skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by beauty.

> The other 99% are used to equating beauty and style with quality. More style == more quality. Less style == less quality.

I dunno. Try sitting down with an older relative and watching them try to use a heavily-styled page. There's a decent chance they won't think to click the hamburger. They may accidentally mouse over a flyover and get confused/annoyed when an unwanted menu covers the screen. Or they may try to use the flyover and fail when it retracts because they moved the pointer off the menu for a moment on the way to a nested submenu.

I admit the floating nav-bar breaking page down is a personal pet peeve, though. Seriously, folks. When I page down, I expect the text at the bottom of the screen to appear at a specific place near the top of the screen, and my eyes subconsciously jump there to continue reading. Instead, your nav-bar covers up some unread text, or changes size because "reasons," or you hooked page down and got the scroll distance wrong. You probably won't get it right, so please don't do it. If I want to "nav", I can go back to the top of the page. Or you can put the "nav" on the left, since vertical space is precious, and narrower text is easier to read.
As you likely know, but some may not, grants have legally enforceable constraints on how the funds will be spent, and often require proof that the funds were spent as required; not spending the funds as required might result in civil and criminal legal complaints being filed.

The funds presented to the winner of the award are not a work grant. There are no strings attached as far as I am able to tell by the rules or hidden agendas via the applications; for example, "If you are the winner, how might the $250k prize make a difference?"

Basically, to have expectations of how the winner might spend the funds is what it is, but to state it's basically a work grant is inaccurate.
Tell this to those reading resumes. Until then I will use the most impressive possible title I can reasonably use.
It's just likely to happen in a functional setting. E.g. That quadruple indirect function applied via some obscure algebraic pattern can be just as bad as an FactoryFactoryFactoryFactories.

We just don't see it because FP is not as common, but spend any amount of time with some Haskell programmers and you'll see the hazard is just as real.
He did summarize most of those in his books:

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/buy-the-books/
> No, it really isn't. There are much lower risk options than stocks or bonds that are liquid.

Yes, what you want is the repo market, or the eurodollar market. But wait, see what happend on these market during the last crisis ? If you really want a risk-free market, what you want is tradind the fed funds market, except :

1. You can't since you aren't a bank.

2. The interest rate is shit.

3. It's basically what you already do when you have your money on a bank account.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, if you want something safe and liquid, it's not going to pay well.
You also have the right to demand the deletion of your personal data and to revoke the right of a company to process it, as well as to demand correction of inaccurate data.

This is probably the biggest change. Previously, at least in Europe, the emphasis has typically been on allowing people to know what data was being collected and to require correction of inaccuracies, but much less on whether it was actually allowed to be collected in the first place or allowing data subjects to require deletion of data.

I'm a little worried about whether the practical implications of this have been properly considered, which is something the EU has historically been quite bad at doing when it comes to technology and business laws. For example, under (65) in the regulation[1], which is primarily about rights to have personal data deleted and the "right to be forgotten", I see few provisions for a business keeping personal data that it legitimately collected with the subject's consent even if the cost of deleting it is prohibitive. An obvious example would be data that also exists in backups taken during the period of storing and processing that data, all of which would need to be updated in non-trivial ways to remove the data from them.

[1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:O...
Whatever they want to call us, just don't care. More than OK to address myself as software developer, programmer, hacker, code writer, keyboard dancer, etc.

Joke aside, what the heck is Certified? So your software skills can asserted, by written test, that last for several hours...?

I refuse to acknowledge that online judge style algorithm questions could qualify or disqualify one person's capability to build software, it is like as civil engineers to build lego, bureaucratic BS
First off, IQ has been shown to potentially change quite significantly over long periods of time. Second, IQ is a very specific measure, it basically only deals with how good you are at performing symbol manipulation in working memory. Creative intelligence is far more important in my opinion but that isn't measured because we don't really have any idea how to do so.

We all have a fairly similar brains, some people's are organized slightly more efficiently for certain tasks, but that doesn't mean they're more efficient for everything, in fact it is quite like likely the opposite. Additionally, the brain is incredibly plastic, so you're not completely stuck with the architecture you have.
After seeing some of the security flaws in Ruby on Rails, I have the impression that a book of standards for handling user data is needed. However, I do not have a degree myself, and I don't have much respect for higher CS education in the US. There have been too many certifications and education programs based on knowing APIs (which has nothing to do with good engineering), too many people learning Java and UML and comming out of college knowing nothing of use for the real world. I personally don't want there to become a profession of programming which excludes people such as myself. But if one does form, we need to make sure that it is based on actual technical principles, and not knowlege of a product be it Microsoft, Redhat or Java.
Definitely true in Germany, I think it's also true in Australia and a few other places. However, the title "software developer" is also really common in English. Maybe even more common than "software engineer".
Has that always been? Were the first engineers regulated and licensed? By whom?

Perhaps we're just looking at a category of engineering that is not yet at that level of maturity.
What I think is funny about this is that I prefer calling myself a programmer because I feel like the term "engineering" has a negative connotation, whereas this article wants programmers to stop calling themselves engineers because they think "programmer" has a negative connotation.
React itself does much less then what component oriented oop frameworks used to do. Achieving same functionality with react is more work. They were not on the Web tho, so the comparison is a bit weird.
Somewhat related to following blogs. But how do I follow blogs anyway? Is there any good Google Reader like apps, that are easy to use?
This relates to me on many levels, thank you for taking the time to write this out it really resonated with me and I'm sure with a lot more people on HN as well. Do you think it might be worth to test for autism even later in life? like 30+?
If mechanical engineers were unregulated and built unreliable cars, they would still be mechanical engineers.

If doctors weren't a licensed profession, they would still be doctors.

If barbers didn't need a certification, they would still be barbers.

Defining an "engineer" based on how much regulation they must follow is kind of ridiculous. It's putting the cart before the horse.

Which is not to say that the software field doesn't need regulation to improve the protection of customer data and the reliability of increasingly critical services.
Sounds to me exactly like functionality IceWM offers.
Bloody good Java toString
.NET Core Comes Quietly to Raspberry Pi
To be called Engineer in Italy, you need the specific degree and a special diploma afterwards. People from CS are an exception and they can access to the same title of the Computer Engineers. If you apply for a job with a CV that says you are an Engineer but you are not officially registered, you can be reported for fraud.
> They're the tip of a spear with a rotting shaft.

"Kick the door in..."

Russia seems to have learned their lesson from multiple failures in the past. Their mission in Syria was short and successful (e.g. more like Iraq 1991 than Iraq 2003).

The only time the USSR could have had a chance to conquer the west was in the immediate aftermath of WWII, and Stalin was not interested in starting WWIII.

Scared people will do what they are told. That's why we have nonsense like the TSA now.
"Software Engineer" is a title. It is not, and never was, a type of engineer. It is exactly the same as "Software Architect" in this regard, which is not a kind of architect.

If a developer says "I am an engineer" it is only ever in the context of a tech company, where everybody knows what they mean. No programmer would say to their friends & family "I am an engineer" without any further context.

"Software Engineer" does not denote any additional rigor, no matter how much you want it to. It may or may not connote rigor, depending on a dozen contextual factors that will tell you much more about the presence of rigor than the title will. It's a title. It means computer programmer.
Oh, I get it. There was probably no efficient way to move the cursor around with the keyboard.
That might explain why users said the keyboard was faster. It was faster for them to push the right buttons. They might have found the mouse cumbersome. They probably thought of the mouse wasting their time.

Do people still consider the results of this study valid? A mouse in 1989 was nothing like a mouse now.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. By the very definition of the term identical if any two things are identical they must be the same in all respects including spatial and temporal location. So fundamental particles are very much not identical in this sense.

Of course there are not two identical things in the universe. Because being identical they're the same thing, aren't they? It's called the identity of indiscernibles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles

And one may disagree with the "unmoved mover" (let's call it an) axiom but if one takes that as given then it is plain to see that Leibniz's argument holds. And say you actually do disagree with it as an axiom then you have a bigger problem, what Umberto Eco called the most intractable problem of all, the problem that generates all other problems, namely, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
I love that he makes real mistakes and then shows how to debug them (using docs, debug output, etc).
Yeah, that's a good point. One of the things that I think could help would be to make the basic technology stack somehow different from html/css/js, so that different (not necessarily more or less) things are possible in the new medium. I don't know what that should look like, because my own preference is strongly toward text-oriented content which is well-served by the current stack, but having a different kind of toys in the playground might be enough to entice people to contribute all by itself.

> Otherwise I don't see it as more than a toy.

I was a kid so I could well be wrong, but my memory of the early net was that most 'regular' people kind of saw it as a toy. It wasn't until the start of the .com boom that it really became something different. Being seen as a toy might actually be good in this case.
In addition to the more directly related stuff others have mentioned it's also relevant and interesting to dive into Complex Adaptive Systems literature if you have the inclination, for the classic order-from-chaos essays and discussions of emergent properties and so on.
If we "move away" from Javascript, we also "move away" from being able to properly support and display much of the web in the future.

We can either discard the current web as obsolete and start over with a new, stricter or more elegant framework, or else support something alongside Javascript, which only compounds the problem when every new browser then has to support every web language, and older browsers can no longer run code written in the 'new' languages.

To say nothing of the likelihood that each language will have browser-specific implementations, so each language also gets its own unique ecosystem of frameworks and shims for cross-compatibility.

All this towards the same end of doing stuff with the DOM, AJAX and Canvas. Doing what you can already do in Javascript, despite its issues. Why? How does it help the end user?

Javascript may be bad, but the alternatives seem to be worse for everyone other than programmers who don't like Javascript.
No, only about 95% of them. People can't do better than that, and much of that is ambiguity in the source material.
The Impact of Smartphones and the Internet on Music
What is elegant?
Tim Berners-Lee. Thank God, I was worried they had interviewed Al Gore
External merge sort
Running WordPress Plugin Acceptance Tests on TravisCI
I agree with your mindset. This discussion feels extremely ego centric, imo.
Hmmm... maybe I need to start liquidating my 401k early and just accept the penalty...
Eh. Python and JavaScript are very similar at the language level. They each have warts and are more expressive in certain areas, but at a high level they have the same semantics and the exact same advantages and disadvantages.
This article feels painfully misinformed. I am a brother of Theta Tau, the professional engineering fraternity. Many of my brothers are certified professional engineers (FE, PE, etc.) I graduated with a dual-major in CS/Math.

I strongly disagree with this assertion that failures in tech make us undeserving of the moniker 'engineer'. Software systems are inherently complex, and we have built incredible testing tools, processes, continuous integration, monitoring systems, and infrastructure to add strong rigor to our discipline.

As part of most engineering degrees, students explore case studies of where engineering went wrong and failed. I can assure you that there are many failures in civil engineering (see ASCE's report card), mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and other engineering disciplines just as there have been failures in the tech industry.

Licensure is not as applicable to the tech industry, and certifications have been cheapened by low-quality applicants. They've become a negative signal. Additionally, the tech industry, in my opinion, innovates at a significantly faster pace than the licensed engineering disciplines. Perhaps these are correlated in some way.

Companies like Google are right not to overvalue degrees. If someone has the requisite knowledge and ability, it should not matter whether they learned from a book or on their own. Software interviews are significantly more rigorous that interviews in other engineering fields. Civil Engineers are not expected to be able to whiteboard open channel flow problems during an interview, but software engineers are expected to answer multiple interviews of algorithms and system design questions.

This article is just long-winded, useless rambling. Rage against Silicon Valley all you want, but we call ourselves engineers because we _are_ engineers. Software runs critical infrastructure in medicine, finance, aeronautics, traffic control systems, the electrical grid, and even the internet infrastructure used to deliver this nonsensical article. I suggest the author read about incidents such as the Therac-25.
Following this logic, anyone who manages engineers is a developer.
> This misses the point that all other types of engineering are regulated and licensed.

Software is going to be regulated, licensed, and unionized within the next ten years. The main reason it's not currently is because the best practices have historically changed every couple years due to Moore's Law, but there is about to be an extended slowdown that will give the industry the time it needs to get its act together.
People think fame is this wonderful thing. It might be if you have a ravenous ego that needs constant validation, but if you're centered and secure it is just a huge hassle. For that type of person, fame needs to be a tool to accomplish something larger.
"I try to solve problems in a rigorous and maintainable way"

The original linked article was written by someone who's never engineered anything and clearly has no social or cultural connection with any engineers, but I can see in one line that you and I are at least partially on the same page about what engineering is, which is not much of an endorsement for the article.

The critical difference between science, engineering, and art/craft is engineering involves highly predictable well trodden ground where simulation always corresponds to measured reality. The predictive process is complicated and takes a long time and a lot of effort to learn and ingrain. The aesthetics and tradition don't matter as much (or at all) compared to the predictable performance and predictable cost. That's engineering.

The difference between a science and engineering is an engineers output is optimized to minimal cost yet fits a predictable yet variable safety envelope. That column will not buckle with 99.999% odds over the lifetime of the building if built to commercial standards and my specs. Science is much less predictable and its criteria for prediction is much lower and generally not "safety of life" related and tends to be extremely abstract. Is that theoretical cosmological model interesting and not provably invalid? OK publish. Does that biomedical pharma experiment have more than 2 sigma of abstract statistical significance or whatever the statistical flavor is for pharma research today? OK publish. Science can of course eventually turn into engineering... A lot of chemeng make a lot of money turning lab bench scale processes into factory scale processes, they are engineers because they understand and predict scalability, unlike computer scientists who famously do not.

The difference between craft/art and engineering is again safety of life and predictability but in craft/art you don't care about optimizing cost and safety as primary criteria. Does that custom bookcase have nice proportions? Is the wood grain clear? Is the stain too dark or too light or just right? Sometimes craftsmen such as framing carpenters need help from an engineer for a wide beam or similar weirdness but most of craft/art boils down to "grandpa put wall studs on 16 inch centers so I will too". Building codes for the building trades are written in human blood, not calculus math, for example. Somebody got electrocuted doing that, gets a line in the NEC or building code, we'd rather figure out the size of that weird beam using math rather than seeing if it collapses is structural engineering.

Very few people write code in an engineering fashion where the entire process is predictable and heavily testable against reality and human lives depend upon it. Some embedded stuff like PID controllers in factories or anti-lock brakes are like that. Your average web framework CRUD app, not so much, who knows what it'll do, and when it fails thousands will not die in the crash/collapse.
Is There a Right to Immigrate? (2010)
A big one is that there is a tax deduction for employer provided health insurance. So offering a decent health plan is more compensation than just handing over the cost of the plan (which would be taxed).

As far as how employer coverage can drive up individual costs, there are a couple of factors. One is that people with good health plans often don't pay attention to how much they cost, and often don't have much of a deductible, so they just use the medical system without paying too much attention to costs. That at least has the potential to drive medical prices up.

The other is that people in the group insurance market tend to be somewhat healthier than the individual market. So the pool for individual insurance is more expensive to insure. Setting aside discussions about whether it is fair or not, it does result in higher costs for the individual market.
In theory its all great until you get punched in the face. Meaning, reserve cash isn't important - until it is.
Part of the problem with OO is the other stuff we heaped on it, while still calling it OO. So, we're not always assessing "pure" OO when we talk about it. For instance, immutability and OO are diametrically opposed concepts.

Objects were supposed to encapsulate data (state) and expose operations that would mutate that state in a controlled fashion. But, we then imposed this immutability requirement, whereby we create these objects very explicitly with long-winded builder patterns, then make copies of the data when necessary,etc. At this point, we have effectively externalized the logic around the object's state and the object itself is nothing more than a C-style struct.

Sure, immutability has its advantages, but we should acknowledge that it's not a OO-friendly concept.
I put together a votable list of most of the sites recommended by HN users so its easier to see which blogs are the most popular/recommended (anyone can vote).

https://www.diffur.com/which-programming-blogs-do-you-follow
Sign up to nugget paid and you get access to 350+ ideas for $20
That is exactly right. I'm a software engineer in Quebec. I have a degree in software engineering from an engineering school.

I even have the option to have a license at which point I could call myself a profesionnal engineer. This is the same in other Canadian provinces but the engineering license is regulated at the provincial level so there are a few diffenrences.
Do I need a compositor for the keynav grid to show up? I've tried prettymuch all the versions off the AUR and none of them show anything.
Bit: distributed, virtual code component repo designed to be language agnostic
Your argument is disproved by the existence of bosons.
In France, only certified school can deliver engineer degrees, it's a symbol of a high standard of competence and quality. They are required to teach core engineering classes and other topics (biomechanics, signal processing, management, neuroscience...), industry experts also have to come and teach. One of their goal is to teach the students how to analyze a problem from different angles.

We learn a lot more beside software engineering.
The OP was asking for blogs to follow though. The first link has months and sometimes years in between posts. The second link hasn't had any new content in 11 years.
Absolutely. California is wildly divided into places you want to live but can't afford (SF), and places you can afford but don't want to live (Barstow). $100k in SF is $33k in Barstow ( http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/ba... )
Median household income. From a couple seconds worth of Googling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income#Gallup_gross_med...

> Japan: 34822

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi

> MS: 40037
OTOH, the same principles behind civil engineering apply today and 10 years in the future, which means it can be regulated. Just think what this would mean for software, taking into account the iPhone is 10 years old.