skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's worth mentioning, since most people don't know, that nicotine on it's own is not as addictive as tobacco. AFAIK the MAOIs in tobacco smoke contribute more to its addictiveness than nicotine [1]

I've been chewing nicotine gum semi-regularly for a few months to improve my focus at work, and have not found it addictive so far. (I've never smoked).

(Still, I wouldn't recommend people in general do this without carefully considering the risks.)

[1] https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine
Why is is the government's job at all to regulate this? Are you a fan of big government putting its hands all over everything?
First of all, I don't think it's reasonable to distinguish here between a "company" and any other third party; the third party could just as easily be an individual. Consider, for instance, a forum or site run by an individual.

A party to a trial (such as a named defendant) is afforded a variety of rights. Among many others, they receive legal notice of the case with sufficient time to prepare, can face their accuser in court, can defend themselves, provide testimony, file legal documents and motions, and many other things an interested party might wish to do. A third party doesn't automatically get those rights.

> Presumably there is a process where they can refuse and get a court hearing about the validity of the order? Or is the issue that there is no such process?

The issue is the default assumption that they must comply, rather than the usual innocent-until-proven-guilt process (or, in a civil case, preponderance-of-the-evidence). Consider a third party who received no legal notice of the existence of the case, has no opportunity to prepare or offer any defense, who effectively has the case decided in absentia, and who first hears about the case when they get a court order requiring them to do something. That doesn't seem reasonable.

(As with any generalization like this, some exceptions might apply. But that's the kind of thing court procedures like preliminary injunctions exist for: "something irreparable will happen if they don't stop now, before the case concludes". So even then, I think it makes sense for the third party to be a party to the case and for them to have the opportunity to challenge the preliminary injunction just as any other defendant could.)

If they want to overturn that court order, they can potentially do so, but the default assumption is that they must immediately comply with it or face legal penalties themselves. And depending on the nature of the court order, often they must comply while pursuing their own legal action, rather than having the opportunity to make a case in advance.

All that said, a third party may wish to voluntarily cooperate, in a case where they agree with the matter (or don't disagree and don't want the fight). And in some cases, they may have individual liability if they don't; for instance, a reseller of a recalled toy may themselves face liability if they don't cooperate with the recall, while they may have some legal protection or defense if they do cooperate.
I'm pretty sure that's why low carb/keto diets work: they force you to avoid most processed junk food. However I don't think it has to do with carbs. I'm pretty sure you could get the same results eating potatoes, corn, beans, rice, etc.
> On large Rust files, things grind to a halt if I run a macro on every line

I actually started testing Spacemacs ad Vim was getting slow when highliting big .rs files.
That's probably true to some extent. The security of these older systems also undoubtedly benefits from the much smaller attack surface. They typically have far fewer services (network or otherwise) and simpler interfaces between components.

If known vulnerabilities were patched, I can see how it would be easy to trust a simpler, legacy platform over a modern platform. Very few experienced professionals I've worked with (myself included) posses a working knowledge of a modern OS's services and persistent processes - that's a lot of trust to place in the platform. There's something to be said for the time when you could have an inside out understanding an OS, its libraries and its binaries.

I thought vanilla Android was overly complex, but one look at the running processes on a Samsung S7 and I was horrified. The same can be said of OSX or a recent mainstream Linux distribution.

I'd happily take a less flexible but much simpler OS over what we have now. Removing all those layers of services and indirection might increase short term development costs, but I think it would be worth it.

Modern computing has me feeling more and more like a grump old man. I'm only 30.
You can buy a sugar soda here, though yes most of them are HFCS.

I still can't stand the sugar ones either.
That feels like the realm of a plugin, IMO. (I don't know enough to know whether or not that type of thing could be done via plugin, though.)
I'm confused, what is your point?

Often you get the opposite effect of a drug in withdrawal, e.g. caffeine reduces headache pain, causes headaches in withdrawal.
> Um, because they can be wrong, and then you need to fix errors, which makes the system more complex?

Yes, but I don't understand why compiler complexity concerns you, so long as the whole thing works. AOT compilers are also extremely complex, and are also full of heuristics.

You seem really hung up on the fact that an optimization can be rolled back at some point, but why should you care? JIT optimizations can be 'wrong' in the same way that caches can miss. It the right engineering solution to eliminate caching, over some belief that one should never be 'wrong' anywhere in a program, even though the eventual answer is always correct?

This might matter in system with real-time performance demands, but then you should be equally concerned about the garbage collector, for example.
I'm not sure if its the same story but the US Army once used Mac OS for some of its web servers because they were judged the most secure. I cannot remember what third party web server they were using.
The mass of the Earth is 5.972E24 kg; the moon 7.348E22 kg. Combined, they're 6.945E24 kg, or about 1.2% more massive than the Earh is today.

The change in surface gravity wouldn't be meaningful. Capillary action would still permit tall trees and chemical rockets would still reach escape velocity. Toss Mars or Venus into the Pacific, on the other hand, and a more interesting game develops.
Blendle Wants to Save Your Favorite Publication
Sorry about your condition. Please do take care of yourself.

I am not going to pontificate about morals, but perhaps you should address sugar as if it was a drug (legal or otherwise). It is very easy to advocate for a "just say no" position, specially for the people that do not face themselves with the problem on a day to day basis. But once you have found that this is not an option for you, it'd be a good idea to manage your habit in such a way that it minimizes associated risks. i.e. Alcohol != Driving-under-influence.

So, definitively not skipping meals. And limit your dessert indulgences to occasions where you will expect to remain in a safe environment for a reasonable time.

Best regards
How do I explain a completely made-up, non-scientific, anecdotal conjecture you've just thought up? What you're saying is ridiculous.
Author here, any pull request fixing typos, spelling and grammar, is welcomed.
Alert! Either break-in, or fluffy cloud!
The Last Last Summer:  Donald Trump and the Fall of Atlantic City
Indeed, this may or may not be clearer with the help of id() - observe:

>>> v=2
>>> id(v)
4148001784
>>> id(2)
4148001784
>>> def m(a):
... a=3
...
>>> m(v)
>>> id(3)
4148001800
>>> id(v)
4148001784
>>> v
2

>>> l=[]
>>> id(l)
4140973392
>>> def m2(lst):
... lst.append(1)
...
>>> m2(l)
>>> l
[1]
>>> id(l)
4140973392
Why do you think it would be practical to identify malicious code even if it wasn't minified? See: http://www.underhanded-c.org/
> waive liability

Fun fact: There's no such thing as "waiving liablity" in the US. Those papers you sign are nothing more than a placebo deterrence. Companies can be, and are, sued regardless every day.
Whatever the case with print, it's certainly the case that across many other media all developed countries have many regulations.

I can see your point that Facebook, and the web more generally, does not represent a 'natural' monopoly in the sense that it's not a physical feature of the technology that it is inevitably going to be dominated by a few companies. We could argue that Metcalfe's law actually does make it a natural monopoly.

Either way, it's an empirical fact that Facebook is tremendously dominant, and it seems to me that is the basis for intervention, though of course the intervention should be minimal respect and liberty as much as possible.

I also understand that views on this topic will reflect your wider views on liberty and legislation more generally, but those views ought to be consistent. I think the position that an effective national discourse can be expected to occur exclusively from market forces is extremely dubious, maybe you think differently.

Again, I do think you are mistaken about print media in the US. It seems to me cross-ownership laws do apply to print media, however justified. Much more clearly, copyright laws are applied everywhere.

I think some of these laws are wrong, but there are many precedents for regulating print and the web.
Nice! Must have made that tech feel and look like a hero :)
Not sure why you're being down voted since places like this exist ... I know because I've worked at them.
> That's precisely the danger that the whitelist is supposed to guard against.

Be that as it may, the suggestion that there would be a need to update the code independent of the whitelist, and that the whitelist could be updated at the same time, is incorrect. The need to update is a cost of the choice to use a whitelist (maybe a justifiable cost, but certainly a cost.)
Aggregations in this case aren't interesting unless the component part of the aggregation is by itself interesting.

A human, due to real constraints can't do a whole lot with an extra minute per day, and humans as a social body due to real constraints can't effectively collectively block-allocate 600 million diffuse minutes to some other cause. Each of them can only reallocate the minute they own/save.

The units and the distribution matter here... a lot. This seems obvious enough to illustrate using your own narrative.

What if I saved 6 Billion people 1ms per day? That's nearly 70 aggregated whole days saved per day. What are you going to spend your newly found 1ms on?
The Bonfire of Venture Capital: The Good, Bad and Ugly Side of Cash Burn
Service Discovery Inside a Docker Swarm Cluster
You may wanna do some more research on this, it's not as black-and-white, plenty of endurance athletes starting to push less gels: http://lc-triathlete.com/science-behind-fat-adaptation/
Blue Spire Acquires Aurelia
No, but I think that's an irrelevant strawman. Unless maybe you were issued a fine for a violation that was brought to light in the other trial, but I still struggle to see the relevance. Maybe you could flesh out your example a bit with reference to Volokh's amicus (which I think is better reading than the LA Times article) or some of the precedents it cites?

I don't have a strong opinion here. I presumed I was missing some of the backstory, and was asking Josh because I respect his opinion on technical matters and wondered what made him seem so certain that this was an important principle to preserve.

As I look deeper, I think the key the "must uphold" side is the belief that choosing to quote another is an independent speech act, and needs independent consideration. Unlike copyright or dangerous products, libel is considered a purely civil affair, and thus does not have the same remedies that those do. My doubt is whether an "aggregator" site without independent editorial voice should be entitled to this protection.
>There's tons of companies in Silicon Valley that are trying to do audacious things that people's mothers never did for them.

Can you name one?
In a way it's better. If they see you might be looking they might give you a raise whereas if you said to him. "hey, I'm looking" it might just get his back up and he might start looking for a replacement
That approach is harder to use in practice that in sounds. It's not like people have not tried it.

The OS only let you alloc in large granules, like 4k or 16k, and the vast majority of the methods are significantly smaller than that, meaning a JIT must colocate multiple methods in the same allocation block or waste a significant amount of memory.

We could get around that by remapping memory between read/write to read/execute and have the OS solve the problem for us. Except for a couple of small details, modifying a memory mapping is very expensive and we're, well, in the performance business, and that mono is multi-threaded so one thread might be executing code from the exact page we just made non-executable.

This approach, IIRC, was tried by Firefox as it has some security advantages, but discarded due to the measurable performance impact - and they don't have the second problem as JS is single threaded.

Full Disclosure: I'm part of the Mono team.
As much as it pains me, you are right. As a sailor I would never rely on my autopilot to get me anywhere except in a straight line. The term has a connotation of coolness because it directly references similar features in the airline and yachting industry, if you understand what it means but the unwashed masses don't comprehend this.
Personal reason: in many ways, the old versions are much purer expressions of the timeless concepts of software usability. It is becoming much more difficult now to separate platform convention from actual user tested, researched UX. In the old Apple machines they used to be one in the same, so I find it very useful to often compare old design to new (where applicable) in order to suss out any differences and investigate them. Many times we've simply gotten used to less usable interfaces because we upgraded and didn't think twice, and the old machines can be a useful sanity check.

Edit: when I mean separating platform convention from user-tested UX, I mean that there are some pretty obvious times when platform UX conventions haven't been user tested (or were implemented despite negative user testing results). The most obvious one to me is iOS's flat buttons. I write iOS apps and try to do as much user testing on them as possible, and I've found this to be by far the most frequent struggle for users - discerning which things are pressable and which aren't.
Echoing everything stated here.

YNAB recently got the ability to automatically pull your bank transactions, but I would actually recommend against this for a few reasons.

1. This the same problem mint has, there's a delay on the order of DAYS a lot of the time. Makes it hard to tell how much of a given category you have left.

2. Actively recording expenses the second you spend the money is easy, and a really good habit, because you'll be more in touch with where your money is going, with fewer surprises.
Respectfully, given what you've said, you should look at neovim. It's not a fun project to reimplement vim, it's a fork due to vim's (i.e., Bram's) previous reluctance to advance vim with new features like async.

Since they've forked it, they've done an amazing job cleaning up the codebase, modernizing the toolchain and implementing great async support, while maintaining almost perfect compatibility with vim. They've also created a real development community where many people participate equally, not just trying to get the "bus factor of 1" commit bit holder to accept their patches.

I switched a year ago, brought all my plugins with me, and have seen only improvements in performance and features. If I had to choose which would survive for the next 30 years, it would be neovim. Thiego Arruda is the best example of an open source leader. I have a deep respect for Bram Moolenar and what he did with vim, but until neovim came along, vim was sclerotic and getting worse. It speaks well of Bram that when real competition came along, he returned to active development of vim.
> Yes, but I don't understand why you compiler complexity concerns you, so long as the whole thing works.

Because I find it easier to trust simpler systems than complex ones.

> AOT compilers are also extremely complex, and are also full of heuristics.

Yep, those heuristics are annoying too. (But less so than the ones JIT compilers use, because at least they don't involve temporarily breaking my program.)

> unless you've profiled it and see this having a real adverse effect on overall performance?

How many times do I have to repeat that what annoys me is the excessive complexity?
I guess you didn't read the article. Here's what the article says:

Before Mike Judge took the stage at Disrupt SF today,
the crowd was treated with 4 minutes of deleted scenes
from the most recent season of HBO’s Silicon Valley.

There are some fun extra cuts from the famous “spaces
vs. tabs” scene and the Pied Piper jacket segment, plus
tons of new one-liners from Jared.
> Fun fact: There's no such thing as "waiving liablity" in the US.

That's technically true (you disclaim liability or waive the right to recover for particular torts), but substantively false.

> Companies can be, and are, sued regardless every day.

There are limits on what liability can be signed away, and certainly many go beyond that, and certainly there are disputes over whether the requirements for others to be effect are met which results in lawsuits where that is a threshold issue.

But it is not the case that signing away the right to collect on certain claims generally has no legal effect in the US, even though it might not always have the full effect it would seem from the text viewed in isolation.
The problem with Apple is that they sell high-end products with a luxury/status component. The problem with that is that fewer and fewer people actually want to own a car. Transportation is becoming a service, as opposed to a physical product.
She's a human being who feeds herself, not a dog.
I do this too! I write most prose in sublime. It gives me spell check, word count, handy text folding features, and tons of other useful features without the distractions of thinking about styling. If necessary, I paste dump it into Pages/gdocs as a last step, but usually I just write markdown.
Not coincidentally Naked was sued in a class-action in 2012 for labeling issues ("misuse of health phrases") and of course they settled so there is no finding of liability on the claim.

Even the best juice possible (made fresh, raw, organic, and green-leafy vegetables) will be comparatively high in sugar. A 16oz juice requires somewhere in the amount of 4-6 lbs of vegetables and naturally no one would ever consume 4-6 lbs worth of vegetable sugars in one sitting much less 6x a day. With the store bought juices there are also likely fruits added which have even more sugar than green leafy veggies and they store bought juices likely aren't raw (i.e. pasteurized) killing many of the beneficial enzymes and nutrients.
My point is that scaling up from sub-orbital to orbital is extremely hard. It's not that far removed from going from airplane to rocket, in terms of complexity.

You're going from having a top speed of Mach 3 to a speed of Mach 27 (Stage separation and max Q at Mach 6 and 5). You're shaving every conceivable weight-adder. You're dealing with a rocket the size of a skyscraper, which crumples in on itself when not filled with fuel.

This isn't AWS, where you scale your app by spinning up a couple new nodes. The difference from a suborbital hop to orbit is increasing your delta-v budget nine-fold.
It's really hard for me to imagine spending that much time doing cardio+strength training every day.

I went to music school and I used to practice around 6-7 hours a day, every day. And even after switching to software I still practiced 3-4 hours every day for a long time. It was just part of my routine and I enjoyed it, but even despite those things I had to reduce my daily practice time just because I didn't have time to do my job, sleep, cook/eat, drive to work, handle regular stuff that comes up in life, and then practice for 6+ hours a day. I managed to keep 3-4 hours for awhile, but then it gradually kept getting lower and lower just because I was kind of getting worn out. These days I finally stopped and don't practice daily anymore at all. I still do practice every week, but definitely not daily.
You don't need luck, you just need enough timing data on the collisions and ordering and then use a solver iteratively to produce testcases to get down to the seed. With normal sized hash tables and measurable collision timings you work with 10 bits. It's a matter of a few hours CPU time.
Exploiting public JSON interfaces e.g sounds easiest.

My claim stands that SipHash for hash tables is pure snake oil. Use a proper hash table instead, esp. when they are faster also. Linked lists are 1980ies technology. Even djb can make mistakes. But to his rescue his old solution to this problem is still one of the best. I would rather blame the other guy who came up with these questionable recommendations, and esp. the complang guys for trusting snake oil.
>>Devs should be testing their own stuff too, of course.

Only to check that it's actually working before sending it off to the testers. Unit tests can be a good way to do this.

Make no mistake though: a good tester is worth their weight in gold because they will find many "real life" edge cases the developer would not have thought about, as well as UX issues if the feature being tested is user-facing.
I think jumping to fully autonomous is a mistake.

Gradually introducing self-driving features lets the competition gradually gain consumer trust and confidence in the technology, as well as giving them more data for future improvements, and it also gives them a revenue stream to fund future development.
Web developer is not ideal. That is more of a people issue than it is a technology issue.

Whatever our collective gripes about JavaScript, HTML, and CSS, we all know how to use them. We know how to handle cross-browser compatibility and different screen sizes. What we need to do a better job at -- and I think this is the root of the problem you're describing -- is pushing back on businesses wanting to ship features too quickly.

We've all been at places where no one values good work on the client. The C-levels want to get things out the door as quickly as possible. They complain that our work has bugs and we tell them "Well that's what you get for telling me I had 3 days."

Because of this heat, front-end engineers rarely engineer their software. As you put it, they hack it together on top of libraries that have been hacked together by others. The solution is to take the time required to do things correctly. That means testing. That means not shipping features so we have time to refactor and upgrade frameworks. That means paying attention to performance and developing tools for debugging errors in production. If we want web development to get better, these things can't be afterthoughts. They must be considered before we say something is "done" and ship it to production.
That's not a fair argument, 1. Cruise control makes cars easier to drive, adaptive cruise control even more so. 2. The end goal is full autonomy anyway; Tesla seems to be the only manufacturer to release incremental updates towards reaching that.
He's quoted as saying we should move all heavy industry off of earth and turn it into a park for the sake of its own existence.[1]

[1]http://www.recode.net/2016/6/1/11826514/jeff-bezos-space-sav...
> Also, from a user perspective, you don't want applications to be able to demand only the big, powerful cores.

This should rather be a setting in the rights system that a user can refuse the right to an application to be able to demand big, powerful cores. I can nevertheless imagine quite well scenarios where enabling a (specific) application to do so can be quite useful.