jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
I wouldn't call separating logic and presentation bad. I would call that a best practice.

Even if that is true, it is not clear that trying to separate HTML, CSS and JS necessarily achieves a useful degree of separation between logic and presentation.

In "traditional" application development, we have long recognised that things like keeping the underlying data isolated from any particular presentation or interaction style can have advantages. However, you wouldn't find a lot of people arguing for creating a dialog box in some visual design tool in your IDE, writing separate code in a programming language to populate its controls and respond to interactions with them, and then somehow trying to join the dialog and the code up while keeping everything at arm's length.

Modular design has always been about keeping related aspects of a program together and minimising other dependencies. This means you can do useful things like changing one part of a program without running into surprising or uncontrolled side effects elsewhere. But if you have different aspects of the application that inherently do change together, as is often the case with HTML/CSS/JS in a web app, there is little benefit to trying to separate them for dogmatic reasons.
Good idea to simplify things but just side-stepping around the issue and delaying the reality that it really isn't this easy. You're eventually going to have to get dirty if you really want to do anything -- configure ruby, install gems, learn git, deal with gem versions... ah, good times.
It does with kids - there is no artistic defense - if it's pink it's porn.
Update: Woz gave Engadget clarification, saying:

"Almost every app I have is better on the iPhone.

[He expects Android] "to be a lot like Windows... it can get greater marketshare and still be crappy."

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/18/exclusive-woz-misquoted-a...
By my reading, a website would just need to be dual purpose to be protected. They could sell pirate bay hats and eye patches.
This will for now on be my preferred quote against “freedom at all cost” arguments.
It’s been six months since I thought about Optane.

Optane in DIMMs might be unmarketable. Optane is the fastest SSD you ever had but also the slowest RAM you can buy. Hypothetically it can fit in the cache hierarchy but there is no guarantee that it really speeds things up as opposed to slowing them down.
I agree... I think there are actually a couple of niggles that work together:

- there's a timer

- solutions are not always unique

Often in Wordle, you'll have three or four green letters, which leaves several possible answers, and you just have to guess which one is correct. Some days you'll be lucky, some days you won't! But it feels OK because you're not working against a clock; so you have time to mull over the possibilities and decide which one feels better.

In Three Magic words, because you're racing against the clock, once you see a solution you immediately want to put it in. But sometimes it gets rejected! For example, on Tuesday's puzzle:

Gur pbeerpg fbyhgvba jnf CRRYF naq OHYXL, ohg V gevrq CRRXF naq OHYYL juvpu V guvax jbhyq nyfb unir orra inyvq.

Somehow that feels more unfair than the Wordle case. I wonder if it might be better just to accept any valid solution that uses known common words?
Nah this rings true. There's a reason Haskell's killer app is a mobile astrology reader.
Who said anything about communism? UBI is just capitalism with an income floor. People can still work jobs for money and start businesses.
Ultimately, the company you are employed by is employing you to improve their bottom-line, as all of FAANG are for-profit companies. If your branch suddenly starts eating away profits (research proving something your company does is bad for example) or being too costly without improving the profits, there is a real risk they'll cut your branch/team. Is that not a fear for you? I'd like to understand the reasoning how it doesn't concern you.
I wasn't aware how much they raised. The figures sum up close to billion $ so far. I think there is a lot to learn from them. Thank you.
Come on man, Mensa? I’ve never taken an IQ test and the only pedigree I have is the school (UCSD) that I flunked out of.

I didn’t say that I’m personally a smarty-pants Haskell hacker. I said that those people skew smart and capable.

How come @dang is always there like the Batman spotlight when I stray into ad hominem but I always get smashed with this stuff?
This is hilarious. It shows why buyouts are so broken and hurt shareholders over time. ARMH was public. It got bought out then tried to get sold out and is now back to where it started at a lower share price and capitalization.
>From what I understand, many states with voter id laws didn't do that, and in some cases only accepted forms of id that poor or black voters were less likely to have.

When I was earning minimum wage when stacking shelves I managed to sort out an ID fine. This idea that Black people or poor people can't get ID is just the bigotry of low expectations.

I personally think it is extremely racist to assume that Black people aren't capable of filling out the required forms for Identification or being able to front the cost of an ID.
If the data can fit on a thumb drive it's not big data.
No, this is definitely the projector lens.
Yes, they all have great tools on top of git, but they are all different and hard to transfer between platforms.
Same reason as any other company needs to raise money - to grow faster than their cashflow will allow. A business having healthy revenue, or even healthy profit, doesn't mean they can afford to achieve their ambitions right now. Raising enables them to do more.

The fact a business is raising money is rarely a sign that they actually need money; companies raise because they want money to do something. Heck, if your company genuinely needs money raising is much harder because there's a real risk of the business failing.
Absolutely excellent article!

>We could make offline-first software if we wanted.

In fact, we used to do that, and we were really good at it too.
nearly every parent I know, including myself, has sunk a bunch of money into "robux", none have sunk any money into boston dynamics robots.
If I am understanding this correctly, the problem is that the paper authors do not provide a specific version or a package.json equivalent. In that case, using dates seem to be the only choice.
I would add to his list the following:
- let the people make their own decisions
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-t...

------

>Be There. Will Be Wild!

------

a supporter misspelled the word “cavalry” in tweeting that “The calvary is coming, Mr. President!”

Mr. Trump responded: “A great honor!”

------

But first came the remarks of the President, delivered on the Ellipse, just south of the White House.

“We will never give up,” he said. “We will never concede. It will never happen. You don’t concede when there’s death involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore.”
There is explanation of data done with Automatic Exploratory Data Analysis.

There is explanation of ML models and predictions:

- learning curves from training

- decision tree visualization

- linear model coeffs printout

- features importance (permutation based)

- SHAP features importance

- SHAP dependence plots

- SHAP decision plots
Watching that made me think the first Von Neumann Universal Constructor would be built by a carpenter.
Oh, sorry

I meant that difference that you no longer see (when you go to infinite), not 0,85.
If they built this facility in a year and a half, building infrastructure won't be a problem - at least for them to claim.

I doubt many kids will die in North Korea. They've already demonstrated a nuclear or near-nuclear (IE it fissled rather than popped) capability. With this facility, if they've been producing for a while then they're fully-nuclear for sure and could be striving for thermonuclear.

I seriously doubt the intelligence of our leaders, but I'm sure there'll be a military coup before actual soldiers land in NK while nukes are potentially still present.

With the way North Korea is going I wouldn't doubt their government putting nukes inside their major cities.
Why would anyone assume that because a shape converges, the arc length must also converge?

A troll can also prove that 2 == 1 by continuously folding the peaks of an equilateral triangle down to the baseline.

Another fun one:

$1 = 100¢

$.1 = 10¢

$.1^2 = 10¢ ^ 2

$.01 = 100¢

thus

$1 = 1¢

Trollface
"Better Push Notifications: Apple should just straight out copy Android’s Cloud-to-Device API. That’s it."

Or, you could try my app, Jumping URL (http://www.jumpingurl.com), instead.
Again, "some novelist" and "disciples" are dismissive terms that you're using to shut down the conversation by belittling the source of one poster's ideas.

If you think the discussion is not useful, make an argument to support that claim. Link to criticism. Or demonstrate that the Randputer is not arguing in earnest.

If you don't consider the fact that you might be wrong, that there might be something useful about the discussion in question, then how are you any better than someone who won't consider that Rand might be wrong?
I'm a 5th year PhD student who is teaching a large (80 student) section of a course, this is the 4th course I've taught. I've also taken plenty of exams as a student, and they are still fresh in mind.

I would want to know more information before I decided the students were cheating or not. The instructor refereed to an "exam room", and gave an hour range that the new exam could be taken. So the students are not all taking the exam at the same time, this makes it seem possible that the exam is online. If the exam is online, and the students can take it at home vs take it in a proctored room, that would change what would be cheating. If it were online at home (I don't think so from the video) then reviewing the test bank while taking the exam would be cheating. If not, then having seen a question before the exam may or may not be cheating, depending on HOW you saw the question.

If you did not acquire questions in an unethical way, then it's not cheating, it's just studying. As an instructor, I will sometimes put problems from the book onto my exam. If the students worked the problems before because they were studying hard, then good for them! I want my students to study, because it will help them learn. I also provide a sample exam with previous exam questions on it; I write most of my own questions and it's important for students to get used to my style. As a student, I had to take a written exam for my PhD. When I was studying for the exam I asked Professors for help, one of my Professors gave me some of his questions. I worked out every single question. He also submitted one of his existing questions to the exam and I recognized it when I was taking the exam. Cheating? No. I just got lucky (and worked my ass off).

If test questions are acquired by malicious means, or knowing that they are going to be on the exam, or are the test bank that is going to be used to make the exam. Then it is cheating. So if students knew that the questions came from a test bank, and downloaded the test bank (I'm sure it's on the web somewhere) to gain an advantage they cheated.

Finally, as an instructor. Writing a decent exam is surprisingly hard. My goal with an exam is two-fold, figure out how well the class as a whole is doing, and separate the students into their grade groups. The ideal exam has some problems that even the D students can answer (to separate them from the F's) and some problems (usually just 1 problem) that are a stretch for the A students. And a mix of medium problems for everyone. If you have too many easy problems, the grades will creep up and you won't separate students. If you have too many hard problems, the grades will creep down and you won't separate students. Writing an exam from scratch is very time consuming. I use my private test bank, and try to add 1 or 2 new questions to the bank when I'm writing each exam. I can understand (but don't agree with) an instructor pulling entirely from an existing bank to write an exam.
One Day, One Job (http://www.onedayonejob.com/) is my startup, and it's just reached the point where it's covering all of my business and personal costs. The site, along with its sister site One Day, One Internship, help college students learn about interesting career opportunities.

Nearly 45% of this year's revenue has come from direct advertising.

Another 40% of the revenue comes from contextual job advertising which directs users to a private label job search engine.

About 10% comes from product sales (an online job search course), and the rest comes from various affiliate programs.

I've also been able to get some significant referral credits with a few online clothing retailers. That's enabled me to be well dressed, despite just scraping by for most of the year.
"...the languages that I know are limited to vb.net and c#. These are not exactly high level languages themselves..."

Not only are these very good high level languages but there is lots of well paying and reasonably easy to get work around for competent users.

You sound a little overwhelmed which is normal, confidence is only going to come with experience. Whether or not you decide to study formally, write a lot of different code in your own time.

Imagine big problems, then break them down into smaller simpler problems that you can actually solve. Building Facebook must feel like an impossible task right now, but I bet you could build a database to store a list of friends. The more you do this the more you'll find 'big' problems are suddenly easier to understand.
Comments from yesterday's submission of the same article: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1430316
Most interesting take-away from me is the idea that failure is important to the process. As long as that failure comes with great feedback (in a game, the 'character' doing something other than what you want) a user can learn.

This would seem to extend beyond turning your interface into a 'game'... maybe it means that we should be much more focused on providing meaningful feedback. When a user does something wrong, translate that into an action, comment, or something that clearly provides an opportunity for learning. Makes sense...

Interestingly, I've experimented with something like that in one of our products. Instead of trying to provide the shortest path to complete an action, I designed the interface to take the user through the same steps they'll use when actually managing the stuff they create (with lots of helpful prompting). This isn't necessarily new, but it was new for me. The early returns have been pretty good with this approach.

One thing I might take a stab at changing: Instead of providing immediate prompts for the user, let them click around and only display the prompts after enough (failure) time has elapsed....
Changes in institutions/networks/interconnectedness etc. as described in the Beinhocker book is innovation according to the economic textbook definition. I have read the summary of his books and he does not seem to contradict the essay. I'd be interested to see an explanation of how you think he does (assuming you do).
I don't know what kind of surfing habits you have, but for 99% of the sites I visit, I don't have an "enjoyment of the site" to push me into being sympathetic for their financial needs. I find individual, useful bits of websites through Google or Reddit, take what I want or need from those bits, and then ignore the rest. Websites, in this way, are commodities; necessary evils to transmitting information or entertainment. I don't maintain "relationships" with these websites as if they were bands or political parties; they're more like one-night-stands. I think this is the way many people see the Internet as a whole, and that is why so many are amenable to unilateral ad blocking.

There are a few websites I do visit over and over (HN, for example), and I don't block ads on those—but I wouldn't start a long-term relationship with a site like that if its ads were obnoxious.
While I'm virtually certain that Tavis acted in good faith here, there is a huge difference between his inference that it was likely this bug had been found and actual evidence demonstrating it.
More than anything, it was the drop-shadow on the text that got me. Completely unnecessary and distracting. Luckily I had a Readability bookmarklet all ready to go.
> Horizonal scalability is simply a band-aid for poor engineering in most (not all) applications.

Maybe if your app handles < 10k concurrent connections. Otherwise it is the most cost efficient solution and exists because it solves the scaling problem in the best way as of today.
Trust != monopoly
I wish that the author had spent more time really thinking about _why_ communication has moved away from email, or why XMPP/IRC never really caught on despite being vastly older than these app competitors (hint: it is because they are federated, and so making sweeping changes to the protocol/client in the name of UX becomes intractable.)

It is _very_ frustrating that the internet has had messenger fragmentation since the beginning of time, but why can Matrix solve this problem if XMPP cannot? Signal just works.
I do not think that solves the question. What is the reasoning behind the assumption that GDP/capita in the UK should be equal to that of the US?
And why should it not be equal to say, that of Italy instead?

The author is assuming a certain "natural order of things" and placing the UK a few ranks higher than it actually stands.
Thanks Marc,
If I get to go.
I'll go for the both of us
As an counter datapoint, this is the first time I have ever heard of this.
So there is not a single situation in which any group is allowed to be excluded based on anything that in't symptomatic of some larger conspiracy?

"I don't want Danny to come and see Jim Jeffries comedy because Jim says a lot of negative things about religion, and Danny as a Christian would be a buzzkill".

"I don't want Danny to come and see Anita Sarkesian talk because he is a man and his being there will be a buzzkill".

"I don't want Danny to come and see Barcelona Play Real Madrid because he is a buzzkill whenever sport comes up".

Seems to me that there are lots of valid reasons why people wouldn't want certain people around - people exclude me from all manner of things, and I don't think that is evidence of systematic bias against me. In fact, in many situations I'd say it is reasonable to exclude me, because I would very much be a buzzkill. As one such example:

"I don't want webehere to come and see the psychic, because he will spend his whole time trying to prove they are full of shit, and that will be a buzzkill".
The whole point to limiting signeage is that the traffic regulators must keep the rules simple enough so that they're short enough so that someone driving past the sign can fully understand it without stopping and/or endangering traffic.

Need temporary exceptions for snow removal? Change the signs. Can't afford to change the signs so often? Don't make so many and complicated exceptions or schedules.

You can make a really reasonable system by only using simple signs in the form "[park here/don't park here/pay-park here] IF [time-range-sign] OTHERWISE default". Many countries are successfully doing this - my home city is just fine and most of the parking signs are either (a) no parking here; (b) pay-parking on workdays 7:00-21:00 (otherwise default free-parking); (c) no-parking on 7:00-19:00 on workdays (to free up a lane for traffic) or (d) parking forbidden except permit #xyz.
I believe the webapp retrieves your message history from the phone in real time, and Whatsapp does not store messages on their servers once they have been delivered.
This was a great example, and I think you are absolutely right that it
is the identical in function, if not in form, to mine.

Interestingly, in the course of concocting a counter-counter example,
I came up with this in an effort to show the two dynamic variables we
stipulate - host and target - were absolutely required:

#+clj
(defmacro my-macro []
(cond
(contains? *features* :clj) `(some-clojure-thing)
(contains? *features* :cljs) `~(do (require 'some-ns)
((resolve 'some-ns/some-fn)))))

My hope was to make the point that 'some-ns/some-fn would run in a
context where (features :cljs) is true - as it is in the caller's
(macro body) environment - which would result in the system attempting
to run ClojureScript code, which would explode because the macro is
Clojure. Then I realized that require runs load, and load is in the
macro body. The load/require available in the environment is
Clojure-specific! Thus, load/require can bind disj :cljs and conj
:clj before reading and compiling some-ns.

My counter-example failed, but did bring me a little closer to the
truth - that we only need one dynamic variable, platform. Any
platform that has the ability to load code also has an opportunity to
bind platform and thereby inform macros of target. This simplifies
the Feature Macro proposal by half and we are excited to amend it.

Our updated cross-platform example becomes:

(case-platform
:cljs nil
:clj (defmacro my-macro []
(condp = *platform*
:clj `(some-clojure-thing)
:cljs `(some-cljs-thing))))

Instead of host and target, we are down to just platform. We
continue to see no need for a features set because of Clojure's
platform-symbiosis.
Correct. I grew up in Vermont. No billboards allowed and the State will come after you if you try to get funny about it and test the limits.
To quote the great philosopher Karl Pilkington: "Art is just something for your eyes to look at."
British forces used laser-guided bombs in 1991. The target was laser-painted by a Buccaneer, bombs were dropped by Tornado.
Similarly you could use Doug Cutting's Avro format that does have a JSON representation. It is also evolvable like Protocol Buffers and works well in untyped languages. I highly recommend it.
Its pretty egregious.

I've heard folks say "C'mon, whats the harm the system is there to be gamed and they just play it better than others." Which I can't really argue with, I mean there isn't really a barrier to entry other than cash and willingness. And its a whole industry in its own right. But still it does leave one with a poor impression.
Thanks. I like that you give recipients the option to unsubscribe. Saves them from (well-intentioned but overeager) friends.

One other thing I'm just noticing: after you add a URL or email address on the website, the form field isn't cleared. A screenshot may make this clearer: http://cl.ly/6M7A.
Apart from the fact that it's already got all the hardware and software to communicate with the servers, and is thus a much better conduit for an exploit, you mean?
at 0% fees, Square is making $0.00 M in revenue
"it's not a bad deal but you're completely missing the point of taking money from american or european 'bootstrap' companies"

Maybe. But they're not mutually exclusive and maybe the Chilean fund even helps with the startup incubators, because you can apply to something like YC or Techstars afterwards if you still have 100% equity to give away. Plus the good programs have gotten so competitive that it's harder to get in with just an idea, it's better to show traction and customer validation first.

As someone that interviewed for YC this week and didn't make it in, I can say that going to the Chilean program appeals to me for exactly those reasons, since I'd be able to reapply to YC after having worked on my project (stacyplease.com) full-time rather than continuing to burn nights and weekends.
Well, the idea is that instead of logging into production, you log into your development environment, do the testing there--then you write a script that replicates what you just did. Lastly, you run the script on staging, and if that seems to work, then run it on production.

There's a pretty handy tool I use now (fabric: docs.fabfile.org) that makes it pretty simple.