buys them.)

* Who is entitled to have the end products? (The capitalist, and whoever he sells them to.)

Geoism is merely a way to fund government; it doesn't make any of these other things happen. It also seems to make the burden fall disproportionately on organizations that use a lot of land, rather than using a lot of energy or people or any other asset. If we're going to ration something (which is all a property tax is) as a tactic, it should be energy, because we're more likely to run low on that than square feet of dirt.
I should have noted that "foo" wasn't meant to be taken literally; clearly it should be something that wouldn't show up in a dictionary. Even so, the point was that any salt is substantially better than none, and is easy to implement.
One major lesson to take from this: Make sure you fully understand the impact of changes you're considering for your site.

It's easy to check one metric (in this case, percent of cams) and declare that that metric proves that your change won't be a problem. But you should make sure to check every metric you can get (percent of sales and percent of traffic, in this case).

There's no reason you couldn't have tracked traffic to each cam and discovered that 60% of your traffic was to adult cams, right? And you may not want to track what cams each user views for privacy reasons, but you probably could have taken some anonymous data to see that adult cams make up a significant percentage of paid users' views, right?
I think you got it backwards. Sure, maybe Gmail didn't change that much over the years, but the pace at which Google is iterating and innovating is still impressive. Some of new products fail and many are not as visible as established services like Gmail, but they are still not afraid to take the risk and challenge their programmers. It may be less visible because Google is more decoupled, consisting of a number of more or less interconnected services, in contrast to the monolithic Facebook.

Finally I haven't heard about any autonomous vehicles coming from Facebook :)
Good thing there were no newts around.
What's wrong with generating money? Why not let the people disobeying the law pay for the roads?
So, you did not do calculations of the probable effect of your decision _before_ taking that decision?
This would be a more believable assumption if the US had a history of legitimate use of such power. The last couple decades are full of examples where the US government has used security as a reason to cover up bad behavior.
Maybe it just irks you that RMS is not your subordinate?
The tl;dr:

>we don’t use Elastic Block Storage (EBS), which is the main component that failed last week.
As abhorrent as the actions of Trump are, I still think it's also a massive problem when a few private companies or even single unelected individuals like Zuckerberg who effectively control a defacto monopoly of public forums online between them can regulate speech as they please without any checks and balances whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong, in my opinion Trump is a traitor to the USA and democratic societies as a whole, and did incite a portion of his followers to overthrow the elected government and parliament in an attempt to nullify the democratic election results and install himself as an tyrannic leader (and only backed down and told people to "go home" when he saw this would not succeed in an attempt to cover his ass"), and he should be impeached and convicted and removed from office and receive a jail sentence.

But I shouldn't have the power to be judge, jury and executioner all by myself and put people in jail or even regulate their freedom of speech, and neither should facebook or Zuckerberg or twitter, or Trump for that matter. There is a rule of law and democratically legitimized institutions to enforce it, protected by a system of checks and balances, and it's the place of these institutions to make such decisions in accordance with the law.

This time a lot of people will think the ban hit the right person in Trump. But next time it might be somebody less clearly (to us) deserving of such a ban (like a "traitor" Snowden or a "commie" Sanders). What, for example, if social media had been around in the Jim Crow era and the "rulers" of social media had decided that the civil rights movement was to be silenced? Or that "traditional marriage" is an institution that needs protection from "gay marriage"?
> the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.

Many people, both anarchists and non-anarchists, would strongly disagree with that statement. And not all of those people are uneducated edgelords whose main argument is that it's a slippery slope.
Location: Porto, Portugal (GMT+1)

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: Python, Django, JavaScript, Node, React Express, MongoDB, PostgreSQL, MySQL, Flask, Redis, Celery, BeautifulSoup, Scrapy, AWS, Docker, Elasticsearch

Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/albertommoura/

Portfolio: https://github.com/mmnemonic

Email: albertommoura@gmail.com

Availability (Starting January 2021): 40 hours/week

[Python-Django-React Fullstack Developer]

My expertise lies in automated web scraping of difficult to obtain data, websites with bare bones structures and complex to parse, large scale websites, including those using 'scraping protection' services and sites that simply put - are hard for most to scrape. I use a variety of methods for getting the data and aim to obtain the data as quickly, accurately and efficiently as possible.
What he literally said while he "literally stood outside near the Capitol" (he was almost two miles away from the Capitol):

"Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. After this, we’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."

...

"So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you."
Saudi king?
Have you actually watched Fox News lately? Right wingers are leaving it in droves because except for a few pundits (Tucker Carlson etc) They are too moderate. Most of the craziness is on social media these days and right wing news sites on the web
Most of my friends have migrated to Telegram now.
Because they also simultaneously tend to use them as propaganda.
And I would, in turn, point you to Parler.

Facebook being a cesspit doesn't prove that anonymity can't make things worse.
It's basically the bitcoin for crypto.. and its constant actual monetary difference with usd is the biggest cause of the crypto market cap inflation.
Whining about downvotes earned you some more.

To respond to your original comment, you're right if you have external shareholders. If you don't, it's pretty much up to you. Your employees aren't owed a maximum possible amount of growth either. It's a free market - they can stay or leave.
Why does it have to be unpaid?

https://twitter.com/mntmn