jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
Thanks for your feedback!

If you want to stick to more traditional indexing approaches, that’s supported. For example, one user has stayed very close to VTI, but made some modifications to customize VTI to her goals and existing portfolio (https://enombic.com/abby/VTI-15).

We also have some users who want an easier way to automate their investments into a classic Vanguard basket (https://enombic.com/aml/lazy).

Everything on the app is DIY. So, alternatively, if you want to be more active, and test a thesis you may have, that’s supported as well.
In some sense Thinkpad X200 would fit what you're saying, its modding community is quite active and there are a lot of people selling old parts or parts designed to upgrade this laptop.

Last time I checked the only missing piece was a way to upgrade the display, which didn't age very well (IIRC original resolution was 1280x800 and no HiDPI)
> All that sacrificed in the name of making the devices "thinner" and the design more attractive.

I think the other major factor you're overlooking here is battery life. High-end laptops these days are mostly battery (right up to the 100 Wh carry-on limit set by the FAA), with everything else designed to fit into the space left over.
Are you referring to the Liberty Dollar? I remember being very interested in this (and in alternative currencies) a few years back but was put off by a video promoted on their official website which showed someone successfully passing a Liberty Dollar at a drive-through to an employee who asked, "what's this?", and was told that it was "a new dollar coin."

At that point, they had unclean hands in my mind. The basis for an alternative currency should be consent, not confusion.
I think corporations are just as worried about employee X willingly giving account info to employee Y, as they are about a malicious attack.

Of course the real fix for both scenarios is two-factor authentication. Not something that practically begs the user to either write their password down or append apr-11 to their normal password.
>Suppose that 200 years ago you took a poll and most women "simply preferred" not to vote. What does that tell you about whether the womens' suffrage movement was right or wrong?

A better comparison would be if most women didn't vote even though they could. (Because of thugs at the booth perhaps?)
Usually the first time you realise you have a form of epilepsy like Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy is when you pull an all nighter in college (perfect hat trick of bad lighting, drinking and sleep deprivation at the age when symptoms are likely to first appear).
What just seems like clumsiness or aloofness in your personality develops into traditional seizures.
> Well then good for you, and you should be able to merge all your accounts with Google into one; but why should this be almost compulsory?

Quite often here on Hacker News we sit around and talk about how removing features or options from an App is often the best thing to do for usability. I think this is true. At the same time every time this comes up with regards to Google or some other large company the response flips around completely.

Ultimately I think the readership here is just the 10% of users that want the option, exactly the group we often say that should be ignored for the overall good of the product.
When it comes to timeseries data, there aren't a lot of ways to design your schema. In my experience when working with a write heavy load such as timeseries data, you are always fighting the writelock with MongoDB. AFAIK, there isn't much you can do about your schema to combat this.
Interesting to learn; I had not realized compensation incentives could have such a distorting effect.
Arrow keys, space, control, shift etc. are all normal, but I guess how capturable those are from JS varies. Making them configurable?

Qwerty X maps to Dvorak Q; Qwerty C maps to Dvorak J. That is, listening to Q and J when the user is using Dvorak, as X and C on a Qwerty keyboard.
(Dvorak user here.) I've played many Flash games in which the keys were WASD, but they actually worked the same even if I didn't switch the layout back to Qwerty. And then I've played games in which it did matter which layout I used. I suspect there's one set of functions that receives keypresses, and another that looks at more raw device input. Perhaps there is a way to do the same thing here?

That wouldn't work with a physical Dvorak keyboard, though (as opposed to my Qwerty keyboard, with the input layout on my operating system set to Dvorak). Do you have one, out of curiosity? (And, hmm, you could make WASD--or X and C here--work as desired on a real Dvorak keyboard by making it handle keypresses rather than device input and then setting the layout to Qwerty.)
I'm not sure of the technical details of how they are doing it, but I believe the difficulty of mining a bitcoin is proportional to the speed with which they are being mined (and thus the amount of mining going on).

So throwing a lot of resources at it just makes it that much more difficult to mine, and would seem not to be productive. (edit: well, at least not based on their current value)
The problem I have with WolframTones is it tries too hard to sound like traditional human music and fails pretty badly at it. Procedurally generated music systems that don't attempt to emulate previous kinds of music fare far better (including the original link). An older example would be the original drum machines and keyboard synthesizers -- they were originally meant to function as affordable replacements for real instruments (a drum kit, piano or string quartet) and sounded pretty terrible when used in that fashion. Only when people started viewing them as instruments in their own right did they work well (and create previously unheard sounds and genres in the process).
What's wrong with R5RS?
qa/v<ENTER>yypjddq@a@a

16 :P
That's really apples and oranges. In many ways, Wall St and startups don't want the same programmers, at least not as much.

Working on Wall Street--or most large companies for that matter--is largely transactional. You provide a service. You get paid for that service. You tend to get paid quite well to make up for the abuse you often end up taking. This is particularly true if you work in financial markets (as most Wall Street programmers do) where there are two kinds of people: traders and people who don't matter (being everyone else).

With a startup--particularly an early stage startup--you're taking a long term stake in the company, possibly a significant stake. If it's particularly early that stake but will largely be in lieu of a market wage (or any wage at all).

In my experience the profiles of the people in both categories (in an ideal sense from the company's point of view) don't quite match.
And what bearing would these visual differences have on education, pray tell?
What do you mean passive income isn't earned? Isn't someone's pension earned? What about VC's? PG? Isn't PG earning his keep or is he just sucking blood out of the productive masses? What is going on with this kind of neo marxism on HN?
To some extent why you would use each of the declarative-programming paradigms is still an open question imo. Lots of things can be modeled in several, with pros and cons.

I think of ASP as "a semantically nicer Prolog, plus extensions". It originated as one of the attempts to give Prolog's semantics, which are logic-inspired but defined by its procedural goal-chaining algorithm, a clean declarative logical semantics. The "stable model semantics" were one of the competing ones, which became answer-set programming.

It depends on which constraint solver exactly, but two features not present in most pure constraint-solving systems are the Prolog-style deductive reasoning, and negation-as-failure. ASP lets you freely intermingle deductive reasoning chains with constraints, rather than solving things as purely sets of variables with constraints on them (though this is true of other approaches that fall under the "constraint logic programming" heading as well). That lets you do the generate-and-filter style, where you might have a complex deductive logic program generating possibilities, and then effectively a constraint program filtering from them (and the constraint part can sometimes call out to deductive reasoning chains as well, since it's all the same language).

ASP semantics are sort of a superset of Prolog + constraint solvers + abductive reasoners, where you can freely intermingle all those approaches. As a result it isn't, yet anyway, the most efficient reasoner if you fall more squarely into one of those paradigms. Here's an experimental ASP system that also adds efficient constraint variables, though: http://www.cs.uni-potsdam.de/clingcon/
It's a myth that having the source code for a cryptosystem is going to allow you to spot backdoors. Crypto flaws have hidden for many, many years in far more important projects than Tor. Crypto flaws are very subtle; you can create a backdoor in a crypto routine simply by changing the way it happens to influence the L1 cache.
I believe the story goes something like this: in the google beginnings, a lot of search were in programming domain, and a lot of languages used underscores in functions names, variables and such. Therefore, it was decided that it wouldn't be used as word delimiter, the alternative was to use dash.
I'm not sure if the same applies today, but historical reasons are powerful enough that most people use dashes.
Point taken about Lisk and Liskell. But I think that that is, as you say, cherry picking features, not actually merging the philosophies of the two languages.

As for the same starting point, both had their origins in academic programming language research. It's true they don't have a direct common ancestor, but the point I was making was that their creators were aware of the issues, and chose very different directions as solutions to basically the same problem.
I personally dislike prettifying of text interfaces with forced conventions/icons/*mojis. Text interface is well, should be text. There are well defined conventions and tools built around these conventions.

Tag with [tag], use consistent spacing etc. and, make it easy on the eyes.

Same with glorified .bashrc files used to create graphic-git command prompts.
And your'e stacking that up against the stress the gardener or construction worker has of losing their job and not having a million other options, or not being able to support medical insurance for their family because of what they earn?

Even excluding that, having worked in a fairly brain dead job I found the stress of 9 hours a day doing something that dull WAY more stressful than being able to use my mind but being under some pressure to do so.
Related: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/18...
> Yahoo reacted furiously to the webcam interception when approached by the Guardian.

That's pretty funny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PRISM_Collection_Details....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Upstream-slide.jpg
Oh fantastic! I love Django REST but have wanted the speed of something more lightweight for a while.
Those other people, the OP is talking about, I know many of them. Many of my friends are unemployed. But even though I tried really hard to convince those of whom I thought had the head to do it, to start a IT education, or at least start learning to code at home while they have no job yet. Still I wasn't able to convince anyone. They all said that it is too hard and not something they are interested in.

That was kind of sad that they would rather sit around waiting for a low payed job instead of investing some efford for a brighter future.

I understand that not everybody is able do learn the stuff we do but many people just don't want to.
I am not sure if you are trolling or not. Maybe I have read your comment incorrectly.

There are some people in this world that are working in their job because of circumstances beyond their control. Just look at the folks in North Korea or most parts of Africa.

Those of us who have "luxurious" jobs did have a choice, those other folks don't.
Absolutely amazing stuff been looking for something like django rest framework on Flask.

Any dates for 1.0 release? I'm looking forward to the authentication and such.

What would be great is also some implementation of Sandman's auto inspection of database to create REST api, with support for One to Many, Many to Many relationships.

Great job!
This does not stop them from viewing the source of the page.
>1. Rank processes by "badness" and kill the baddest one. This is not just based on memory usage, but is a fairly complicated and expensive algorithm.

AFAIK the algorithm has been simplified greatly: it's now just amount of memory weighted by the oom_score which can be set from userspace.
Well for one this is a post in response to the Silk Road arrests in which a DMS would've saved him. Not pointless at all.

Sure over time their methods will evolve but ask Ross if he'd rather have had a DMS or not. It'd be unequivocally yes.

If your point is 'if you're a big enough target, you're pretty much fucked whatever you do given enough time' then yes that's probably true, too.
Having written a commercial obfuscator, I can assure you that there actually is no way. Encrypting or obfuscating your client code won't prevent it from being stolen, analyzed or even "reused" by other people. Just live with the fact that if your software gets popular enough, your client code will be copied or modified.

The only way to secure your product is to make the client depend on algorithms running on your server. That's also the reason why most popular computer games are becoming "online only" recently.
What? That's how we all walk in Europe!
Sure, but are you going to be able to get to the helipad any quicker than getting to Penn?
Is it just me, or is programming more than one elevator buggy?

I used a for( var i =0;i < elevators.length;++i) statement to apply my code to each elevator, but people only keep using the last one.
Could someone give me a hint? ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB8TWMKHHMQ
Indeed, better that SeanDev have suffered a lifetime of loneliness and social anxiety than an attractive woman suffer through even a single socially awkward moment. God knows their lives are hard enough already.
> the CA system already exists and DNSSEC TLSA does not in any meaningful way.

Well, DNS exists. Most of what makes you uncomfortable with DNSSEC are really issues with DNS. But as long as DNS names are what you wish to secure, no alternative system could do that in a way you would be comfortable with. Unless you wish to replace the domain name system itself?

I guess what we disagree about here is if we need an alternative to the CA model. I believe we do, and I believe the most sound way is to cryptographically assert domain ownership. Such a model would be transparent in operation, not add any failure points except for the ones we already have in the domain name system, and be very clear to the end user in what it is we really secure.

(A common point made in the SSL CA system is that we want to secure "entities" and not domain names, and that is why a world wide PKI system should never sign keys based on domain names alone. I believe that is completely and utterly wrong. Most users actually do want to know that they are talking to the domain name bigbank.com, not the entity "Big Bang Co. Ltd.".)

Given that premise, DNSSEC at least solves the right problem. One could argue that its cryptographic implementation is not great, and it's not, but it's pretty much identical to TLS and IPsec which is what we will use for the forseeable future.

> Not only am I right about RSA-1024 in DNSSEC, but I'm obviously and empirically right about it, as a trip to DNSviz will show you.

I do not follow at all. We will be "stuck with RSA-1024 for the forseeable future" because that is what people use today. That does not follow at all.

You could just as easily have said "we will be stuck with SHA1 for the forseeable future" one year ago, but reality just 12 months later looks very different.

> It would instead be based on online-signing,

This is a point you can make, but I disagree. We have seen more and more centralization in DNS serving infrastructure. Amazon and Cloudfront and the other big players serve more and more of the domain name space.

I think giving them complete powers to fully sign replies on behalf of the domain owners would be a mistake. It would clearly be a step to a more centralized PKI.

(And if government interference is what you fear, you should absolutely want offline signing. Amazon has yielded to government interference more times than I can count, while ICANN has not. Not that an online signing model would free you from ICANN of course.)

> Software today gets away with a shortcut in which it can assume that failed DNS lookups are the result either of user error or lack of connectivity.

No, you missed the point here, which is that all reasonable alternatives are worse off. Unless your idea is to swap out the domain name system or stay with the broken CA model, of course.
I agree with you in principal, but in practice I work on a lot of C code that does not have a built in bool type (C89).

In your example using > or < there is not an issue because it's certain the return value is either 0 or 1. However, when checking a specific variable used as a boolean I prefer to see an explicit comparison.

if(variable)

versus

if(variable==TRUE)

I developed this preference after spending weeks on a particularly nasty bug. The bug was triggered by a corrupted int that was used as a boolean variable that passed a check because if(146134613) { kill_me_now(); } will run, even though the value had been corrupted. (of course, tracking down the source of the corruption was the real fix for that case, but there's no point in having safety checks that don't work)
Ha, I realized this an hour after I posted that response. I wonder if there's a USB-C battery pack with an additional USB-C port?
came for hope - walked away disappointed.
Reminds of the famous Bill Clinton qoute

>It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
FYI: If you pass all of the requirements, it just says the password is already in use (no matter what you do).
Looks like Chris Lattner's "exec commitment and strong roadmaps" comment was not that meaningful:

https://twitter.com/clattner_llvm/status/1222032740897284097...
It's more of an idle speculation than a serious hypothesis, but...

To your 1, I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised. "Value" own-brand ranges are typically packaged to look cheaper and cruder than fancier lines. The cardboard costs the same either way.

To your 2 and 3, it's about capturing consumer surplus, not stopping value sales altogether. The customer who can only afford the cheapest lines will still buy the cheapest lines. The one who could afford something a bit more upscale, but wouldn't normally care enough, might be nudged.

And looking further into the dystopian future: what if it becomes more than just status anxiety? What if buying the "wrong" things affects your (social?) credit score, or your health insurance premiums?
It really seems like some decades in the future we'll look back at the results of gut microbiome research as akin to the discoveries of bacteria and viruses. Before those discoveries it was known that people got sick, and that developing sickness was correlated with various things, like proximity to sick people, or poor hygiene, but the mechanisms behind those correlations weren't known. (Or they were suspected, but with some misconceptions or lack of detail.)

I expect and certainly hope that as this system is better understood, it will unlock numerous significant advances in medical science. Would just be nice if that process could happen faster!
The reality often goes against the premise of the article.

What are accomplishments of tall.skinny vs short.fat engineers?

Linux was driven by Linus T, javascript by Brendan E, Apple by 2 Steve’s, etc.

Innovation and creativity are more highly valued, which are byproducts of short.skinny type.
i understand your point about history but disagree with your conclusion...

at this point its not like Adobe would have to re-architect the system cuz im sure when you click & use a tool it is not going "uhhh photoshop system, man, could you like look into this screen & blur stuff" it is calling a well-defined method with an x/y param. They just need to alias those methods from a simple command shell
And that’s true even more if they are bald and with a beard.
I am not sure that perspective will be widely shared, I am not even sure if I agree myself, but I do appreciate this post as I consider myself a short fat engineer.
I want a proper E-Inc smartphone, damn it! With no OLED screen. The number of times I used my cellphone to watch videos: 0, as far as I remember. Number of times I wished my phone had longer battery life and didn't auto-dim after 30 seconds: well, every single time I use it for more than 30 seconds.

Yeah, yeah, I know that you need fast screen for shooting videos. Whatever. I would settle for a phone with no camera and EInk screen without thinking twice.
Safe: Command::new("rm").args(&["-rf", "/"]).spawn()

Unsafe: unsafe { 1 + 1 }

Unsound: unsafe { &mut *(&1 as *const _ as *mut _) }

Edit: Importantly, the non-unsafe example I posted also calls a bunch of unsafe code, as is necessary to do anything nontrivial (see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/library/std/sr...). My point is that safe-good unsafe-bad is the wrong way to think about things. This is why you see experts on this (which I'm absolutely not) refer to unsafe code that violates the Rust Memory Model™ as unsound. (You may also find the fact the Rust Memory Model is more of a vibe than a standard surprising. How do you write sound code then? Try reasonable things and hope the compiler agrees with your definition of reasonable).
Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post wrote two in-depth articles on this topic over the past couple days:

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/china-hyper...

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/biden-admin...

The TL;DR is that one of the sanctioned companies, Phytium, designs chips used in a Chinese supercomputer that the PLA's researchers use to simulate hypersonic weapons. The chips are designed using tools from Cadence and Synopsys (both American companies) and fabricated at TSMC.
Downvoted because we know there are unscrupulous people involved in this process already (we are, after all, talking about prison inmates) and only functions as a way to ignore the legitimate question of what should be done with legitimately trans inmates.
Trust that your brain will naturally do a better job at pattern recognition than what anyone or any source will teach you.

In other words, just dive in and figure it out as you go. Following any sort of "way" or methodology will slow you down.
If you have a DAO layer in your code, it shouldn't be too significant of a refactor to switch between noSQL vendors for simple tables.

The real heavy lifting would be if you've optimized your tables to that specific architecture. You might need to re-design a lot of your schemas.
It's not like this is Google-specific. Santa Clara County is just toxic. All of this junk, for example, is built on a plume of TCE. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3823386,-121.9841579,458m/da...
The Church/Turing Thesis is that all computation can be

performed by a nondeterministic Turing Machine.

The Thesis is false because there are digital computations

that cannot be performed by a nondeterministic Turing Machine.

See the following article on how to formalize all of digital

computation:

"Physical Indeterminacy in Digital Computation"

https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3459566