skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Neither Swift nor Rust have exceptions, checked or otherwise.

The kind of exceptions that unwind the stack until some part of the code up the stack catches the exception.

They both handle errors by returning error values, kind of like Go.

Rust has a try! macro, which might make you think it's try/catch equivalent, but it's not. It's just a syntactic sugar over error values.

Similarly in Swift try/catch/throw is just syntactic sugar for handling error values.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/error-handling.html

https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Sw...
Besides the obvious things like seat belts, airbags, &c, I'd hope these have those whole-vehicle parachute systems you see on some small private planes.
Well, the only definition that matters would be the regulating body with jurisdiction. In the case of the US, that would be the FAA. It is squarely an experimental plane.
Do you have any evidence of this rate-limiting showing that it's that much of a problem? People have been running clustered apps on EC2 for over a decade and it's not like you hear people saying you can't run Cassandra, ElasticSearch, etc. on EC2 because the network is limited.

Similarly, do you have any data showing that a container system has such incredible overhead compared to the actual application workload? I mean, if that was true you'd think the entire Kubernetes team would be staying up nights figuring out how to reduce overhead.
Perhaps for the sole purpose of schools(I don't know). However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Ordinance_of_1785

I'm not sure what arguing over the minutia even accomplishes. I feel like I'm chasing a goal post all over my Friday afternoon. Government support for schooling has been provided by every level of the US government stack(municipal, county, state, federal) since WAY BACK, even to colonial times, to varying degrees. Public access to and public funding of education has increased along the way, yes.
Helicopters can autorotate, planes can glide. like the Moeller contraption, this type of thing falls. I would insist on a ballistic parachute.
Also the focus changes as your company grows.

Early on you are doing business development, which involves developing product-market fit and figuring out how you sell your product.

Later on you get into straight sales, where you have a playbook that you can give new salespeople that has a proven strategy for selling your offering. At this point you are interested in scaling and optimization, and qualifying customers (knowing if they are real buyers) is really critical.

If you are not a natural born salesperson it is more important to get comfortable with it than it is to carefully qualify people. Later on when you find talking to people is easy but you're frustrated about wasting time, you will reach this point where qualifying people will seem really urgent.
Or this: "Mom, this is a chat program that has its own apps".

I don't know about you, but my Mom would find this explanation a lot more helpful than the browser one.
US individual income taxes are about $1.8T a year (the $250B number in the link is refunds). There's also about $1.2T in payroll taxes paid by employers, $500B in corporate taxes, and a few smaller things like tariffs and interest, etc., adding up to a little over $3.5T total revenue per year.

The current gross national debt is just shy of $20T. So, that's about 6x the annual government revenue.

In theory, national debt is "good debt" like a home mortgage, and having a home mortgage worth about 6x your salary seems pretty healthy.
Unless a bunch of outages have cleared up, looks pretty typical to me. The biggest outage I'm seeing on that map is labelled as planned maintenance, affecting 66 people. Nothing major on the LADWP map either.
In order to avoid a goalpost-moving exercise, what is concrete the working definition of jet you feel most pilots would agree with? Is the difference between that and this as trivial as "has an ICE"?

From an engineering perspective, if something produces thrust primarily by producing a jet of surrounding matter (water or air) and taking advantage of Newton's third law, I'm not sure I see the issue. There's no exposed airfoil, and it doesn't appear to care about Bernouilli's law (except for lift).
If I could have waited, I would have.

Unfortunately, my return clocks in around 30 pages and has multiple attached schedules and worksheets, which means I can't just do it the day of.
Hey, I'm basing this on the hype they are rousing on their website. From the second paragraph of their "mission" page:

> We are bringing personalized, clean and affordable air travel to everyone.

Either they're trying to con someone, or they intend to drastically lowers the bars to entry: it must be affordable, legal, and mustn't require much skill. I'm also seeing a beautiful rendering of those things flying over a dense city lower than some rooftops, and a landing pad with people standing on them, just after one craft took off.

They're gonna need one hell of a lobbying force to pull that off. Or a couple decades proving this stuff is mighty safe.
Well, good luck.
the fact that you can't just fork bitcoin willy nilly, is a feature, not a bug.
"GLOBAL fossil fuel subsidies"
Really highly skilled workers (especially with a PhD) would be better off getting an O-1 visa anyway.
Naked mole-rats: The mammal that can survive without oxygen
> you can get someone (or a minor army if necessary) on the phone or on the premise immediately

That's "on the _premises_".
Yes, the could have written anything there. What matters is what the weight of the combination is to achieve that range (even in theory). It takes a lot of energy to fly a plane with aerodynamics such as this one, far more than your typical glider and batteries are very very heavy. Also there wasn't anybody on board.

If this whole contraption weighed more than 100 KG for the demo I'd already be very impressed, even more so if 80% of that wasn't battery weight and if it could stay aloft for more than the one minute demo.

This is not so simple.
World’s Most Powerful Emulator of Radio-Signal Traffic Opens for Business
> So, everyone can "drive" it

It's described as an air taxi, it references guidance to the pilot; there's no indication that it is self-flying. So, AFAICT, it would be flown by people licensed under whatever regime there is for pilots in the jurisdictions it operates in.

> Regulating this is going to be fun.

It's basically a faster, quieter helicopter taxi. It's not a particularly novel regulatory problem.
Look at the power requirements for similar aircraft to get an idea of range. An SR-20 (similar size, speed and composite) needs 180hp and probably 140 for the roughly 300kmph cruise. That's 104 kW for an hour plus the FAA 30min minimum remaining at maybe 80 kW (higher for commercial ops) that's 720kg of batteries or roughly the the empty weight of a cessna 172

edit: this is also very generous because it assumes you don't need to takeoff and climb. Max cruise on the SR-20 is 155kn so the power requirement is as much as 20% greater
Those are pretty heavy and would remove all their listed advantages.
I'm not sure in what other case it's considered appropriate to lump all the subsidies together in a total just because one person happens to be involved in each. On a case by case basis, each company is fairly large, and possibly not even unusual in the amount of subsidies it gets. Large companies often get lots of subsidies, because they target them, strategically. In this respect, Tesla is no different than GM or Ford, SpaceX is no different than Boeing, and Solar City is no different than General Electric. Each of those non-musk companies were in the top five of total Federal, State and local subsidies recently[1].

Calling out Musk's companies as exceptional in this regard makes for a nice narrative, but isn't necessarily supported by the facts.

1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/03/17/t...
The "subsidies" that your link talks about seem to be mostly about externalities. Ignoring for a second that it seems extremely hand-wavey, the biggest "subsidy" is "46%, broader vehicle externalities", which would apply to Tesla as well?
Lift and drag are inherently connected; you can't have one without the other. So it doesn't really make sense to say that engines are not used for lift, when the drag that the engines are countering at least partially is induced by lift.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-induced_drag
Yikes, that sounds like a great way to bias your data away from controversial opinions about weed. That would be like taking an exit poll of only people wearing lots of political apparel.
> I would be very surprised if there weren't at least 3 power outages in random cities on a daily basis, you just don't hear about it until it's 3 major cities

I wouldn't even be surprised if it regularly were 3 major cities at about the same time and it's just that statistically someone had to end up taking notice and trying to make sense out of it when it's actually a somehow random† distribution of events, the latest of which happening to be clustered.

But digital warfare seems to somehow look more exciting to many, probably because it's intuitively less frightening than waving nukes at each other's nose, while it may very well impact people's lives for the worst in a very large, non-obvious and pernicious way.

† Some events may be random but aren't independent across because of interconnections and dispatching woes[0]. Managing a power grid or three is a fascinating thing in itself.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_European_blackout
I am squarely middle class... how in the hell would I be able to afford this, pilot training, maintenance and more if I can't afford to buy a 1960's Cessna 172? Nevermind the maintenance, training and more?

Flying cars for the masses are a delusional pipe dream.
That's where the fine line comes in.

Did Excite sign a contract saying that they had the funds to pay in the case of winning the bid? I don't know the answer to that, it wouldn't be an uncommon requirement when bidding on a contract like that however.

Microsoft almost certainly lied on multiple occasions about what they already had, in trying to get MITS and IBM to take them seriously. The common historical story goes that they did lie - just how the wording went, who knows, they were clearly being intentionally deceptive regardless to capture the opportunity.
It worries me how easily you call for the government to take control of a multinational company and forcefully split it into pieces.
> In a "mutual NDA", consideration is easy to find; each party agrees not to disclose confidential information disclosed by the counterparty.

I don't think mutual NDAs are typical. Typically, you sign an NDA prior to receiving information. So the consideration for signing the NDA is receiving the information that you agreed to not disclose. If you already have that information, then that's no longer valid consideration.

In this case, the reporter already knew the security vulnerability, so that knowledge could not be considered consideration. The bank would have needed to offer something else.
It really depends on the year. The people who top income tax payments one year will generally not be anywhere near it on subsequent years because they don't draw a steady income, but instead cash out periodically. So while none of the people you've listed are likely to be in this years top earners, at some point in the years prior, or in the years to come, you'll likely see their names pop up. And when they do, they'll have paid some massive amount of money in taxes.
I clicked the transfer money button from chrome and it logged me out for months if not years. I called them and it still took them forever
I don't know about illegal immigrants but there used to be a thriving business for scammers and fraudsters. These days you're asked to go to one of the identity verification offices of the IRS with a state issued id and social security card.

This applies to previously flagged accounts, audited filings etc.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/11/tax-refund-fraud-to-hit-21-bi...
You're missing my point, I think. What you're describing is an epistemological problem, i.e.: "how do I know this thing is production ready?". This problem is (mostly) independent of whether or not the thing actually is production-ready.

The point is that knowing about previous use in production is one way of knowing to what extent something is production-ready. There are other ways (e.g.: well-controlled tests).

As for your point about security, I couldn't disagree more strongly. Comparing histories of compromises and mitigations across various projects is, in practice, a very useful metric. See OpenBSD for an example.
The problem though is with safety. This kind of design can work fine for drones, because if the power fails and a drone is lost it's not a big deal. But for a passenger carrying aircraft, you must have some semblance of aerodynamic control and glide in a dead stick situation. This thing would be a complete deathtrap.
I got interested in the utility of money a while back and how the "value" of money is roughly logarithmic as it goes up. I found a couple of thought experiments regarding a "logarithmic flat tax". Anyway, going by that I think it's about right - it might still be a little bit high, though. Depending on how you calculate it those plans can be configured so that he should have paid more in the 35-40% range.

Basically, you take revenue, divide it by the poverty level (he's got six kids, so around $45k - $50k), take the log base 10, and multiply by some constant that would be the same for everyone to match the government spending level - that constant these days is probably around 9 or 10. The result is your fair tax rate.
Not really. Go look at the tax-rates of the 1950's. The only way he was able to acquire that much money was because of the infrastructure paid for by tax revenue. The only reason he wasn't robbed by someone else was because of the law enforcement paid for by tax revenue. I could go on, but I think you get the point. His wealth is built upon the shoulders of tax revenue.
Translation for metric units users:

−57 °F ≈ −49 °C
If it's fully autonomous, which as has been noted is easier for aviation, you don't buy it, you rent it for a few minutes.
But that's their choice, not mine ;)
> I don't see the point in updating and revising the standard.

I'd like to see outstanding issues noted in the existing standard to be resolved.

For instance, there is one ambiguity in unwinding. Unwinding occurs under the locus of a dynamic control transfer which has selected an exit point. Unwinding can be intercepted by a form like unwind-protect. That form can "hijack" the control transfer by initiating another one, possibly to a different exit point. The question is: what exit points are still visible and hence available when a given unwind protect cleanup block is executing? Can the unwind-protect choose a less distant exit point than the original control transfer?

ANSI CL basically leaves this aspect nonportable: when an unwind protect cleanup is executing, it could be the case that all of the exit points which were "on the way" to the current exit point are already "torn down". Or it could be the case that the implementation performs "tear down as you unwind": exit points are torn down as their binding forms are terminated during unwinding.

In a nutshell, it is implementation-defined whether to tear down intervening exit points during the original search for the exit point, or leave them up and take them down during the actual unwinding.

The latter behavior is probably less surprising and should probably be ANSI CL standardized.
> We are bringing personalized, clean and affordable air travel to everyone.

No way that'll happen under current regulations of the crushing majority of western countries.
There are hundreds of shop chains like wallmart that also have millions of customers coming to their shop and spend real money.

Warehouses and inventories have been counting the most successful and most profitable products for a very long time. Didn't wait for amazon.
The Future of the Venture Capital Business
> It's very easy to build a failed business, but to build an overly hyped failed business, you need a taste of success to point to as indicating you are on a rocket ship ride to trillion dollar valuation.

What does that have to do with Silicon Valley VCs intentionally forcing extreme binary outcomes because they are willing to burn down 98 companies to get 2 huge homeruns? There's no debate to be had, we have a lot of actual data in regards to the industry, which numerous prominent VC firms routinely publish. We also have multiple bubbles worth of history in regards to VC behavior and the general day to day crunchbase or VC funding news type information. There's a non-stop 20+ year history of Silicon Valley VCs doing exactly what I've described, leaving a vast parade of thousands of dead formerly multi-million dollar start-ups in their wake.

> It's pretty damn easy to create a fictious $100 million transaction with other insiders, then gloss over the details on the balance sheet.

I have no idea what you're talking about or how that pertains to what I said.
I agree that it's a lot, but I disagree that it's harsh.

That leaves him with $747M for the year.
Ruling (Dutch): https://stichtingbrein.nl/public/20170420%20SLOV%20vonnis%20...

Short article on the ruling (also in Dutch): https://www.boek9.nl/items/iept20170419-rb-amsterdam-stichti...
> Either they're trying to con someone, or they intend to drastically lowers the bars to entry: it must be affordable, legal, and mustn't require much skill.

They explicitly say that the "for everyone" part isn't everyone can fly (or afford to own) one, just that you will be able to hail them via a smartphone app and they'll come to you where you need them, because building suitable landing sites will be relatively inexpensive and attractive to property owners.
The point is to discourage carbon-profligate behavior by making that behavior more expensive. If you increased cigarette taxes and used it to lower other sales taxes that would still reduce cigarette use[1]. Maybe you'd get even faster reductions in smoking if the cigarette taxes were all earmarked for R&D on ways to end addiction, but making something more expensive tends to reduce consumption of it regardless of how the tax is later spent.

If you're wondering "why not use targeted legislative mandates instead of carbon taxes?", I'd say that taxes have an advantage in that they're harder to game and need fewer adjustments over time. For example, if you introduce a mandate to make cars more fuel efficient, manufacturers will tweak the vehicles they sell so they are no longer "cars" but some legislatively distinct class of vehicle, and people who like gas guzzlers will just drive those tweaked vehicles. But if instead there's just a carbon tax on fuel it's a lot harder to game your way around the legislative intent.

[1] Assuming that the balance between just paying the tax and evading the tax still favors paying it. You don't want to impose a $20/pack tax and find that you've just given organized crime a major boost.
love this! it is such a raw and accurate look into tech - and what things we can do to help change the culture for the better! the future is female.
> GPFS is the gold standard but it's expensive.

Confirming! And going on a small tangent (ha!).

Our previous configuration was Lustre and XFS/NFS; the former was the scratch file system for HPC applications and the latter for home directories and what not.

Lustre was definitely a beast (in a good sense), but we'd occasionally get bit by a work load high in metadata operations - which would bring Lustre to its knees due to latency.

XFS/NFS was great for its purpose (no HPC workloads), but we'd also get bit by a user or users reading seemingly tiny, innocuous files (inadvertently in parallel) which would cause load averages to spike; surprisingly the latency wasn't as bad as the Lustre workload mentioned above.

Not too drink the GPFS kool aid here, but it's definitely solved both problems above. It has its issues, but definitely handles the common I/O patterns seen on our cluster.
I've written about this take, which I disagree with: https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/aws-outage-centralization.htm...
My pleasure - can't help spreading the foam gospel! ;-)

If you do get one, I'd love to hear how it works out for you.
This is an electric VTOL craft which runs off an energy source that is renewable, unlike jet fuel. If it can be done that is what should be important here.
I know, poor guy has to scrape by on only $700 million.
While I kind of like D, it's hard to really make the case for using it. The thing is, it simply doesn't provide that much of a significant advantage over modern C++14/17 to make it worthwhile. At least Rust introduces an entirely innovative new concept with the borrow checker. D is just basically C++ with optional garbage collection and better syntax for meta programming, but without the vast Universe of existing C++ libraries to leverage.
Imagine ordering a Lyft and this show up. This is amazing.
I definitely think you're correct. In the future you could probably save yourself the hassle of the "Are you a lawyer?" questions by dropping the phrase "almost certainly" right before "not a valid contract". Most attorneys I know are super reluctant to call a contract invalid without some sort of qualifying language.

This contract might actually be egregious enough to warrant an unqualified declaration of invalidity, in which case you should go the other direction and overstate your case with conclusory statement and some word like "clearly" or "patently". "This contract is patently invalid!" and then explain why.
What about "protected final"?
Coinye West. You'll thank me. One day...
You Are Not a Lottery Ticket
Yeah, because things worked out and they were ultimately able to deliver before everything imploded.

It can be a fine line. Theranos didn't know where that line was.
Picture a snake trying to invade the naked mole rat tunnel system. There is almost no oxygen.

Maybe normal parasites also die from lack of oxygen.
>Non-experts will always consider only the outward appearance rather than the technical structure

Exactly, and this thing behaves (outwardly) a lot like a web browser. It's just not browsing the web.

The description is useful for hilighting the similarities between both artefacts, mostly because Token is, stricto-sensu, a browser!
For the US maybe. Income tax in the Netherlands (my country) in the top bracket is 52%. On the second hand, we have no capital gains tax so he might come out ahead when exercising options. On the third hand, we have a wealth tax of 1.2% on your entire capital above a certain floor (of about 20k) so he might not come out ahead in the end.

It's always interesting to see the opinions of different cultures about how much tax is reasonable :)
Huh? I've never had a to pay a dollar in healthcare premiums at any employer. Granted, I've never worked for a tiny, tiny startup but even among white collar employers tech companies generally have top-notch health insurance.
Imagine that you are a GAFA CEO 2 years before you IPO and you are asked to pay 593 millions based on the estimated value of your shares.
1) That is a false statement. [1]

2) Even if that were true, that is not what happened in this case.

3) Even if that were true, it still does not explain the weird random data leakage.

[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203983
The future is here - but for rich people only.
> However, the chances that they will be able to beat Google seems vanishingly small.

The respective track records of the two companies suggests otherwise.
Personally I think this is a function the the FBI should fill. However, there is a risk they would sit on zero days and weaponize them (or give them to another three letter agency).

I wonder if an org like the EFF could add this to their scope.