skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Wow, good post!

I've also started to disconnect. I also find my productivity far higher without the Internet. Sometimes just a notebook and a pen are more than sufficient, and I can get some serious work done, manipulating equations, drawing diagrams, documenting ideas, even coding!

Although here I find myself, on Hacker News....

EDIT: This might be what I find troubling about Elon Musk's Neuralink project... I already find it very useful to disconnect from my "digital neocortex" (i.e. social media, Google, Youtube, Wikipedia, etc) to get work done... With a higher bandwidth connection that goes even directly to my limbic system and produces a more compelling experience than reality itself can... Would I just be stuck in a high tech opium den with no will to leave?
That was not my point; I thought it was your point. You said people will die and that would be awful, not the decline in population.

I highly doubt the population will decline by so much, but there is nothing inherently bad about it. Even one billion people is plenty for a healthy global society.
Changing the speed limit isn't the question, since the speed limit is low enough but simply not enforced. Enforcing the existing speed limit is a strategy that can be tried. but yes, most streets are built to encourage fast auto traffic, and need physical changes to calm the street down. Some cannot.
The parent comment noted they fell out of touch with their friend.

As for your confident advice, that's only true for you. The Uber engineer who took his life had a loving family.

Everyone having suicidal thoughts should be screened by a psychiatrist. Sometimes it takes medication and medication saves lives.
>The major C++ SDK was the DirectX SDK for the Sega Saturn.

a) there was no DirectX SDK for Sega Saturn.
b) DirectX SDK (including one for Sega Dreamcast) is not C++. It has C++ bindings but is usable from C.

>Yes, the code was basically C compiled with C++ compiler.

You mean if I have taken that code and compiled with C compiler it worked? You realize even the DirectX C++ wrapper is not already C, right? You know classes, overloads, namespaces are not C?

>Not when what most write is actually C compiled with C++ compiler.

Could you explain exactly how this works? The C++ compiler uses ML to recognize that the code is not exactly following Alexandrescu's book and turns off typechecks? I seriously just don't understand what you mean here. I usually take "C compiled with C++ compiler", "C with classes" etc as "not enough GoF patterns for my taste" but you are making some other claim here it seems.

>If you don't want the GC to move memory around then don't allocate it via the GC.

So, why do you want GC in the first place? For types, which somehow disappeared from C++?

>No, but JITs can also make use of PGO just like AOT compilers.

How exactly does it work? The code stops executing for a week, the profiler gets run to under user credentials and then JIT finally decides?
By god, I hate roundabouts. Not because I have to slow down. If your exit is 45-90 degrees to the right (which a few of the roundabouts I have to go through are), you can commonly go in a straight line towards it without slowing down the slightest anyway, and going in as straight a line as possible is encouraged over here to make your intentions clear.

However, I feel much less safe going through a traficated, small-radius two-lane roundabout than I do going through a traficated intersection (making a turn or not). First of all, you have to find a gap, which is stressful and entirely unnecessary in a normal intersection. Traffic usually mean that just don't get a large enough gap to get in without accelerating hard, which isn't really safe. If you want an exit that is not the first (sometimes also the second), you have to use the inner lane, meaning that you need to find a gap in two lanes, rather than one. It seriously lacks some fair scheduling.

Depending on the roundabout, exiting can only be done by going "LEEROY JEENKIIIINS". Your mirrors point at nothing useful due to the turn of the roundabout, so the lane change back out involves going fast forward to the left, with your neck twisted as far as you can back to the right. Everyone is moving at their own random, highly variable pace, so a quick orientation is immediately invalidated. On a straight road, you can rely almost entirely on your mirrors so your peripheral vision still covers what's ahead of you.

Collisions between cars are likely milder, as the vehicle velocity is limited by the roundabout geometry, but side collisions are awful, and the chance of collision seems much higher, feeling like a game of Russian roulette. I'm normally (over)confident behind the wheel, with no problem driving like an idiot, around other driving like idiots, and have several hundred thousand kilometers of driving experience, but I get uncomfortable and stressed in those roundabouts.

Some two-lane roundabouts have fixed this by drawing the lines so that the lanes spiral out, with the outer lane going to the next exit, and the inner lane going to the one after it. In this way, going around the roundabout is a constant lane change to the left with no one beside you, and an exit is simply keeping your lane. This helps a lot, but is by no means common. Entry still sucks, though
The article says that you still need that power when the reactor is shutdown or in maintenance.

You'd need to consider gain, loss and on/off cycle.
Agreed, but I don't think this changes the conclusion much. Sure, it is very possible that the observed decrease in dementia risk alluded to in these articles is more linked to healthier lifestyles and habits, and the proven benefits of exercise, than being a direct 1:1 link. This really doesn't diminish the importance of exercise and healthier habits, though.
>I wrote an HTML file in Microsoft Word

Explain yourself
The outage was for S3, and only in the us-east-1 region. Any critical system should have multi-region fail over. Yeah, factories and planes and stuff are critical and wouldn't use AWS, mostly because those are embedded systems that shouldn't even rely on an Internet connection. But as for banking, Capital One is a huge AWS customer for example.

DISCLAIMER: probably should have mentioned this earlier, I'm an AWS employee :)
There is a 10% chance of not being severely injured when struck at 46 mph? Amazing.
I've met those people, but in every case they had some value outside of their superconnector status that got them there. Either they were doing it for increased dealflow, or to source services or whatever.

In fact I can think of one right now, he is a lawyer in SF and his whole schitck was to build this huge network for free, with a lot of socials and get togethers for founders and CEOs, basically to source new clients and get in early on deals.
To me this is a failure of Uber of course, but also of the guy's wife. She is supposed to be his best friend, life partner, and a lover. If she couldn't detect that her partner needed urgent help then I am afraid he didn't have the happiest marriage out there. Same goes for his family, how can they even claim they're his family if they never detected this?

Therapists most of the time don't amount for anything. They put a suit and a tie, they are well-instructed how to fake confidence and never betray lack of understanding. Most of them are as cold as a brick wall and I am not at all surprised the therapist wasn't of any help.

Toxic work places will always exist. Competitive "alpha" pricks who tell you that you must always work harder won't disappear from the gene pool anytime soon. We must learn to cope, or at best, avoid them. Failing that, we need a supportive partner and a family.

If we don't even have that, then yes, people are committing suicides.
5 Public Speaking Opportunities to Make Your Company
My situation is the exact opposite. I almost never get robocalls but email spam is getting worse every month!
Hey, apologies for randomly hijacking a comment for this question, but over the past years you've been popping up all over HN's comment section with (it seems) a rather eclectic and broad mix of experience, knowledge, and (possibly) talent. I'm almost starting to suspect you're multiple persons (but not really).

Have you ever written about how this came to be? I find myself to be similarly broad in interest/experience, but I'd judge myself much more superficial/limited in this regard because of the breadth of it all. I'm curious how you manage it all.
I hear you. The general reaction of the class was, "Thank you for nothing."

The real world is different.
Hanging bars seem to solve this problem. Makes a loud terrifying noise when you hit them, but doesn't leave any permanent damage.
Bookmark managers should happen in the browser, not in the command line.

I recommend Shaarli: http://sebsauvage.net/wiki/doku.php?id=php:shaarli
>> I've been contemplating tackling Python, in spite of the 2.x/3.x thing. (...)

> Thankfully, that's mostly gone now. Few enterprises still holding out, but most of the big libraries are 2/3 or 3 only.

Oh okay. I think I got got mildly tangled by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13019819 a little while back.

> Awk is different, but great.

> I had a boss at a previous job who'd used it for at least a decade for everything, so I had to learn the nitty-gritty.

> I ended up building a CGI application that basically ran the entire website in Awk. Big learning experience, but rather cool.

Oh nice. That's kind of awesome.

(I was referring to gawk when I mentioned the 632K thing.)

> But, at least Lua is an amazing language too, if a bit odd at times.

I seriously don't understand why they won't allow ++ and -- and similar conveniences we've grown to almost expect from other languages...

(info about (Scheme))

This syntax looks fairly familiar (Lisp syntax is after all incredibly reductionist) and I remember ! from Ruby.

> After working a little while with it, those parenthesis won't be as scary, and you probably won't even notice them.

Haha, I remember someone telling me that about {} in C-like languages (PHP) a decade ago. I still notice them... but I know where to use them and what they're for now.

I don't think my brain will sprout a number-of-closing-parens-needed checker anytime soon; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subitizing is generally established to be mentally impossible for >4 items, so... (putting (everything) in parens) is fun, but s)t))ac))))ki))n)g) the closing ones onto single lines is... well all my brain's coming up with is a slightly incredulous blank stare.

--

By the way: I'm not quite sure how relevant this is to wherever you are (which I haven't been able to concretely ascertain), but I'm in Sydney. Curious to learn how far away I am from you, perhaps via email.

(I may have poked through some of your tales... and now I have to deal with a brain that's scrambling around trying to find a signup button so I can trail along with you sometime. =P)

PS. Just hit HN's post ratelimit for the first time, which was why this took a while to appear. Sorry!
For traffic violations where a law enforcement officer initiates a traffic stop, it's clear that the officer witnessed the violation and when issuing a citation, list details such as the make and model of the vehicle, the identity of the driver, the location of the offense and what what the offense was.

If the case is taken to court, the officer will testify that he observed the vehicle committing a traffic violation (the vehicle appeared to be exceeding the speed limit), the supporting evidence of his assertion (e.g., RADAR tracking history), the fact that he initiated a traffic stop, then identified the driver, etc.

He cannot testify, under oath, that he did these things based on video or pictures that someone else took. The person that did take the video can testify to that effect though.
Here's a $500k-$1mil government contract for custom ColdFusion programming:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=65b571a...

Get your bid in!
Drivers don't obey those limits to the letter, but they certainly do recognize them in so far as that they go considerably slower than the speed they would drive if the limit wasn't there.
> You literally just take the cap off, whack it to your (or their) thigh, and count to 5.

In at least one study[1], admittedly funded by Sanofi, ~1/3 of people stuck the wrong end into their thing and ~1/2 didn't keep it in long enough. Just to emphasize on the second item, you said "count to 5" when the EpiPen instructions say 10 seconds. Only 35% of people completed all the steps correctly.

[1] http://www.jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-2198(13)00125-6...
In your example I wouldn't go so far as to say you would be evil, perhaps just morally bankrupt or at the very least lacking in empathy.

You have someone like Jonas Salk who basically fit your example perfectly, except he decided to share his invention with the world instead of hiding it away as per your example.

You're free to not share your cure with the world, no one could force you, but I would question the motivations of someone who chose not to.
I did the same with a MSI Wind U100 - absolutely fantastic machine, worked pretty much seamlessly on the distro I got.
TL;DR: an amateur composer who never learned to write down his music is developing Alzheimer's, and slowly forgetting how to play the songs he wrote. His daughter recruits her friend, a musician who can learn by ear, to record him playing the fragments he still has left and to work with him to fill in the gaps. In the end, she produces a CD of his work and plays his songs at a concert, so that the songs he wrote will live on even as they disappear from his head.
The 'reporter' "was a principal research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab until 1999. For 25 years he worked in areas of plasma physics and neutron production related to fusion energy research and development. He holds a PhD in astrophysical sciences from Princeton University."

Do you think it's perhaps possible that the author knows what he's talking about? If you'd continued reading after that second sentence you might have come across:

> In fact, these neutron streams lead directly to four regrettable problems with nuclear energy: radiation damage to structures; radioactive waste; the need for biological shielding; and the potential for the production of weapons-grade plutonium 239—thus adding to the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, not lessening it, as fusion proponents would have it.
Has anyone ever been part of any kind of migration from Cobol to anything else ?
What happens to underlying hardware - is it even possible to migrate from mainframe to the cloud without a complete reengineering ?
Why are there two incompatible ways of specifying a serial port baud rate?
don't sell an app - sell a solution to a major problem. It's all about positioning.
Trump’s Tax Plan: Low Rate for Corporations, and for Companies Like His
I take issue with the title. Screwing some other corporate conglomerate is not worse than screwing people at risk of their lives.
Correction: large^W giant mail systems, that can observe a significant portion of world's mail, and have a lot of R&D resources, do a very good job at fighting spam (in their own systems).

A DIY home mailserver will still let, like, 5-15% of spam emails slip through.
Know fluently and use almost daily: Ruby, JS/CoffeeScript, Sass, PHP (moving away from this one), Bash, Regex (lol).

Know pretty well, but haven't used in production: Go, C#.

Wish I knew more of: Python, Elixir, C.
Wake me up when we can make women obsolete
How is it efficient for "giving way"? If one entry is highly traficated, entries between the traficated one and the popular exits cannot get in.
Where I live, running red lights, easing through right-on-red turns without stopping or looking, and speeding in school zones are very common. In my view, these are related problems: people develop an entitlement to speed 10-15 mph on the interstate, broaden that to speeding 10-15 mph everywhere, and start disregarding traffic laws more generally.
Of course you can.

https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/drm/admin-guide/tainte...

Edit:

---

Good point about the distinction between adding modules modifying existing source. It is an interesting question, actually and I haven't been able to find an authoritative answer on the subject.

A patch is a description of changes that would be made to a work, if they were made. Does it trigger the licence before it is applied to the source tree? On the other hand to generate a patch you would require the original source (even if you write it by hand you would still have to look at the source to determine line numbers). An you will probably have some bits of the source in your diff, but they are not being used for anything other than position information.
Much of the (valid) criticism in this article relates to the deuterium-tritium fuel cycle. This is the easiest reaction to accomplish on Earth, so most experimental reactors are designed with this fuel in mind, and we're certainly having a hard enough time making even this work.

However, I've always considered D-T fusion an intermediate step on the path to aneutronic fusion, such as Helium-3 or proton-Boron reactions. These avoid most of the radiation issues, as well as the tritium-breeding problem (although Helium-3 sourcing presents its own challenge). Since the fusion products are electrically charged the reactor could possibly also generate electricity directly, without a steam turbine and the associated energy loss. Unfortunately, it requires temperatures that are an order of magnitude higher than D-T (well beyond a billion degrees Kelvin), so we'll need to learn to walk before we can run.
If only you had a London office...
I don't think Python has entered the kind of domains where they tend to keep the same version of the system around for 50 years: military, finance/banking/insurance/accounting, healthcare, etc.

I mean, it is present there, but most of the time it's part of some glue or automation, it's not part of the core systems.

Those are usually Cobol, C/C++, Java and .NET. Or some proprietary language in case they were crazy enough.
Edit: further, the problem with transpiling is that these systems are still under active development. For example, banking systems have to be updated annually for changes in regulations and tax laws. If you translated all you COBOL to Java (which results in truly inscrutable code (cobol has unusual control flow constructs, even besides go to)). Then as an organization you're face with either modifying the Java code (this is very, very, very bad), or regenerating from COBOL periodically, which kind of defeats the purpose.
The issue with rewriting to newer technologies is relearning - the hard way - all the requirements encoded over 40-50 years. Decision-makers are rightly afraid of the $100M mistake. As some posters here said already, organizations have to slowly phase in newer technologies and phase out COBOL ones.

The track record of Big Bang rewrites is not a good one. A few years ago it was either ACM's CACM or IEEE's Computer magazine that profiled several high-profile failures. The financial and time cost overruns were spectacular.

Banking and Insurance are not the only industries using COBOL. If you're in higher ed and your institution uses Banner, you've got COBOL. During every upgrade, our Banner team has to license the latest and greatest COBOL compiler set from (I believe) Micro Focus.

I have to wonder if a split in technology exists between commercial and investment banking.
Great project!

I've been looking for something like this for quite a while. There's compleat [1], but it doesn't seem to allow you to "compile" completions down to bash or zsh - you have to keep compleat (and therefore the whole Haskell stack) on your system.

Of course, none of this would be a problem if there was a standard "--complete <shell>" flag. I ended up doing something a bit like that on a recent project [2] to avoid editing my completion scripts every time I added a new subcommand or flag to a utility.

[1]: https://github.com/mbrubeck/compleat

[2]: https://github.com/woodruffw/kbsecret/blob/master/completion...
Make Money Online with ClickBank Affiliate Marketing – Feet Love Socks
You would probably be better served starting with an ISBN database and just looking for spans that match book titles. Not sure if there's one you can download for free, but I saw one on sale for $675.

NER will give you a lot of entities that you need to resolve against something to check if they're actually books anyway, depending on volume you may not find a free API tier.
So who's going to figure out if this was sponsored by West Virginia Coal Miners Union, Exxon, and Dr. Evil?
Everything you write about a DHT is true, but … that's not what Ward's Wiki is doing.

It sounds like what it's doing is a very, very good fit for what the IWC guys are up to — and it could all be done without JavaScript!

> "Strictly worse" means that it is not better in any way; that the old version is a pareto improvement over the new one.

Viewed in links, lynx or eww, the old version is a Pareto improvement over the new, because the new version is nothing but a blank page, while the old version was full of information.
That's a little bit horrifying.
Absolutely. Net output per $ of opex (+ amortization of capex, decommission costs, etc.) is the only relevant metric. Parasitic power loss is categorically not an issue.

This is a mistake that engineers frequently make when they are too narrowly focused. You see it all the time in rocket engineering. The rocket equation dictates that performance drops off rapidly as the mass of the vehicle becomes heavier, or the efficiency of the engines worsens. So rocket engineers are obsessed with saving weight and increasing engine performance.

However: performance, in absolute terms, doesn't actually matter. What matters is that you get your stuff in orbit, whether that's done efficiently or not.

Up to a point, you of course do need to worry about vehicle weight and engine performance -- with too much of the former or too little of the latter, you won't be able to launch any payload. This is analogous to the "break-even point" for fusion power.

Beyond that point, however, there's a tradeoff to make: if you need to launch a larger payload, you can either improve the weight or the engines -- or you can just throw more propellant at the problem.

Many engineers scoff at the latter approach, because it is utterly inelegant (and doesn't require as many engineers to accomplish). But rocket propellant is cheap. Really cheap. A cost-driven analysis that compares improving efficiency vs. throwing more propellant at the problem will often favour the latter.

The reason SpaceX succeeded in reducing launch costs -- where NASA's engineers failed to do so for 50 years -- is because they were willing to do this analysis and go to market with a lower-performance rocket. They preferred to spend an extra $100k on kerosene than an extra $10M milling engine parts out of unobtainium. Having done so, they then iteratively figured out how to make a cheap rocket high-performance -- their rockets are now very high-performance -- which turns out to be much easier than figuring out how to make a high-performance rocket cheap.

Anyhow, this article gives me a strong whiff of that kind of engineer's bias, where the good is the enemy of the perfect.

[Edit: typos.]