jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
> They did not. They fought against it until it was clear they weren't going to win the fight.

What a losing attitude. Nobody forced them to do anything. They chose it.

I would argue that Firefox is what held back DRM from becoming more common. Even if 20% of users were not supported, that was significant. Even if it was inevitable, they should have done the right thing and refused to directly support DRM at all. It's not like there was any economic pressure on them. The whole point of non profit organizations is that they can afford to be principled. That was their one job. And instead they stabbed us in the back, over some hypothetical userbase that didn't exist.

> It would not, it would have killed them overnight. 99% of the population doesn't give a shit, they just want to watch Netflix (etc.), and they'd stop using Firefox the day Netflix (etc.) stopped working. That's true even of most Linux users which is the only population that might would care whatsoever.

That is your problem. You are hyperfocused on people who don't care what browser they use, and just want to watch TV. That is a terrible strategy.

You will never ever win those people over. Ever.

I don't think it is worth ruining everything that makes you special just to be popular.

I'm so glad they didn't try to out Microsoft Microsoft in 2006.

They are completely ceding to these corporations and letting them make the rules. How can any headway be made like that?

> XUL extensions were horrifically insecure and often caused terrible memory leaks that got blamed on Firefox - they also prevented proper sandboxing and multiprocess functionality from being implemented.

The lost functionality from removing XUL has not been restored. Firefox remains less useful than it was.

Blamed? Why are you so concerned about branding?? What world are you living in?

And again, on a macro level, the UX is worse now because it is less functional. Am I supposed to care that Tree Style Tabs is gone, but at least it performs better? That's not an upgrade. Instead, effort should have been diverted to improving the existing model.

There was a lot of room for compromise that they didn't use.

> Although your defense of Flash and Silverlight leads me to believe you don't care much about security.

No, I have using sandboxing in one form or another for over a decade. Are you? Maybe Mozilla should have focused on making sandboxing more accessible.

It isn't exactly hard on Linux.

> You're delusional if you think that anything good would come of that. If that's how you feel, why wait? Go build something now.

https://www.palemoon.org/

Proud supporter. It actually has a future.

Defund Mozilla.
Say Tokio, the async runtime used in OP's article.
I'm curious what you mean here, since CAPI allows you to manage and scale clusters like any other Kubernetes object. You can literally "kubectl scale --replicas" a cluster control-plane and worker nodes.
gimme a reason to help?

i dont sell linux or windows. i just dont enjoy using windows. try not bothering me if u do use windows though?
"Real politics" would involve considerably more aggressive movement from the democrats to shut out the republicans for 2022. I see the republicans gaining the house a the current trajectory, with nothing more than a one-time, means-tested, under-delivering $2000 check, let alone more aggressive policy on the horizon to address economic crisis.
This is actually somewhat novel - US regulation defending a right to not answer a question for a surveillance dossier. I identify as a straightforward binary, but still answer 'unknown' or garbage for anything I can, as I generally don't see how it's anyone's business.
There's at least one language (Haxe?) that uses exponentiation syntax for array types, playing in the product type idea: (A,A,A,A) = A^4
I think you're overshooting how many differences there are between Clojure and ClojureScript. They're mostly identical.

The big difference is the interop, and from your link with Scala.js it seems that's also true of it.

I'd say in practice, where ClojureScript and Scala.js maybe can differ a bit is that idiomatic Clojure itself relies a lot more on interop than Scala. So probably more Scala code doesn't depend on Java interop and thus can be more easily ported to Scala.js, whereas more Clojure code relies on interop making it more difficult to port to ClojureScript.

The other big difference is that Clojure supports runtime macros and eval, and those would require the compiler be bundled with your frontend app, which would increase the bundle size a lot. So ClojureScript needs to drop some of the dynamism. It's very rare to have Clojure code that actually depends on this though.

Overall in practice, what you'd want to share between backend and frontend is sharable as-is between Clojure and ClojureScript, which is all that's really needed. You'll build a React JS based frontend in ClojureScript, and share data-model, validation, transforms over it between backend and frontend. And you'll want your render functions to be shared between them as well so you can do server side hydration for React.

P.S.: I also want to point out there is a camaraderie between ClojureScript and Scala.js, and the devs exchange ideas, taking inspiration from one another as well. Since they face a lot of the same challenges.
I don't see any form on the signup page:

https://juji.io/login
I noticed an issue with the music : There is a monotone guitar riff in the background that clashes with the main melody at times. Listen carefully and I think once you notice it, it will not stop bothering you.
You know what would've generated as much conversation? Just an electric truck with towing capability and decent range. They didn't need to make it looks so awful to generate conversation.
To improve readability:

document.body.style.color = "#000";

Edit: Looks like that change has been applied to the site itself, thanks :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_title

Interesting.
There must be qualifiers to this headline, or we’d all be dead already.
More and more developers are deciding to give up on IE. The cost to support it is high, in large part because you have to not use any of these newer things like SVG that save a ton of time and improve performance.
I can tell you one anecdote — I have a Nigerian friend who is very high up at a FAANG, well dressed and mannered (and wealthy), who is pulled over _monthly_ in the Bay Area driving a fancy SUV. Nearly every time they ask him “is this your car?”
(IANAL) "Free software" I don't think would have ever been granted, but as hard as it is to imagine now: the phrase "open source" didn't always exist, and wasn't coined until 1998. There's a case to be made that the OSI should have pursued trademarking "Open Source" upon their founding in 1998 (I think there's also a pretty good case that trademarking it would have hurt their mission, as businesses might be afraid of using the term).
In the case I have in mind, the woman of color who said GFY initiated the interaction
I think the appeal in buying them is that you know what you're getting. You're getting the cheapest possible thing that can be legally labelled as such.

Whereas with more expensive brands, at least for me, there's always a worry (and frequently, a strong suspicion) that you're just buying the exact same product but with an extra 200% markup.
Besides the fact that your BW is off a factor of 2.81, which would bring it to ~18.65h, note that:

* That's why they are often rather on the receiving end of backups ;-)

* Are often in RAID10 systems, for redundancy/uptime + performance, roughly doubling their bandwidth

* Delta syncs/backups exists and thus normally only something like tens to hundreds of GiB need to be actually read, that can be done i way less than an hour

Depends naturally on the whole setup and actual workload, but if you have a high data rate change between backup times you may want to go for a SSD only system using ZFS or Ceph or the like (again depending on actual use case) which could do both cheap differential syncs.
I'm not trying to say there's one right way to do things. But there are a lot of plainly wrong ways.

If your parenting philosophy is not based on any research or learning about what's best for your child, but instead on what's easiest and most convenient for you, then you're probably doing it wrong. That doesn't mean you can't set boundaries for kids who are old enough to understand them.

I think the way we discard our elderly is closely tied to our self-absorbed approach to parenting. If you don't put in the time and are unwilling to make sacrifices for your kids, you shouldn't expect them to be there for you when you need it.
> Are you suggesting [...] they want to make money? Isn't the simpler explanation that maybe a 42-year old design is out of date?

I'm sorry I was too pithy. To answer your second question first:

Old aircraft are not inherently bad. The most famous case is the B-52, already in its sixties and when the current round of refurbishment completes (if it hasn't already) should continue fighting with airframes over a century old. The A-10 Thunderbolt (Warthog) is still in service despite many attempts to kill it as there is no replacement.

(Old aircraft aren't inherently good either; even the Harrier, despite being heavily used and not really having a replacement, eventually became too expensive to maintain)

The F-16 was brought up specifically in the article; the claim was that it is too difficult to upgrade its electronics, not that the airframe or engine were obsolete. Indeed the specific use case a new plane is being considered for is the kind of thing where an older, airworthy craft would be better (the station wagon vs Ferrari example from the article).

So for your first question, money: yes I am explicitly suggesting that. Without getting into the politics of consolidation in the US arms industry, since the B-1, weapons production has been structured in part as a jobs program (The B-1 was the first weapons system to explicitly have had its supply chain structured to have parts made in 100% of all congressional districts) while the purchasing procedures are so complex that they require ex military on the private sector side just to make them viable. That revolving door is not subject to any lobbying rules and is, TBH the only real retirement plan for senior officers below three star rank. And of course spending money on arms is always popular with the voters, as part of the "support the troops" slogan, even though the actual troopers, humans, get low pay, mixed-quality post-service health care (some amazingly excellent, other terrible) and are not protected against the depredations any number of predatory corporations while in the service. Oh, but that shiny gear shows off as well in the USA as it does in norks.

To be more charitable, generals and admirals also always want to push for the new and shiny because that's how they demonstrate status, in war and especially in peacetime. This is a social factor in all groups, this is merely how it manifests in military hierarchies world wide. Doesn't mean it's an effective use of funds nor that it necessarily improves warfighting (much less prevents it).
For what’s it’s worth my tests were all over the place (as low as 12mil total and as high as 80) with no large lifestyle changes. My doctor at Mayo said that’s normal and they look at the average over a year or so.

Also, in case it comes up in the future, doing you own sperm counts on a microscope isn’t that hard. I didn’t bother with morphology and the like as that was typically fine, but total counts are easy.
> if you are a company that handles confidential medical information (any health care organization, many insurers, every employee benefits management organization, &c), you may be required to have controls in place to ensure that nobody uses your Internet connection to exfiltrate people's PII through Google Mail.

Yes, but what are those controls? You check every packet to see if it contains any information from one of your databases?

What if the person sending the data just applies a simple obfuscation technique to the data, or just tunnels through some other encryption scheme?

Edit: downmods? really?
We clearly disagree on many points about unions, and can go back and forth all day with examples to support either side.

The hostess example is a good one, as they would not take a reasonable salary after the market turned, over 18,000 people lost their jobs, and now they get to re-emerge with no unions...I guess that is what you mean by better off.

However, I would just like to point out, that companies do not go to people's houses and foist unfair job offers on them. There is a reason that companies have an advantage on negotiation in general, that is because there are not many companies, but there are many potential employees. It is the burden of the potential employee to stand out and demonstrate his or her value in that situation. Why should you have a job instead of someone else? Why should you make more? Why should you make less?

In reality, they are good at getting floor-sweepers $32 an hour, while limiting other workers with ambition through seniority and contract prices for "classes" of people. They are good at getting employees to only do the minimum amount to fulfill their work obligation and be a slave to that corporation. After all, where else are you going to get those benefits and wages with no training or skills?

In my opinion, unions have destroyed industry in America and led to the wealth disparity that we now have to deal with, by encouraging industry to seek cheaper labor in other countries that do not have unions.

I already agree that unions helped American in the early part of last century, but have been an albatross since.

If unions only petitioned for labor laws to protect all employees, not just union employees, and if union used collective bargaining to set a base wage (with each person's individual wages depended on his or her ability and work ethic), I would be all for them.
Again, your description refers to "partial application", which is different from currying. I think that many people are comfortable with "currying" only because they think it's the same as partial application. The fact that this is incorrect is good reason to revisit the term.
Partial application isn't currying; partially applying a function f to a first argument x is equivalent to currying f, applying the resulting unary function to x, and uncurrying the function that results from that application.

So, partial application can be defined in terms of currying, application, and uncurrying, but its not the same as currying.
Have you looked at Syncdocs (https://syncdocs.com) too? It does encryption for Google Drive.
> Does that give the Democrats a license to take over the federal government? I don't think so.

Yes, it literally does.

Both Democrat and Republican Parties have consistently agreed that it does, via the constitution and law-setting, even where it is against the best interests of most people.

You can't make this argument against Democrats, unless you are making it against the Republicans in 2017-2019. Neither of the two political parties are as yet a permanent minority.

If that does happen, such that the Democrats start to consistently get 2/3 of the vote or 2/3 of each chamber (which doesn't look likely), then the dominating Democrats will likely split into two parties.

The choice of electoral system entrenches a two-party state; but, it doesn't say that one of those two parties necessarily has to be the Republicans.
Oh great, I once felt the need of it, but did not it actually existed. I feel though that pure CSS solution would be better, since modifying the colors etc would be easier with pure CSS.
If you look at global markets the same way, the fall of the Soviet Union was also remarkably localized, it's just that the Union and its Satellite states covered so much of the planet.
I know this is a popular point of view, but: [citation needed].
If anything this move would give me an excuse to not be on Instagram. But the wife’s obsession with FB and IG would not bode well with the decision.
No, I prefer the absolute minimum possible amount of sensory stimulation when I am working.

I am also a musician and any sort of music DEMANDS my attention.

I am not able to listen to music passively.
Personally, I farm to work out to the cloud.

I simply purchase whatever I need, have it delivered to an Amazon locker nearby, and then when I’m done with it I throw it out and order a new one.

The most frequently used ones are always at the locker and the least frequently used one is automatically returned for a refund. The cache miss is approximately two days.

It’s expensive, but you can’t beat the fact that it scales to a practically unlimited degree.

I call it “bowl-less” caching.
The quest for "maximum productivity" is the root cause for all of this. We need more artists and academics and less capitalists. Short-sighted thinking with profits being the end goal doesn't make for good science, good engineering or long term growth. The quest for productivity is a highly flawed path.
Overflow actually spills off the top. It's MRU!
Ehh, Spotify should stay quiet and off-radar and hope that more people won't learn about the ridiculous level of tracking they do in their desktop app.
> the guy has a real hate on for Adobe that he suddenly developed once Jobs got his anti-Flash lean

That wasn't sudden, Adobe and Macromedia have always been famous for slow programs and inconsistent UIs (although I hear Lightroom is good).

http://daringfireball.net/2005/04/adobe_translation

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/01/26/adobe-ui-gripes
Which is awesome for startups =)
Interesting and fun, but it doesn't spit out any info for me, despite the atom having an email appearing in it.

I'll poke into it when I get more time. I quite like the idea :)
If you expect equity to make up part of my pay, then knowing the financials is critical. You are basically asking me to be an investor with my time, so this sentence doesn't make sense: "If sound basics like "we're profitable" isn't enough, that's a no-hire."
This is a great idea. Sort of like a BnB network
Please don't listen to your lawyer for sound business advice. They can advise you on legal issues, but they generally will be very conservative when giving general business advice, because they view their job as eliminating risk rather than maximizing upside. Some of them can be very good negotiators too, within confines.

Lawyers can, however, be a great source for referrals to advisors.
This is an interesting article, but it's a bit surfacey, I think. This bit near the end is a good encapsulation of the idea, I think:

"What will work, for folks concerned with protecting software freedom? Providing solid and useful free software alternatives. Finding ways to make those alternatives sustainable businesses (or non-profits, like Mozilla) so that contributors can be paid to keep those tools free and functional. The FSF should be at the center of this effort instead of trying to hold users back to the stone age of computing. But if they won’t be, then it’s time for others to solve these problems rather than joining the Party of Gno."

What I think Joe Brockmeier doesn't realize (maybe I'm wrong) is that this has been precisely the central aim of the Free Software Foundation for the past half a decade at least. They may have gotten some things quite wrong - I think it's clear now that the GPL 3 was a mistake - but they've taken up and published the latest draft of of the Affero license, which is the alternative for developers seeking to build free and open-source software-as-a-service. Listening to clips of Stallman's evangelistics may lead you to believe that he's being purely negative, but the fact is that the FSF has offered and supported what's probably the most viable and practical solution to the problem.

Also, it seems to me that one reason we really can't write RMS off is the simple fact that he's turned out to be quite correct in some of his predictions. He stood against ESR's change in nomenclature to "open source," saying that calling it "free software" was the only way we could be sure that we were understood; at the time, it seemed like a silly pronouncement about unimportant vernacular, particularly because RMS is given to silly pronouncements like that. But in fact he's turned out to be absolutely right: now, with "open source" in its ascendancy, everyone calls their products "OPEN," whether they're actually free or not. Every MS press release is an opportunity to read that particular four-letter word at least a few dozen times, though it never means much of anything; and companies like Apple and Google (for all the good that Google has sometimes done for free software) like to brand their products as "open" when they're often anything but.

RMS may seem like a bit of a crank, but he's always seemed that way - and yet he frequently proves to be right. I don't think we should write him off just yet.
The OP should just get a non-programming job to pay the bills, just like many artists and musicians have to hold "day jobs" to support their passion.
The people I know who are aware of e-readers and have not adopted them are holding off not because of presentation issues, but because of DRM concerns ("Once I buy this e-book, will I have the same freedom that I had with the dead tree book?").

It may be that content presentation issues are holding off more publishers from joining the fray, but the main beneficiaries of that would be textbook publishers, and right now many of them don't seem to be very enthusiastic about the e-book market at all.

Still, it will be interesting to see what happens.

[Edit in light of responses: I am not suggesting that people I know constitute a representative sample; but I haven't seen much real data either - I would be interested to know what the real issues are in the wider population]
Same for Ubuntu Gnome. There's a few addons (or plugins, or whatever they call them) that I install to suite my preferences, but I can do a clean install + additional packages + tweak to my needs in under an hour. If you don't know the package names you'll want, maybe double that. The past few upgrades have also worked flawlessly for me, which makes it even easier.

That said, I intentionally purchase hardware that's known to work well with Linux (if you buy a system with all Intel chipsets, you'll probably be fine). Also, the power management is still abysmal. I still have to tinker with powertop to get battery life comparable to other OS's.
My problem with Yosemite is related to VNC (screen sharing): the desktop freezes for minutes after I end a session.

Sometimes the mouse still moves, but nothing else. About 50% of these cases I need to reboot the laptop. I used to reboot my Mac once a month or less. Now it's daily.

I want to downgrade OSX from 10.10 to 10.8, two versions back, because I read somewhere that it's the fastest of them.

In the last 2-3 years, Apple only added self-serving cloud shit and tried to make everything more like iOS, but the fucking Finder columns still don't auto-resize to the length required to read the filenames without "...." in the middle.
I'm on the latest xubuntu and just popped open chrome stable and checked - it works! I was even able to send it to my chromecast.
I'm not sure you're aware of the extent of pissing that has taken place from Apple on its Power Users' faces between 10.6 and 10.9 (likely 10.10 even, I've given up).

This isn't just "WHY IS THIS 10px LEFT TO WHERE IT WAS ARGH THIS SUX0RZ" - really basic things were broken, such as multi-monitor full-screen. Also, multi-core machines actually benefited (performance-wise) from upgrading up until 10.6. Not so after Lion.

It's easy to blame the users for being change-averse, but... was I really meant to stop using 'full-screen'? "Just resize it from that little corner there?"? Please.