skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
const myJob = { run: () => fetch(... is too long? Eager is easy to make lazy. While the opposite is also true, it means a superfluous run. It is worse, semantically speaking. I'd argue that eager is more general than lazy.

Also, cancellation is yet another state and it's hard to generalize especially when you don't have threads.

Promises should always be async because you'd want the result to be consistent. If I'm returning a promise and you are depending it to be sync, that means it weakens my flexibility. It makes the code harder to reason about.
While you're not wrong about trends in design / UI design, if you think about it for a moment, your argument is no more than a mere footnote (if any) in Google's reasons for pushing AMP to email.

It's mostly about tracking and a form of "embrace, extend, extinguish". We're at the last end of the second phase now. Make no mistake, Google has followed through on the "extinguish" part enough in the past. See: Google Reader, and what they did to Usenet and the Deja archives.
Most of what you say is true. But the reason they see IT as overhead is because their budget accounts for building the technology and find that supporting it may cost just as much. So they try to get rid of the overhead of Engineering the system to make room for Supporting the system they built. Now, they seem to quickly forget that you still need Engineering to build your next project. And that is why a lot of these companies treat IT Engineering as a disposable asset and then heavily out source the building of these projects to disposable IT Engineering consultants.
XML gets a bad wrap. For a protocol you can easily use over RESTful APIs and define a strong schema around, plus with all of the well-optimized libraries in major programming languages and IDE support, I don't really mind working with it at all.
I would argue that statically typed languages aren't really an ergonomic cost. The amount of testing I have to do to be confident in a dynamically typed language is quite unergonomic. Having to add types is a small cost in comparison to the tests I don't have to write. Additionally, knowing the type allows me to be able to reason better about the code I write; it's more predictable.

Ultimately, I like statically typed languages miles better than dynamically typed ones. They're also more performant and I like that.
Reminds me of this old blog post: http://webchick.net/embrace-the-chaos
Well, it's a big change in a short time from 2.4%. It's more the first derivative[1] that's scary than the actual value.

Of course, the first derivative is only scary if you're expecting it to continue for a while. That's forecasting, or guesswork, or something besides just observing the current rate.

[1] "Derivative" in the calculus sense, not in the financial instrument sense.
> I say the same about largest media company in the world.

Indeed. I was just reading about the local broadcast rules (specifically: Sinclair broadcasting wants to buy Tribune media, and the FCC appears to be saying 'go ahead".) . Some people are concerned that this violates rules against concentration of ownership in broadcast stations.

But doesn't Facebook operate in essentially 100% of US markets? Should we even care who owns the TV broadcasts?
Hey Microsoft, Stop Installing Apps on My PC Without Asking
Goldman makes about half its revenue from market execution, which is basically an entirely engineering driven business. Only about 20% of it's revenue come from the "investment banking" sort of equity and debt underwriting type of activity.
Real happy with the "fold subthread" buttons on HN :)

(if only they would auto-fold after a fixed number of children, like Reddit, I might script that for myself one day)
Another strange historical use of camels was an experiment during the Cariboo gold rush on the west coast of Canada (central British Columbia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariboo_camels
> Unfortunately "oppression" is a big selling popular point these days for ranty-type people across all portions of the "political" spectrum these days.

Right, it wouldn't bother me so much if the academics pushing the "oppression" narrative were a little more honest about how non-robust the evidence is. Instead, it's often just conveyed as fact, which just blows my mind. No wonder there's so much manufactured outrage on college campuses these days.

Like when the Damore memo came out, and academics on both sides lined up to agree and disagree with Damore's points, which often just devolved into attacking straw men. I was thoroughly unimpressed with the quality of the arguments I read and how uncharitable people were with the people disagreeing with them.

Edit: Like, there are literal studies [1] demonstrating how much better a theory things-vs-people are in explaining the STEM gender divide, but the narrative seems immune to facts and better theories.

[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0018...
Quotes from the man's mouth aren't good enough?
Why does a busy software engineer cook dinner for his children on a weekday instead of purchasing affordable ready-to-eat meals the way most sensible parents do?

In my case, it's because it really doesn't take that long to put together a simple meal, and living in a rural area far from good grocery stores & restaurants, I don't have many good eating-out choices anyway.

Maybe it's also because I learned to cook at an early age and I'm trying to encourage my sons' interest in cooking by showing them it's not this complicated, time-consuming task it's often made out to be.

I like good food. I raise chickens, the beef I eat is raised by a relative of a friend, I have a garden in summer, but I'm not a foodie. I like basic, peasant food.

But I think that above all, it's because I really just want a simple, relaxed life. Cooking the meals myself is both a means to that end and a way to keep my family happy and fed.
Running a scalable, reliable GraphQL endpoint with the Serverless Framework
It can use both D-T and pB11. The majority of tests to date have been with D-T. It's best not to confuse the reactor design with the target fuel.
I used to read every column of his, but then Bloomberg started demanding I register...
I have a feeling the author doesn't understand Promises well. In my opinion, they are in fact designed poorly, but I don't see any problems with points the author describes.

He doesn't like that the callback is called immediately - but Promises just represent a result that will be available later and do not guarantee (and should not) when the function will be called. If you want to delay some function call, do it explicitly or use a delay promise.

In my opinion, the main problem with promises is broken error handling. They don't play well with exceptions. For example:

var p = Promise(function (res, rej) {
throw new RuntimeError("System is broken");
});

This code will just ignore the error. While it is expected that the runtime error would float up and terminate the program - that is what runtime errors are made for.

This also makes writing tests more difficult because tests often use exceptions to indicate failure.

I have some ideas how to fix it (neither is perfect), but the comment will become too long.
Huh? Let me get this straight: you expect people to accept patronage. But you then don’t want the patrons to be patronizing? How does that work?

Generally speaking, aren’t poor people poor because either they don’t know how to be not poor or can’t execute being not poor? Yes, sometimes it’s impossible to execute being rich, like if there is a systematic bias against a certain cohort. But cases like that aside, isn’t it pretty obvious that poor people either cannot or do not know how to not be poor?

Your perspective seems to suggest being poor just happens randomly to random people. But that’s not true. Being poor happens to people who fail to get and keep money from other people. Any time someone talks about patronizing poor people it’s like: yeah either we’re not going to talk about them being poor like that’s a bad thing, or we’re going to talk about it like it’s a bad thing and so maybe then we should figure out what they’re doing wrong when there are other people who are not poor.

Pretending like everyone’s economic actions are equal is insensitive to people who get and keep money and patronizing to people who don’t. Not all economic actions are equally good. Setting money on fire is not a good economic action. It is offensive to the person whose labor created that value. Yet I see poor people doing all kinds of offensive economic actions with money given to them by the state. I see people using benefits cards to buy groceries that I would never buy because they are so expensive or unnecessary. If you don’t want to be judged, don’t take money from other people, because that is literally patronage, which is patronizing.
Using AWS Lambda functions for micro jobs
Picking Apart the Crashing iOS String
> However, she is still feeling pushed away.

But why is that? Isn't what is driving these concerns these never-ending "women in STEM" discussions that paint the field in a very negative light?

If I were entering a field an constantly hearing how horrible it is, I would also be concerned.

> distressful and distasteful comments.

Why are comments that talk about distributions of preferences being a probable cause distressing? What is "distasteful" about them?

Why is it distressing/distasteful to say 'hey, the field you have chosen to enter is actually not full of horrible people that will treat you badly because you are a woman'? In fact, it is somewhat friendlier (some studies say a lot friendlier) to women than it is to men? How is that horrible?

To me, the consistent bombardment of claims that the field is horrible would be a much larger deterrent.
I'm with you almost all the way.... however, I think what we should learn here is that every language deserves tools as powerful as paredit--that is, ast-aware editing--not that all languages should convert their ast to s-expressions.

Imagine not being able to save syntactically incorrect code, or being able to have semantic diffs between domain objects (e.g. functions, classes, strings, types, apis) rather than thinking in terms of characters and lines, or being able to query a code base, like "find me all places where I assign to a variable named 'status' with type under 'error' and list me the names of the functions whose frame the variable belongs to". Paredit is simply where text and ast manipulation converge to the closest point.
Neither lazy nor eager is neutral. Sometimes you want one, sometimes you want the other, and you can build either out of the other.

For promise cancellation, this has been talked to death, but in short, making any function preemptable at any point in its execution makes writing correct code much much harder. As an example, I've got an API that takes independently cancellable requests. Multiple requests often need to calculate the same thing, so there's a cache. Any given promise in the system might be downstream of multiple requests. If cancellation is built into promises, how do I express how cancellation should propagate through the tree of promises?

A C#-style cancellation token API, orthogonal to promises, is simple, easy to build, and easy to understand.
Like HomePod, Sonos One Leaves White Rings on Some Furniture
SQL Turing completeness is generally regarded as a (relatively recent) mistake. MapReduce is only regarded as Turing complete as it is typically programmed using Turing complete languages. In both cases, the validity of many optimisations would be destroyed by any non-terminating behaviour. You could have a situation where a query's termination depends on the optimisations used. IMHO, this is highly undesirable.

Perhaps a better example is the humble Regex. If we have a true regular language, we can optimise it via a DFA to have O(N) runtime. The weak computational model is enabling this optimisation.
Visual Studio for Mac as the Default Editor for Unity
How Stack Overflow interviews engineers (2015)
I completely disagree for reasons I already said above. Meritocracy is the basis of life. Including evolution. Men are better at some things and women are better at some things. And you know what? That's fine by me.

Eg. Imagine if I was at the top of a burning building and my family needed rescued. I would want 5 men to try to save us, not 5 women. Does that make be sexist or normal minded?

EDIT: and off course vice versa for tasks that women are best suited.
I need crack. Please send the requisite funds post-haste.
Actually, cancellations can be useful to prevent wasting resources on useless computations. Imagine, if you have 2 threads doing some computations that will be later merged. If one thread fails, it makes no sense to continue executing other thread. That is where cancellation can help - but it should be thoroughly designed, not hacked like they usually do it in Node.JS.
Now on iOS: one-tap access to real-time commute info and places around you
He's using "product" to contrast derivatives and more exotic exchange traded instruments (that are often developed like products, i.e. with marketing and salespeople) with more traditional instruments like stocks and bonds.

The broader point he's making is that people bought complicated, high-risk instruments that they may not have understood (or at least treated as something other than what they were, in this cases, vehicles to bet against macro volatility) and lost money on them, and then blamed the losses on something other than the actual downside of that risk.
How is this different from http://grapesjs.com/
It makes no sense. That's why I suggest you look for advice from seasoned guys. The average guy is very emotional to trade regardless of their technical and financial background.

There is zero reasons to lose money or carry on running a losing strategy. If you are trading professionally and quantitatively, you are runnings lots of positions. Unless you have a technical issue, you should not worry about losses on one or a few positions since you only care about what your average is doing.

That assuming your models work but you should not start trading with real money before you are certain of that.
That was fiction, though. It wasn't actual science.
I work currently at one of the larger banks, and they actually like to describe themselves as "a tech company who happens to focus on financial things". It's as true as you are willing to believe it, but modern global money movement is really just tech these days, and has been so well before distributed ledger tech came along.

Now, whether any of the banks are any good as tech companies is a different question.

(some grammar fixed)
Oh, but surely the market will sort it out, right? Who needs those pesky regulations?
article says "Chips developed for computers and phones were designed to operate at peak performance for an average of two to four years of normal use. After that, functionality began to degrade"
Just that pay is high for basically a sr engineer at the right location (close to the money).

The fact that bonus is 50+% of base is normal for those roles, more normal than faang comp. Compensation is just structured differently, so it isn't useful to use it as a measure of seniority between the two industries.
You know who else would be surprised, is 1998 Larry Page & 1998 Sergey Brin. Especially the part about hearing their company called an "advertising company," much less the largest one.
I don't know much about MongoDB. I am mostly a client-side developer after all.

But every time I see a team transitioning from Mongo to something else, they transition to a relational database. May be their problem is not with MongoDB, but that their data is relational after all?

Personally, I'd take a relational db over NoSQL for most of my needs, but all these stories don't really say anything about how Mongo compares to other NoSQL databases.
I know you can use cl.exe directly, but it is not the same. For example, you can't even suppress its output completely. https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/9eabe...
There seems to be two points in this comment, one talking about the development of PostgreSQL and the other talking about the usability of it.

PostgreSQL remains one of the most mysteriously difficult common DBMSs to setup which is unfortunate, but since the advent of MongoDB they've adopted all the ease of use features that are warranted from it. Developing a quick-and-dirty product prototype on postgres is a breeze and bootstraping constraints and data-integrity to it afterwards is trivial. I am really not seeing any reason to start a new app on MongoDB exclusively at this point, start off in a strong DBMS like postgres and if you end up needing MongoDB-style document storage you can always branch to it later, but using it initially is a case of premature optimization, there is no need for it.
I'd say that giving money to people is good if it makes them happy at the time. If it improves outcomes even after it's taken away then that's even better, but it's not necessary for the success of the program.
Ask HN: Is extroversion a biological hedge against self sufficiency?
Goodbye Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citi, and the rest of the credit cartel! You will never be missed.

Hello Wealthfront, Robinhood, Simple, and the rest of the movers and shakers!
Yep this is me. I would require some pretty amazing reasons to even consider using Mongo again. Especially now all other relational databases i trust support json column types.
Seems kind of intuitive that this type of program works well in countries with weaker social safety nets than countries with stronger ones. The risk-reward calculus is just very different. Not to mention that the $ amounts don't seem to have been adequately scaled to match cost of goods.
> People know what they need.

There is another way to view this. We might think of these programs as encouraging people to do things that society needs, instead of what they need. Then the payment is there to offset the personal cost.

Note. I've thought about this for all of 10 seconds. I might be 'way off.
You said you have been test trading. What does that mean? Where are you testing? Which platform are you using?
Boston Dynamics robots can now hold the door for its friends
Imaging at 1,000fps with a single pixel
No, you won't get the result immediately anyway because then() callbacks are called only on next event loop iteration. This protects from overflowing the stack, but might have small impact on performance.
I think the insulting part is the subtle insinuation that the money is more likely to be used to buy drugs/alcohol than for the purpose of feeding the recipient or otherwise helping them out of poverty.

Even if 50% of recipients go buy drugs with the money, does it really matter? It probably costs more to enforce these conditions than the percent of funding that would go to drugs. It also creates bureaucratic overhead at the point of distribution.

Further, it’s unlikely enforcing criteria even filters out more drug users than non-restricted payouts do. These criteria are unlikey to be mutually exclusive with drug use. Someone can take drugs and also check all the boxes to meet the “criteria.” Given this consideration, it is clear that attaching conditions to a payout contributes little to no marginal gain in savings or efficency of individual outcomes.

But as other comments note, the conditions themselves are beneficial to both the recipient and those around them. If one person gets preventive healthcare who would not have otherwise, isn’t that a good outcome? Is it a better outcome than if one drug user does not seek or get access to disbursements?

Perhaps a better solution would create tiered payouts that get higher the more conditions you meet. The lowest payout would have no strings attached, but higher payouts would be available to those who fulfill certain criteria.
Peter Thiel Is Ditching San Francisco for Los Angeles
Well majority of key Postgres contributors work for
2ndQuadrant, EnterpriseDB, Crunchy Data, Citus etc.
It basically means PostgreSQL is a distributed company and it would survive fine but being distributed it looks like it is able to innovate faster and is more resilient.
Responsible Encryption: What It Could Really Mean for Cybersecurity
> then you deny AI the capability to create art.

Yes. That's what is whole thing is about - AI cannot create art because it lacks a human component.

A tighter question would be can animals create art? I don't know the answer to that one.
Haha, i heard lines like that at so many places i interviewed with. 'we're not a finance company, we're a tech company that does finance' etc
Actually, its probably at least double or triple that. The twin Takahasi scopes retail for more than $5000 each. The mount is $3000 to $5000. The SBIG camera is $10000 (can't tell if he has one or two). Throw in a guide scope for $2000, batteries around $1000, software at $500, eyepieces $300 to $600 each, and cables and other accessories of $500 to $1000.

A beginner doesn't need to spend that much but a good 100mm refractor scope, camera, and mount are still going to run you $5000. That'll get you great images of solar system objects and some nearer, bright deep sky objects but not much in faint, deep sky. Also factor the cost of travel to dark sky locations if you don't already live nearby to one. It's a big investment.
Amazon Says Don't Worry About This Raspberry Pi Key Hack-But Is Fixing It Anyway
Being poor is buying a 2 pack of toilet paper for $2 rather than an 8 pack for $4 because even though the 8 pack is a much better deal, the extra $2 will buy the loaf of bread you also need.
I don't know. André Staltz is a great programmer, but I can't help but think what seems "opinionated" to him about promises boils down to the fact that they don't perfectly match certain quasi-ideological preferences he has about async programming, at the expense of all other concerns. As he states at the end, promises still work, you can get things done and everything is fine. But the part about them being opinionated I just can't get behind.

In fact, if promises worked the way he wanted them to, it would hurt the ecosystem in every category he mentions. Lazy promises would cease representing a single value, and be un-cacheable. Promises that didn't flatten inner promises would create endless confusion and ambiguity over "onion-promise" scenarios. Sometimes-synchronous promises would introduce subtle and sometimes catastrophic runtime ambiguities (aka "release zalgo"). Even cancelable promises would raise thorny issues regarding whether promises are intended to be multicast or unicast, which is a problem the current design side-steps entirely.
As someone who grew up poor with parents who worked their asses off and didn't touch drugs or booze - your comment is both in poor taste, and ignorant.

I'd happily give all the crack addicts assistance if it meant no children missed any meals.
A Sentiment Analysis of Trump's Greatest Tweets
Replacing MonoDevelop-Unity With Visual Studio Community in Unity 2018.1+
Cancelling the promise can be useful in fact to prevent doing computations that won't be used anyway. I tried to explain it in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16386454
Right, and my point is 300K all in is not more than senior comp at a FAANG.
Can't you play this definition game with any company though?

I kind of think that if an organization views tech as a competitive advantage and core competency, they are a tech company. E.g. Netflix may be in the business of entertainment, but they are also a tech company. Google may be in the business of selling ads, but they are also a tech company.
Hardly a fair comparison, considering Google's extensive non-advertising product offerings