skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's like asking "feeding yourself is now somehow a negative" when people talk about obesity.

It's not always a naive "the more the better" issue.

Too much resolution can result in unnatural and distracting results -- your eyes don't have that much resolution as when you see a person in 8K in a extreme closeup. It's neither natural not flattering to see an actors individual skin pores, for example.

Similarly, faster frame-rates capture motion more accurately (sharper under motion), but result in a movie that looks distracting and soap-opera-ish to the viewers eyes.
That's awesome. Thought-provoking for sure.
3 Secrets for Successful B2B Video Marketing
> and we could quickly discuss it.

speakerphone, anyone ?
Safety and correctness are big deals. I get that for many people they aren't a high priority. Such is life.

If someone thinks they won't gain anything by going from C++ to Rust, then no effort to learn it will be worth it. Obviously the Rust devs think there is a benefit.
I disagree to some extent, for a couple of reasons.

First, C++ programmers in aggregate have to consider more than the choice of language for their projects. Odds are they work for somebody else, on a team, an established project, whatever. In these cases "C++ programmers need better tools" doesn't mean "toss the bath out with the water." Rust isn't necessarily a good move in established products, in other words.

Second, Rust would do better, in my opinion, to target folks who are new to systems programming and, for whatever (mostly invalid, in my opinion) reasons, are intimidated by C or C++. Rust is very powerful and in many ways I like it much better than C++. I think Rust offers a great way for these people to have a gentle introduction to the world of systems programming. I say "gentle" because a good portion of the "pain" of learning is front-loaded into getting a build, rather than back-loaded into futzing about with gdb (although that would be something these folks will miss out on--who doesn't like a good session with gdb with a satisfying bug squash at the end?). Get them while they're young, as they say.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Will Buy an Artificial Intelligence Startup
Looked into Bullet, but not the style I wanted. I needed more of a journal of what was done and information around that being driven from collaboration tech (Smartsheet, Wunderlist, etc.) vs. what I needed to do. I think Bullet is great for the individual, but everything around teams or groups needs to be run in a tech solution.
>We are talking about allocating memory, in a system level language, and unless you are jumping through hops[sic], there is just no way to do that.

To be fair, if you want to call malloc it is still just as accessible[1][2] as it is in C. If you search the Rust documentation for malloc `libc::malloc` is even the first result. If you were to use that on stable Rust the error message will even tell you to link your program to the libc published on crates.io (which is just adding a line in your Cargo.toml file.)

I'm not sure I'd call that jumping through hoops. I'd love if Rust provided easy access to its own allocator on the stable release channel; but I'm willing to wait for them to get it right, these things take time.[3]

[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/libc/x86_64-pc-windows-msvc/libc/f...

[2]: https://is.gd/cgkX2R

[3]: https://github.com/pnkfelix/rfcs/blob/117e5fca0988a1b0c4b6e4...
Top Reason to Go for Back End as a Service (BAAS)
It's already over, he's confirmed.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senate-confirms-mike-pompe...
Hmmm, I've never had mpl crash and we routinely plot data sets with 10s of millions of points. We do a mixture of 2D scatter plots. 1D/2D histograms, and a few 3D plots. What type of plots are you generating? What type of data?
> it's going to be a constant battle against powers

Yes. The price of freedom is vigilance. If you are not creating your future, others will create it for you. This is true not only for privacy, but every freedom we enjoy.

In the last few decades there has been a trend toward more people taking a lot of our comfortable modern lives for granted. Some with a better understanding of the current political landscape have seen the people trying to dismantle the foundations of the freedoms and comfort we enjoy. The enemy is organized and powerful, so the battle seems hopeless.

Everyone needs to remember that previous generations had to fight the same powers, and they won. It was hard work, but we only have the many of the freedoms, civil rights, and middle class lifestyle thanks to the previous generations that fought power. We can win the war against privacy, but it will require a lot more solidarity and focus and a lot less infighting.

The smart way to win battles has always been to trick your enemy into choosing not to fight. Maintaining power is easy when the enemy gives up the fight or fights among themselves.

> the capability to do so is just getting easier and cheaper.

Then the technology should be fought (civil war), or its manufacture prohibited (Butlerian Jihad), or even better, put to use in the other direction. The latter may require a lot of creativity.

> The only real solution is to have technologically enforced privacy, in ways that can not be blocked legally.

Except that doesn't exist except in specific situations. If the political side is ignored, technology doesn't matter because the boot, rubber hose, and rifle can prevent technology from being used. With modern methods of social manipulation (e.g. Sesame Credit), the firearm can be replaced with peer presure and social standing.

Both the technological and political battles need to be fought, becaujse they support each other and cannot stand on their own.
This sounds like a farm that raises perfectly spherical cows of uniform density. :)

As others have pointed out, "productive" in terms of sheer foodstuff mass is not necessarily the optimal measure of a farm's effectiveness, or even a good one. More broadly, the phrasing of your question is an attempt to apply reductionist, scientific method thinking to what desperately needs to be a holistic question.

First, let's consider some of the things we might measure. We could measure resilence - how well the farm can handle changes in, say, weather in the short term and climate in the long term. We can measure diversity - how many different kinds of products are grown/raised there? We could measure quality - are the foods raised there as delicious as possible? (Another way to think of it - can they fetch maximum price at market?) We can measure profitability. We can measure chemical consumption. Soil depletion and erosion. Etc.

Now, what can we "yield"? Are we raising corn, cows, Christmas trees? Lots of farming is devoted to non-edible things. The #1 consumer of insecticide for farming isn't food at all - it's cotton. These questions spill over into macroeconomic factors that extend beyond the farm. For example, high density animal farming is the primary consumer of antibiotics, and the primary reason we are seeing a rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria globally. So the farming practice of "maximizing yield per acre" leads to human health problems that may wind up killing millions.

So basic to questions about robotics and automation. First, automation has been changing farms not just for years, but for centuries. 200 years ago, 90% of all Americans were farmers. Now, it's like 3%, while yield has grown drastically. That's automation at work. A tractor is a form of robot, if you think about it.

Now, automation can be used to improve some of the factors other than yield. For example, a weed-picking robot (or an army of them) could be far more effective than herbicides, with less environmental impact. And a lot of what's going on now in ag tech isn't active, but passive - sensors and measurements. For example, if you can analyze the soil on a per-foot basis rather than a per-acre or per-lot basis, and feed that data into chemical spreading machinery, you can both reduce chemical consumption and increase yield simultaneously.

Fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides are expensive. Reducing their consumption makes farms more profitable. And honestly, we're more interested in making farms more profitable than more "productive" in terms of yield alone.

Just some food for thought.
The thing is he sets up easy to follow routine.

He will always at least park and walk in to the desk. That's easy thing to force yourself into. Then he either will go in and exercise or he will walk back to the car and drive. He could be in no mood to exercise, but at least he will walk in to the desk. Sometimes this simple act could mean that he could go and exercise after all, because he changed his mind.
I would go further than that even. Human beings are becoming more and more intelligent by the day. I know things today I didn't know yesterday, and certainly much more than I knew a year ago.
Various types of cancer treatment to begin with.
Or take advantage of the car's systems to steal from drivers, scam them, or take precedence on the road.
Former PM at Google here -

I studied computer science as an undergrad but was pretty rubbish as a coder to be honest. I spent 4 years at Intel in their technical sales program, which was a nice way to learn business skills and particularly B2B selling skills in a non-salesy environment. They also paid for graduate work in MS&E at Stanford which was a nice bonus. By luck, I had a friend of a friend at Google and sent in a resume and got a call back to join their associate program. Spent 4 years there, mostly as a Product Manager in ads.

I think having a technical degree was quite useful to build trust with engineering. Particularly with very talented engineers you need to develop a level of trust to make decision making collaborative, where you can synthesize the need from users/internal teams and then work with engineering to understand tradeoffs, timing constraints and critical features vs longer term features. I'm a lousy dev but it was helpful to be able to run mapreduce jobs to do analysis and present that back to engineering when making decisions, or doing the one-off jobs that they didn't find exciting but were useful to making their jobs smoother. And that credibility goes a long way - developers are far more willing to work above and beyond if they trust you're asking them to do valuable things that won't be discarded on a whim by the organization.

The one key skill IMO for anyone in PM is managing without authority. As a PM you rarely have direct reports (except other PMs) so you need to often shape the direction of sales, marketing, eng and support without actual authority over those teams, so it requires a mindset to find compromise constantly but then also fight when necessary or at least lean on people for help that don't necessarily have you as a priority in their own job. You're the intern CEO - you often are the gatekeeper for all sorts of things left and right, but you can't actually compel anyone to do anything except with persuasion and logic.

Also you have to balance in-office time with getting out and talking to stakeholders. I travelled to almost every remote office we had and tried to meet w/ salespeople and customers. It's not always high ROI but it builds relationships and creates a further rapport that comes in handy again - I would often meet publishers outside the US and take feedback from them that was really helpful and we wouldn't have otherwise thought of in Mountain View.

After PM I got into venture capital and it's a similar skillset of soft management. I think PMs make good VCs later in life. Being a board director is similar in a way that you have the ability to do things but if you need to command things, the battle is probably already lost.
I lost my right eye when I was very young, so for me as well 3D is just a way to make a movie look worse.
Bread Time Ep. 8 – Working with Engineers
Of all the things I'd accuse rust of, complex is not one of them. Could you give an example of the complexity? I've not found a single pattern in rust I wouldn't already have to think about in c++, but I have to think about it less because the compiler thinks about it for me. I just can't postpone the confidence until later.
>Accurate reproduction has always been seen as a negative among a certain set of people used to what came before.

Only I'm someone working with 4K video and beyond professionally, not some grandpa tied to the ways of yore.
I'm pretty sure California companies like Google, Palantir, or Cisco will happily provided the technologies for a distopia suvalience state.
> It's a terrible tool for most 30 line tasks, simply because the majority of your work will go into arguing with the compiler.

This arguing with the compiler is really only while you are learning Rust and it's nuances. For me the first two weeks were this way, then I started thinking more in Rust terms. Now I rarely deal with the borrow checker at all, but I do end up in some complex type situations.

You're spot on with the frontloads difficulty. Honestly though, I can't think of any language that I've learned that in under a few weeks I knew how to properly do things in the language.

Python was this way for me. My code looked like C when I started with it, and then I learned after a few weeks about 'with' and 'yield' and started writing real code.

Rust is worth the initial investment, but the first two weeks will require some perseverance.
The data is only encrypted at rest.
In flight it's in the clear and there is ample time and opportunity for them to mine it.
Which cancer treatment?
Assuming we're talking about product managers for software/app products:

I'd say the "junior product" position is probably a frontend developer. You're making a lot of small decisions developing a frontend, and you develop a taste for it. Once you have taste, you really start contributing to the overall thought behind the product. That's when you become a reasonable hire as product manager.

As for me? Well, I was hired as a product manager after being what amounted to a "full stack" developer for years and years at a small (still smallish) startup. Having said that, it really ended up being much more of a project management role than anything else.
Maybe it's the difference between digital and analog?

Consider a vinyl record and record player. It's super simple - a long groove with smooth bumps and a needle that slides in the groove. Recording and playback via analog methods are super simple.

Compare that to a compact disk or MP3 file and the complexity required to encode, store, and playback the sound.
It's one part of a cascade of errors. The author(s) defined an opaque MODE_INVALID but wrote code depending on their 'knowledge' of its underlying value. Signed/unsigned confusion is typical of C, though.

The 'fixed' code¹ has the property that calling it to create a file with mode==0 (i.e. no permissions) actually creates one with mode==0644 (i.e. some permissions), which is a wtf r u doin that can't be blamed on C.

¹ https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/06eeacb6fe029804f2...
What is the line of death and why should you care about it?
(SQL is still kinda a crap language for dealing with sets, because the synatx does not represent the order in which set operation are applied or anything else; instead, they went with the "cobol" strategy of trying to make things like english.)

But I agree with your premise, certainly.
I'm aware. That why I said "oppose the Senator's vote to confirm Pompeo." She needs to be held accountable. Stop spending time responding to comments on the Internet if you haven't called yet. It takes 5 minutes.
IMO having a security bug in systemd is not acceptable. Commits should be carefully reviewed. That other projects (even if these include very important ones) have way more is "meh".

From what I understood from the systemd code is that it's written pretty defensively. I quite like systemd because its useful, thought out, etc. But then I want all that without any drawbacks (because why not!). Probably unrealistic, but nice to strive for a perfect project.
> Agreed. Rust is different from other languages in that it is HARD to learn.

Don't you think C/C++ are hard to learn too? C++ has a vast surface area and I think it's unlikely that most people who use it understand much of it. When I code in C, I feel like I have to be paranoid because it's so easy to forget a path that doesn't recover allocated resources. But if I'm not paranoid, I just leak the resources and don't care about it (ever, or until many months or weeks later when the problem's discovered). So the easiness is illusory IMO. It seems to me that all of those other resource leaks are just leaking too slowly for us to discover yet.

> Each project involved tons of compiler fighting that I now know how to avoid or solve.

As frustrating as it is, it's easier than struggling with heisenbugs. Those can easily eat up days trying to reproduce issues.
> I question whether "sane" driving is actually cultural. Is it possible that "sane driving" is actually just the natural human reaction to good roads and homogeneous vehicles capable of driving at similar speeds (as opposed to a mix of cars, auto rickshaws, pedal rickshaws, 3 wheeled mini trucks, etc)?

The difference in driving styles from Switzerland to its neighbor Italy is quite big, at least from my own experience as a tourist of both countries as a driver and as a pedestrian. The roads in Switzerland are a little better, I can agree with that, but the vehicles present on the roads of both countries are from the same class (no rickshaws and I don't think I've seen 3 wheeled mini trucks in Italy, though AFAIK they used to be quite popular in there not that long ago).
They updated their site for the acquisition... Meta's been around for years, it wasn't just created (it was named Sciencescape until last year). They curate papers for scientific researchers, use some NLP and more specialized algorithms than general Google to do a better job. If you're only hearing about them now, you're probably not their target audience?
Instead of focusing on the toilet itself (whatever type one might use), I would focus more on overall sanitation systems and clean water. Yes, it is true that a billion people (more actually) do not have access to clean water or safe disposal of human waste. From my standpoint, this honestly is a huge deal -- clean water and proper sanitation would most likely improve health in many areas of the world tremendously.

(In a way, this does tie in with the micro-organism disease theory mentioned by another poster above. When it comes to "most important ideas in human history", in terms of human lives saved, this has to be one of the top ones.)
I'd still expect GCC to warn about that
"If nothing, it breaks the retro atmosphere I'm going for"

I commented before about finding the ads annoying. But really, this is the crux of it. It completely breaks the experience, as I am playing a pixelized retro game and a modern looking clean ad appears on the screen.

Tangentially, why don't you consider also publishing the same game, but with a different art style. An art style that might be more relatable for kids these days (no idea which, just suggesting you research that).
Distributing a self-replicating malicious code using NPM
Interesting article, but like many things I've read on this topic, it still focuses on the "cause" being luck. I'm not so sure that's correct (not convinced it's wrong, either, but hey...)

For instance, if I look at Zuckerberg or Gates, they had access to an amazing network (happened to both be at Harvard). That network allowed good ideas to explode in value. If Zuckerberg were at a community college in a poor section of the country, I'm not sure his idea would have captured the same value. Similarly, had Gates' mother not been on several boards, Microsoft would never have gone anywhere (clearly the introduction to high-level IBM executives through her board connections was paramount in his success).

I don't discount luck - I think it's very important. But luck comes about from your surroundings, and having access to a network like these two had will tilt the luck in your favor much more than if you have a weak network.

If economists focus on the networks, they will have better solutions to addressing inequality.

One final note - I don't think inequality is necessarily bad - rather, it is the inability to move up (or not evening having the chance to move up) that is the real problem.
>Put simply; I don’t see any manufacturers building laptops at the same level of quality that Apple does, and yet, I can’t buy a product that is so tightly controlled, and designed to be obsolete in two years.

Dell has been making laptops of equal or better quality for a couple years, now.

The XPS line is absolutely stunning.
okay, you obviously never had a piece of meat stuck between teeth ... it's going to start itching and will drive you literally crazy
I think usually you're OK - the scary stuff with lidar is what happens when it snows or it's foggy. Or even worse, a malicious person with a beam that they point into your sensor.
Clearly if you consider any of these scenarios in isolation we can dream up a solution, but can you do that with literally any adverse scenario? That seems like the point to me.
This exists and is called Ungoogled Chromium[1]. As you'd expect from the name, it blocks all background communication with Google servers. I use it as my main browser and find it faster and more stable than both standard Chrome and Firefox, YMMV.

1: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
Video Usability Best Practices
I'm going to add on to the calls for a "Remove Ads" IAP. I don't typically buy games, but I will pay to remove ads in a game I like. I don't mind ads while I'm testing a game, but I hate how they break up the flow of the game, and they use a lot of data as well. I uninstall the game within a week or so if I can't get rid of the ads.

I haven't downloaded the game yet, so I can't really say if your ads would bother me, but I hate ads so much that I'd gladly pay to get rid of them.
I don't see why that would disqualify you from what I said. Plenty of tech-savvy people are hung up on 24fps or vinyl, too. It can happen to anyone.
> I see DUI as being on the order of a manslaughter

So doing something that has a chance of killing someone is equally as bad as killing someone?

I agree driving under the influence is bad, but I disagree that it is just as bad as manslaughter.
> The difference compared to a (good) static type system is that a good [1] static type system does not measurably reduce expressiveness

This is pseudo-jargon. What counts as a "measurable" reduction? Do you have any substantive evidence that "good" typesystems don't reduce it? And why are only type systems which satisfy this property "good"? You talk cogently about tradeoffs later on, but this sentence taken literally suggests only a type system which doesn't make this particular tradeoff can be "good". Why?

My go-to languages for the past few years have been Haskell and Racket. There have definitely been times I picked Racket because I knew Haskell's type system would interfere with my expressiveness. Certainly Haskell is less restrictive than Rust with regards to ownership, but all type systems restrict you. I think GP is spot-on in pointing out that you just get used to it over time as you learn to think and code in ways that avoid pushing against the type-system's weak spots.

> But where garbage collection is an option, the tradeoffs that Rust makes become much less attractive.

Yes, precisely. It's not a fundamentally different issue from getting used to other static type-systems; it's just a different tradeoff.