jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
Direct links to some of the interesting source:

https://github.com/robb/Marbleo.us/blob/master/src/js/Block....

https://github.com/robb/Marbleo.us/blob/master/src/js/Path.c...

https://github.com/robb/Marbleo.us/blob/master/src/js/Game.c...
1000 internets to this man. This is excellent!
No, their SPAM filter is (yes, still) in Haskell.

https://engineering.fb.com/2015/06/26/security/fighting-spam...
You guys are right, no one should ever write a book. About anything, ever.
This is blogpost demonstrates everything wrong with the Silicon Valley mentality and is actually quite insulting. I hope it's sarcasm.

Programming is not a magical cure to all of life's problems. In time, it will be just as necessary a skill as writing is today, and it will pay just as much (which is to say, very little for most, and very well for a few). The $100 means more to the homeless guy than 3 javascript textooks he can't sell, and probably can't read once night hits, and which he almost certainly can't put into practice because he lacks a computer.

Most homeless folks' biggest problem is not their lack of employment, but that they usually suffer from severe mental disorders or substance dependencies. If they weren't sick, they amost certainly wouldn't be homeless.

Every time I see an inane blogpost like this, I feel like smacking some sense into the overprivileged idiot who wrote it.
Looks like we're not sparing any hits today. First a shot at Google Ads, followed by an indirect shot at Adobe.

Actually I found the shot at google ads amusing. The quip about how (Theo? I can't read his first name) Gray earned more money on the app store than in 5 years of operating Google ads on his website periodictable.com, appears to have taken down his site

(The slide I'm referring to is http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/06/apple-...)
I just went with the title of the article.
Accidentally publishing a document that causes an operational crisis is worse than purposely doing what he did?

Aside from the "accidentally" part, I don't know know could you prove that a particular document created an operational problem without knowing everything other people have to make decisions with and how they made them. I think with this standard of "worse" it's an extremely difficult thing to know with any certainty.

With the size of the information he dumped, I don't know how anybody would be able to walk back which operational problems he caused where. That's how intelligence works -- lots of little pieces making a case one way or another. Do we really want to have a trial that cross-references all TSSCI operations with the information in his leaks?

I understand that if there were operation X in which we knew enough about how it crashed that we could show it was a result of his action -- that might make a better legal case. But the amount of damage he's done isn't directly measurable like that. It's not like knocking over a liquor store. He didn't do less or more damage because it's more or less easily demonstrable. And I'm still trying to figure out how doing something accidentally -- without intent to harm -- is worse than doing something intentionally.
Could you supply a link (doesn't have to be to the exact comment)?
Of course more megapixels is better, everything else being constant. But nothing's for free. Putting the money into better optics, which is by far the factor limiting image quality in a compact camera, is likely to yield better results. The only problem is that it's not a number you can claim is better than the other guys.

It's like with standardized testing: sometimes a number can hurt you, even if it's true, because its plain, seductive nature causes you to forget that it's not the end result, only a proxy for it.
There are a whole lot of things you could (and people do) argue. Doing so is probably best left to other sites, but I guess I just don't like those sorts of statements. The government screws some things up, just like it gets some things right. Same goes for people and companies.
In case anyone wants to see the old discussion we had here on HN (before it was restored 27 days ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7141532
> I’m genuinely asking here out of lack of experience — Is it separate but equal, or is it customizing the user experience?

It's separation, because it introduces the chances of an inequitable experience being created as the "customised" version for screen reader users drifts out of sync. This may not even be down to anything malicious; plenty of companies create mobile-friendly versions of websites and apps, only to find that as years go by, they no longer have the budget to facilitate their upkeep. Far from assigning them to the trash heap of history, these often continue to be provided, offering a substandard experience, and this is despite companies having so much data available about high mobile usage. The chances of it happening to an accessibility-specific version are higher because the likely user take-up is lower, and as this post and thread indicate, speciality skills are often required to make a good job of it. Not like responsive web design, where experts are ten a penny.

There are other reasons this approach is flawed, of course:

1. Screen reader users aren't the only disabled people out there. Heck, even within that group, there are those who use the software as an absolute necessity, and others who use it in addition with other assistive tech like speech recognition or a magnifier. Nobody in their right mind is going to create a separate experience for every subset of disabled users. Even if they did, how would they be surfaced?

2. Some people are only temporarily disabled, e.g. because of an injury. They don't have the lifelong feel for how to look for accessibility settings or separate modes, so they aren't likely to benefit from a shiny accessible version. Making your main product inclusive prepares for this.

3. The aim should be to allow customisations to be included which aren't intrusive to those who don't need them, e.g. via techniques like WAI-ARIA[1] which allow additional context to be added for screen reader users while remaining invisible to everyone else.

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/
A single social network shouldn't wield this much power - and I mean not the act of suspending a political figure but the fact that doing that has such a big impact. I'm not saying Trump should be unblocked from Facebook here. It's the fact that him getting blocked to begin with is a big enough deal to at this point probably have hundreds of news articles written about it that deeply bothers me. We handed the keys to the public square to two advertising companies - maybe it's time to get them back.
This ban rings hollow. You're 100% correct that Trump has been provoking violence for years now (e.g. "If she [Hillary] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks...although the Second Amendment people ... maybe there is" / "When the looting starts, the shooting starts").

Zuckerberg just knows now that Democrats will be in power so this is a safe move to appear like he hasn't been perfectly fine helping Trump increase the spread of his violent platform ("Facebook cannot be the arbiter of truth"). It was all about allowing "engagement" that helped Facebook's revenue.

Zuckerberg does not get to change the narrative now.
This isn't a game of capture the flag...
Unfortunately, IPv6 addresses have to be assigned by someone, and they typically change when moving around/changing provider. And you have to go trough the firewall...

I prefer something you can generate yourself, like encryption keys. That's the approach taken by yggdrasil (and cjdns before): generate an encryption key, map the public part to an IP address (there's almost enough bits in v6). Plus, it can easily be end-to-end encrypted.

Another plus is that you can generate as many as desired.

As for the protocol, Matrix is experimenting a bit with going p2p.

https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/
Pathetic actually. The guy has nuclear football but apparently Twitter account is too dangerous
The more lanes you add, the more cars you get. Adding more lanes doesn't solve traffic issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Induced_traffic...
What amazes me is that previously women didn't need to work in the 70's, 80's, AFAIR, and the dad earned enough to keep 8 kids!

Now, both have to work just to keep a minimun living standard, and can only keep 1 kid... in daycare.

Also, families having only 1 kid were way too rare in the 80's, today, that's the norm.
re 1 - but it sounds so sexy! I recently had a recruiter talking up a local shop that was on the "cutting edge of big data techniques". He also talked up that they had a dataset which was "several terabytes".

We churn out many times that a day and I don't consider us to be "big data".
95% redacted is my bet
Agreed. Seeing a nice, clean user-facing API tells you practically nothing about the performance characteristics and failure modes you can expect to see.

The best database engine I've encountered in this respect is SQLite. It has plenty of information about what design tradeoffs it makes, and why, e.g.:

http://sqlite.org/lockingv3.html

http://sqlite.org/fileformat2.html

http://sqlite.org/atomiccommit.html
I've been using the same trick with OpenVPN for a while.
Perfect to go trough proxies.
Not sure I would agree with that sentiment. Einstein was considered to be exceptional even by his peers. I've read quite a few biographies of of prominent/famous scientists, including Teller, Bohr, Fermi, Pauli, Landau, Feynman, Bethe, Von Neumann, Abraham Pais, Weisskopf, Wigner, etc.. and almost all revere Einstein and put him on the same pedestal as Isaac Newton (and in Mathematician case -- Karl Gauss). Based on a brief appraisal of his accomplishments, one can objectively come to the conclusion that he was head and shoulders above the rest, such as:
1) Brownian Motion -- showing the existence of atoms.
2) Photoelectric Effect -- demonstrating that light can be thought of as a particle.
3) Special Relativity -- Relating mass with energy.
4) General Relativity -- generalizes the special case and incorporate gravity as well.

Many other contributions including Bose-Einstein effect that he would like consider secondary contributions, but have non the less have gone on to generate enormous research in the field (and lead to not a few noble prizes if that matters to people).

Heisenberg is probably the only one that can be honestly said to have made a profound discovery rivaling Einstein.

Just my two cents here.
Agreed. FWIW I basically don't read articles where I can't find the date, unless it's clearly something that doesn't need one (which is rare). Especially anything technology related, truth turns to myth in no time at all.
People have elaborated on it for months. It's so thoroughly discredited in every way that if you don't see it now, you're not going to. Consider it "unfairly maligned" if you want - no one cares any more.
Thanks for the comments everybody. I am one of the people behind Mesos-DNS and will gladly answer any questions about it.

DNS is an obvious way to support many service discovery needs. There were two motivations for implementing Mesos-DNS instead of using another DNS system. First, we needed a DNS system that closely integrates with Mesos. Instead of having every user or framework describe tasks twice (once to Mesos for execution and once to a DNS system), it easier and cleaner to automatically pass task information from Mesos to DNS. Second, we wanted a simple solution. Mesos and its frameworks already implement fault tolerance and life cycle management. We did not want to force Mesos users to deploy another set of consensus mechanisms, persistent storage, or a replicated logs just for DNS.

One more interesting detail. SkyDNS, Consul, and Mesos-DNS use the great go-DNS library by Miek Gieben (github.com/miekg/dns). So, their core DNS capabilities are the same. They differ in what they offer for fault-tolerance, life cycle management, load balancing, etc. Mesos-DNS defers all this functionality to Mesos and its framework (KISS).
Won't somebody think of the routers?!

Header size is 8-20 (without options) and if you read the article closelyer you'll see the total packet size was 480ish.

I dont know how you are getting 21/461 = 22 ?
It has some tiny little kernels (text-sizing can cause problems) among a whole lot of chaff, but the real problem is that what they are describing and identifying really has nothing to do with typography per se.

If you're interested, you'd benefit more from picking up a book like Bulletproof Web Design which created practical approaches to dealing with the text-sizing problems 5 years ago when the first edition came out.
It just strikes me that our system of monetary reward/punishment is fundamentally out of balance when the top 20% have 85% of the wealth/resources and the bottom 80% are left to fight over 15%. That is a banana republic. This is why revolutions occur.
I was a Simple customer in their beta days, then stopped using it for a lot of things, eventually though right as they moved their partner bank to BBVA I switched and started using Simple heavily.

However not too long thereafter they got rid of their Bill Pay/Send a Check feature instead expecting me to send physical checks myself... which meant I immediately went looking for a new bank.

So I found Sofi instead.
IMO it seemed like in 2019/2020 with the advent of "consumer banking apps" that what the once "groundbreaking" features Simple provided had basically become commonplace. Or because of other banks at least half implementing them - it stymied the number of people who would actually switch to Simple or showed that people just didn't really care. At the end of the day, Simple provided a slick UI to get people to use their bank and it seems like there just wasn't enough of an edge to drive users to their underlying financial institutions. Privacy definitely wasn't as much of a big deal back when Simple started?
I switched from Simple to Ally a few years ago and had 0 problems. I recommend them all the time.
At least the lighthouse generators were decommissioned and "all RTGs are now gone" (mentioned at the end of the video).
I'm pretty sure that they don't actually agree on that.
There really is no such thing as "widespread viewpoint discrimination", except the impossibility of genuinely discussing alternatives to capitalism in the US, without resorting to name-calling.

What you're experiencing is simply that you are not automatically welcome in all spaces you try to enter. Some people have experienced that for decades and centuries.
I still think it's a worthwhile effort to try to scale if their path, vision, dictates it. Ultimately I see such bad actors trying to integrate themselves into the system - to game the system - to be simply increasing waste or inefficiency. So while such behaviours may be slowing growth of the system, so long as there aren't unmovable blocks introduced, and everyone's mostly aligned to leading metrics - then it should be fine; potential blocks include things like unions, which is why I'm still juggling thoughts and reasoning as to whether unions are good or not - likely industry wide they are. A failsafe in this scenario is contract workers can all be let go easily - minus the domain and systems expertise they have - and you'd need the main controller, visionary/founder, to be paying full attention and make course corrections when necessary, hopefully finding trusted co-captains along the way that are passionate with the work more for than financial gain.
The same question was asked when it was at 3k, then at 10k, then 14k, and so on! You get the picture
Gold is not portable. Bitcoin has portability. You can store billions of dollars on a piece of paper in your pocket.
This is a different goalpost. The story is about the top 1 percent versus the bottom 90 percent.
This discussion is properly focused at the core of the matter, the cost benefit analysis.

Some of the costs are easy to see, like the acute embarrassment some experience from an intimate "pat down" if they elect to avoid any risk from x-ray radiation.

Others are much more difficult, such as potential health consequences of the x-ray radiation exposure. Since the TSA has refused to disclose the x-ray flux, it is hard to even get started. The comparisons the TSA makes with other radiation sources are flawed because they assume the dose is uniform throughout your body when it is actually highest at the surface.

But even if an outside evaluator did have good numbers to start with, in the end the best you can expect are extrapolations using data from dramatically different radiation exposure, which is the nature of calculating radiation risks. The only way to have a non-extrapolated number is to expose half of a sample population to the scanner radiation and measure outcomes for 50 years.

Avoided consequences are easier to calculate. Of the 8,000,000,000 or so US domestic air travelers of the past ten years, zero have smuggled a bomb on board, and zero have attempted to. Zero out of billions of passengers.

The worst consequences are the loss of an aircraft. A terrorist cannot take control of an aircraft using a bomb, only destroy it. An X-ray scanner will not stop someone from bringing a knife onboard (even if it could, it is probably not possible to take control of an aircraft with a knife due to cockpit doors, passenger awareness, etc.)

So, cost benefit sum-up: zero attempts to smuggle bomb onto domestic flight over past 10 years, unknown but likely low health risk, consequences limited to loss of one aircraft due to screening failure.
My complaint comes from the at scale part.

I don't do anything at scale. I don't have to scale. My core competency is as a library or tool builder, and often my primary deliverable is a tool or library.

In the past year I got a new JR engineer on my team who was all hot and bothered with docker and k8s and he spent a month changing out CI process to be docker based. It went from a 20 line shell script to a pile of garbage.

I disagreed with the decision at the time, and while a subject matter expert I'm not the team lead so I couldn't say no stop that's bad.

While I'm sure k8s solves problems for Google I'm not google. My company isn't google, and my team isn't solving that class of problems so docker is useless crap for me.

The person is no longer on the team. They left their docker mark, and ran off to dockerify some other project leaving a team with no container expertise and a CI pipeline that is hacks around docker bugs.
I would do my best to find someone capable of becoming Google's CEO, hire him or her, and quit.

Contrary to popular myth, being a successful CEO is extremely difficult, and it requires skills that most people (myself included) don't possess.
This wikipedia article quoting a standard formalised in the late 90's, and only beginning to gain adoption from that point on, largely supports my statement.
Transhumanism is impractical dystopian bullshit. When we can't make a taxi hailing app (uber) that is under 300 MB (because of "complexity," i.e. organisational failure), I find the idea of re-inventing the human being to be laughable.
It'd be incredibly easy to implement a v1, a small shell script. AWS has "security groups", which generally are used to split up the roles of machines. (They're used for firewall rules, but in practice having these serve as role metadata is quite useful as well.)

Chaos Monkey is just a script that runs "ec2-terminate-instance" commands on node in certain security groups at a certain rate, and boots machines at the same rate.

Of course, the devil is in the details, but at a high level this wouldn't be too specific to the domain the infrastructure is built around.
The problem is that people starting to raise families usually move out of NYC and into NJ suburbs with much better private and public schools (and a bigger, better house).
I'm like 'yes, and?'. Me, I just dropped out. Before that, I perfected ways of sneaking away from classes and wandering the halls, like I was behind enemy lines and would be killed if I was spotted: dropping out was arguably more sensible than carrying on like that. Nobody knew about being autistic back then (I'm 53).

I spent some time homeless, lived on the edge of existence for a lot of years. These days they try to make somewhat more accommodations for people like me, but there's only so far that goes and I doubt you can count on it.

I ended up being the person I wanted to be. That's gotta count for something. You might have to be patient (with yourself AND with others: I don't see much of the latter in you). It took a hell of a long time and was a lot of work, which often didn't feel worth it.

The one thing I can feel very confident in saying is: it gets better. Some people molder away, forever wishing they were back in their glory days in school or whatever. You're not them (nor am I). I figure folks like us take forever to get stuff sorted out, and then after everything is awesome you die. Soooo… switch to the 'stuff sorted out' part as soon as possible, and once you're there, try not to forget you're there :)
A lot of listing is preceded by extensive campaigns to build support to get a coin listed. It's unsurprising that this leads to prices going up. "Insider" is extremely vague here given that a lot of this will be activity surrounding the dev teams that may or may not have anything to do with the people who started the coin.
This seems pretty reasonable to me. If you don't like the deal you can still target these customers. 20% cut for advertising, billing and other features sounds like a deal that many people would (and do) take.

I would be much more bothered by the 20% cut if there was no other way to target these customers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93iron_battery

Very interesting.
This conflates "Central Banks" with ordinary "banks" that hold assets in vaults. The two are comparable in the same way that Java is comparable to JavaScript.

The steel-man argument is that the monetary policy of central banks can cause hyper-inflation of a fiat currency, and holding onto an asset that is immune to that, and potentially even being able to transact with that asset is a reliable way to break free from the monetary policy of the central bank. The fact that one may place this transferable asset into a centralized institution that we may call a (lower case b) "bank" isn't at odds with the aforementioned principle.

Put another way, the dollar doesn't depreciate because of my credit union, it depreciates because of the Fed.
Fiat on ramps are already decentralized. Anyone can sell cryptocurrency for fiat. There is no centralized list of people who are allowed to sell cryptocurrency for fiat.
And not only that... but a theme park without an entry fee is still a money-maker via snacks, drinks, souvenir cups, and extra-cost rides and line-skipping.

In much the same way that a company can produce an open-source product and charge for support, feature development, consulting, data feeds and sometimes SAAS operation.
Open bugs are also history - and amazing for support; a "known bug" will have workarounds or suggestions on how to avoid hitting it, even if it never gets fixed.

Closing bugs just to make dashboards/metrics look better is wrong; either adjust the dashboard or fix the bugs.
and the same domain LTD's, not that it's a huge deal I would of gone with "nucli.de" instead though if possible
Then this comment should be flagged. It (a) reduces the intelligence of the discussions on HN (b) pushes more worthy comments down below the fold, (c) encourages similar pithy comments, and (d) makes those who would otherwise make intelligent comments less likely to comment.

This is the kind of one-liner that perhaps Jon Stewart would make...and while there is nothing wrong with The Daily Show, I thought that we, the HN community, are collectively better than that.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm just sick of wading through pithy one-liners on HN.