skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Don't let survivorship and confirmation bias cloud your judgment.

What sets many successful people apart is not any one thing, but that they were successful. Many are willing to dive into other people's code in methods that are far deeper than I can comprehend, and yet they have failed at whatever task they were going about.

So, yes. By and large, you shouldn't stop at your dependency boundaries. However, your job is to get results. For most of us, even if the dependency is bad, you are better off changing your code. Why? Because you can more quickly get a change in your codebase than you can in the dependency. And heaven help you if you think it is worth forking.

This is not to say don't update the base place. By all means, please do. But don't wait for that change to land before you do something on your end, too. Even if that means not using your actual fix.
Of course you can expand this to be unreasonable - you could also make a strawman argument about how you need to understand all the compilers, OS APIs, and chip architectures that support your product. Obviously, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm making a few assumptions: the code you're depending on was written by people like you (e.g. other open source volunteers with expertise in the same language as you); the limitation you're encountering is problematic for your users, product, or business; and that you'd rather have it work correctly than design around it (e.g. remove the affected feature). If those are all true, yeah, it's probably worth a week or two to figure out what's wrong and fix it (especially since you'll gain comfort, familiarity, and efficiency in that codebase over time - it might even inspire other enhancements).

I realize that nobody has infinite time and I trust you to make reasonable decisions about what to spend where. Still, I implore you to not let yourselves be afraid of Other People's Code. It's probably not as scary as you think it is; after all, it was written by other people like you.
There is and there has been!

Simply cycling it back in is certainly doable, and arguably already done (or approximated) - I'd argue it's more the local infrastructure deterioration/modeling that isn't (fully) simulated in EvE, for NPC infastructure. A couple of gamedev terms:

- Cash faucets - sources of currency generation / magically introduced into the economy, functionally equivalent to the bank printing currency in the real world.

- Cash sinks - places where currency is magically destroyed / taken out of the economy, functionally equivalent to the bank destroying old currency in the real world.

If your cash faucets and sinks exactly balance each other out, you could look at it as the bank simply reinvesting the currency instead of creating and destroying an exactly equal amount - externally, the net effect is identical. Of course, this is rarely the case - both in games and in real life. For the currency to be "healthy" and serve a purpose in a player economy, you want to avoid faucets outnumbering sinks to the point that you have extremely inflation. E.g. in Diablo 2, one would barter in known rare items - gold is effectively worthless, there are few effective sinks to sink it into.

(Games of course usually use an impossible number of magical faucets and sinks - the kind of centrally planned economy that would require a star trek style post-scarcity environment run by complete and utter LARPing fanatics to ever pull off, contrasted to our current real world where you maybe have a single state bank trying to carefully control inflation with a currency printing lever.)

Returning to EvE online: They still have a bunch of magical zero-maintenance infrastructure in "high security" space, but they've also added a lot of player buildable infrastructure that generally needs fueling and defense. If you don't pay for a road's upkeep in real life, it starts to get a few potholes. If you don't pay to maintain and defend your player owned stations in EvE online (be it through your money or your material and your time), someone's going to blow it up or take it from you - for amusement, profit, or both. This is a much stronger deterioration of infrastructure than you generally see in real life. (I forget how much of this player buildable infrastructure predates this article, if any.)
there was a guy once who proved that any system is either capable of paradox or reliant on external support. look up Kurt Godel.
Thanks for the reply.

I guess programmer's mind are wired different :)

I getby copy/pasting JS snippets or fork fully made apps or follow tutorials etc to make my stuff move, behave & work. Good enough for prototypes and explaining my designs interactively.

But React feels like Level:10. I do get the "concept" of React (tell the overall endstate, the code redraws the page to that, instead of focussed DOM targeting). It feels like something which can be one only after MASTERING JS.

I started learning Vue - it felt more natural & simple. Like Python. Conceptually add a <CDN script> & go. It does all the magic and works right away (loved typing lazyload to lazyload). No nodeserve npm -v or bower -x, .git, command-line cd mkdir launch serve localhost. It maybe second nature for programmers, but it is daunting.

It is not specific to React, but to toolkits like Polymer as well. It was supposed to be simple webcomponents:

<googlemaps zip=02891></googlemap>

...but "importmodules", "server start", various little files to make it work & the localhost it needs to run. Uff! too much overload. Just discovered AMP, loving the fact that it has no JS :) :) so it kinda levels the playing field :)
There's some sort of wit in that last comment, but it's late and I didn't get it. Capital flight?
> Why? Because underneath all that rust .... is an optimizing compiler, and it happens the author has decided to stay on the happy path of that. There is also an unhappy path there. Is that happy path wider? Maybe

I think you've got a fair point, that all optimizing compilers and JITs have happy paths and unhappy ones, falling off the happy path for either form will result in slower code. But, the happy path being wider kinda seems like the key thing here?

Additionally, AOT has consistency, in that it doesn't depend on runtime data. This can obviously leave some performance on the table if a JIT ends up optimizing for the data that happens to be used in a given session, but also means performance usually doesn't (accidentally) depend on global state.

> Instead, i have watched plenty of patches to LLVM go by to try to improve it's heuristics (oh god, there's that evil word they used above!) for removing allocations for rust

I recall some that just told LLVM the names of the symbols Rust uses instead of malloc/free, so that it could do its standard escape analysis of completely pointless (that is rarely useful for Rust, IME), but didn't actually touch the rest of LLVM.

In any case, rustc (and the current understanding of Rust as a language) doesn't insert allocations itself, because there's no reason to, unlike JS, where the allocations are essentially semantically required. That is to say, Javascript's language model is so flexible that many things have to allocate by default (as it's the only way to get the required shared-mutation behaviour), where as in Rust, heap allocation is implemented as a standard library construct (it's not necessary for the language: e.g. libcore is a bare-metal subset of the standard library that works with no dependencies) and people won't manually put things on the heap unless they have to.

> Maybe it would also surprise the author to learn that their are JITs that beat the pants off LLVM AOT for dynamic languages like javascript (they just don't happen to be integrated into web browsers).

Are you saying that a JIT for JS beats LLVM for... JS? I don't think that's particularly surprising (and probably especially not for someone who seems to have a lot of history with writing JS engines/Spidermonkey, like the author), given things like webkit's experience: https://webkit.org/blog/5852/introducing-the-b3-jit-compiler... .
If a home warranty (appliances, plumbing, electrical, etc.) was thrown in, test everything right away (including A/C in winter and heat in summer).

Also (perhaps USA only): go to City Hall and pull all building permits and plans for the property. If there was work done without appropriate permits, the seller or warrantor should make you whole on that.

Also, if you find a strongbox hidden under the floorboards of the den, that's mine -- I forgot it.
>Do you think stories about the thousands of judgements against him should have been delisted from the public prior to the election?

Shotgun reaction (knee-jerk, better phrase probably): no but Trump is such an exigent outlier here because of his immense footprint in various financial endeavors. Apply the same scrutiny to every citizen who steps up even to serve on city council, taken to it's extreme conclusion and you have John Q. Public getting grilled over his financials because someone found out he accidentally bounced a rent check in 2001 when he was in college.

But that's also why I made the qualifier of someone with a fiduciary responsibility to certain public trusts. Trump clearly fits this as someone with vetted interests in a very large (private) corporation and other business interests.

Don't get me wrong here: I definitely agree and value a thorough review of a candidate's worthiness for office, I'm still incredulous about the path we have to go down when we start looking at an individual's finances as an indicator of public service to the extent of running for office.

Said a better way: I'm looking at the extremely long view of this and having reservations about our ability to remain objective on the matter. So if we scale back from the extreme conclusion of Mr. Public and his bounced rent check from 2001, what does the middle ground look like and what is the framework for how the logic ladder works over asking candidates running for public office to disclose their financial 'worthiness' (read: I'm using this separately from the obvious disclosures that one may already be morally obliged to turn over such as relations one's business may have to government entities they would invariably preside over) and you may end up convincing me to change my mind.
I also read through the thing, and it was all empty buzzwords and white noise to me.

Was hoping to at last have someone describe an actual use case for the blockchain, but nope, another blank.
I honestly think you're overplaying it, instead. Whatever the scale of the changes, they will happen during decades, not years. "Economy cease to exist": what does it even mean? There was an economy during WWII, there was an economy during the worst of the middle ages...
For me, it was reading Calculated Risk.
I was hoping this was an analysis on how much time and money is spent while waiting for n number of lines of code to compile by various compilers. I find waiting for things to build, deploy, install dependencies, etc as the most mind numbing aspects of the field. I can hardly stand it.
Reactor Simulation Software
We are one of the best reactor simulation software provider in united state. Our mission is to serve clients worldwide with the fastest, assured and most comprehensive
reactor services and solutions in industry; to minimize risk and cost of process development; and to provide help in head start and confident decision on new reactor/ technology or change/ revamp of existing one.
http://www.difrex.com/
>…few decades old has in no way been proven to be 'better'.

As long as someone can leverage such information for any sort of 'gains', the incentives to store/collect information with these capabilities will persist and grow (esp as it becomes cheaper to do so).

It will be interesting to see in the future what kind of databases pop up that with information on those who seek to scrub themselves from sites. I know the project I was working had companies wanting to pay us to remove information we mined/crowd-sourced about people (which we declined on principle that we found that it was increasingly valuable to people to be able to leverage this information on whatever contextual basis they chose to view it through).

The Google's and Facebook's have had to comply since they ultimately take money from advertisers based in the EU (i.e. have assets with exposure to EU political risks that may entail when banking/employing workers in the EU when engaging with these sorts of actvities), future organizations/platforms (from relatively centralized to decentralized) that monetize their traffic/platforms by mining crypto on their users platform won't have to though.
> The password donaldtrump is almost 5 times more popular than barrackobama.

This is a little late, but...

Right, but "donaldtrump" is only seen 40% as often as "barackobama". "donnaldtrump" is apparently perfectly safe though.
> If you have a sequence of programs with polynomial runtime, but which grows as N, N^2, N^3, N^4, ..., that's a textbook example of exponential growth

No, it isn't. N, N^2, N^3, N^4, ... is polynomial, not exponential. Exponential would be X^N. Look at the graph on the Wikipedia page I linked to.
Memristors are a pretty niche topic. Until somebody made some, they were an obscure topic in circuit theory. Even now that they exist, they've yet to be commercialized. It makes sense for a practicing EE who may not follow the tech press all that closely to not know about them.
Care to place a bet on tether going insolvent within your specified timeframe? Believe theres a few 3rd party betting intermediaries for cryptocurrencies if you or anyone else is keen.

I have no inside info about their finances other than a gut feeling about the campaign against them.

Would love to see some commentators put their money where their mouth is.

Happy to negotiate longer timeframes.
It's rare to see anyone with this training who can install Gentoo.

...the only people I've met with those degrees have been managers who have moved in from other industries rather than moving up.

This is telling.
I'm a big fan of the amendments as well. I think we're all better served when we focus on specific issues that we can discuss together rather than splitting us up into two camps. As long as we look at everything through a partisan lens, we're going to continue to increase the friction preventing us from finding common ground and understanding.
Use a blog-this bookmarklet. It inserts the highlighted text into a fresh post with the page title linked to the page.

I've been blogging for wel over a decade for the audience of 1. He is perfectly in tune with the author and immensely enjoys everything I post. Sometimes the audience grows by 100% for a short while but after clicking around the categories and the insane amount of hierachic tags he never visits more than 5 citations.

It is highly amusing when he suggests to make the website even better. As if that is possible.

When google droped it I explained that I make the website and they may index it or chose not to. Their ideas how to improve the site and their attempt to force me was like they live on a different planet. They use to do organic ranking? I thought it facinating how they thought they could do that without accounting for my interests.

Point being: you want one of these websites just to have people (consumers) hate on it.

Do try to keep the personal notes as if addessing an audience. When you read those 10 years from now you say out loud: woah this guy is clearly a genius. By that time your 20k "bookmarks" (from now on called blog posts) will have a search engine allowing you to swiftly deeplink buddies into your mind so that they can have conversations under it that become similar treasures the decade after that.

No link to my blog here :)
You could be waiting a while. If a government with good control over a sovereign currency doesn't want a housing crash to happen, it can forestall it for a long, long time by keeping interest rates low. People were predicting a housing crash in the US starting in 2003, and people have been predicting one in Australia for a decade.
No, I think you're probably right. Enticing seems well enough aligned. My dictionary doesn't agree but I believe it's used at least colloquially in the way you used it...
Another way to approach this: review other people's code at work (e.g. code in another language or for another product). Even if you don't know the syntax of a language, you can probably follow enough of it to learn something interesting. A commit is going to be a much more easily-digestible unit than a whole codebase, and you can go ask the author to explain anything that you don't understand. Plus, over time you might understand enough to help out on that project, or help integrate it with yours.
Each element of the sequence is a polynomial, but the sequence of polynomials grows exponentially. X^N is exponential in N, polynomial in X. N^X is exponential in X, polynomial in N.
In the post, Magglioca says that the bill of rights was not what people of the time thought a bill of rights looked like. Well I find it is not accurate to say that since many ideas were lifted from the English Bill of Rights 1689. No standing armies in peacetime, freedom of speech of parliament, peasants bearing arms, no cruel unusual punishment, no excessive bails, no taxes without parliament. I hope that I am missing something in translation, because it is unsettling that he would overlook this. The Virginian Bill of Rights mentioned in the story took from this as well. In other words, it set a standard.
When I was a kid my mom told me "always say 'please' and 'thank you'."

So from then on, when I wanted something, I said "please and thank you."

I think this was my first social hack. I just wish it had worked better!
a mail order scam isn't the same as a server hack.
A similar tool already exists for mobile native & JS: https://www.yotako.io/
It does the same without annotating designs, in fact you don't need the intermediate editor with Yotako...
Why does the headline say "the Bill the Rights" instead of "the Bill of Rights"? Is this the glaringly obvious typo it appears to be or am I missing something?

This is the actual headline of the article, not just the HN headline.
It's an interesting argument.

I sure get distressed when otherwise intelligent and educated Americans sincerely tell me: "Sure I believe in free speech, but you can't let that guy say those things!" They'll throw it all away for some insignificant gain.
Using (explicit) state machines in Rails is so easy, thanks to the gem of the same name(1), that we use them very often, with good results. I think that ease of setting them up and integrating them in whatever framework/language you use is a very important factor in their adoption.

1 current version: https://github.com/pluginaweek/state_machine

1a original unmaintained version: https://github.com/pluginaweek/state_machine
Be Wary of Apps That Collect Your Personal Health Data
And by extension, the issue of Civil Forfeiture.
Lets hope peeps are concious not just intelligent.
The confusion here is about math, not syntax.

N^2 is polynomial.

2^N is exponential.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4317414/polynomial-time-...
Patroni
Nah, not at all.

It basically just means that you define states for your program to be in and you define from what state to what other state your program can go to under what conditions.

For example, let's say you have a program that takes user input and once everything is entered correctly, then you move on to the next thing.

That would mean you have a state "user_input" (or whatever you want to call it). Then you'd have a event "User clicks OK-button", with which you'd do a state transition. And then there's two possible state transitions, one which loops back onto user_input, for when the user enters something that's not correct, and one that points to the state of that next thing, with a condition of the user input being correct.

You could also directly specify here what "correct" user input looks like. That's your choice. It's a design tool, use it to whatever depth you need it.

There's a relatively intuitive notation standard, which you'll want to learn, as writing it all down is what gets you to actually think through all the states, events and conditions that there are.

Implementation-wise, you'll usually have a variable that holds your state and then methods to do state transitions. You can also implement a check into those methods to ensure you're in a state that's allowed to transition to the state that this method transitions to.
> Correct, that is exactly what I am saying. If you pick a random point in time, you expect 20 minutes between the previous block and the next block on average.

I thought this sounded funny, and I did a little simulation to see if it was correct. Given his assumptions (poisson with lambda 10), you do not get that answer. I got right around 10, which is what I would expect.

https://gist.github.com/tvladeck/e7a164dfe70fa765b10c1af64b3...
> You do know there are a lot of "accomplished" people according to their own CV who can't actually code their way out of a paper bag, right?

Are you saying, the recruiters are just treating everyone (accomplished/non-accomplished who happened to have a great CV) the same? I think your point just supports the view instead of refuting it.
And Tezos.
Nah, not at all.

It basically just means that you define states for your program to be in and you define from what state to what other state your program can go to under what conditions.

For example, let's say you have a program that takes user input and once everything is entered correctly, then you move on to the next thing.

That would mean you have a state "user_input" (or whatever you want to call it). Then you'd have a event "User clicks OK-button", with which you'd do a state transition. And then there's two possible state transitions, one which loops back onto user_input, for when the user enters something that's not correct, and one that points to the state of that next thing, with a condition of the user input being correct.

You could also directly specify here what "correct" user input looks like. That's your choice. It's a design tool, use it to whatever depth you need it.

There's a relatively intuitive notation standard, which you'll want to learn, as writing it all down is what gets you to actually think through all the states, events and conditions that there are.

Implementation-wise, you'll usually have a variable that holds your state and then methods to do state transitions. You can also implement a check into those methods to ensure you're in a state that's allowed to transition to the state that this method transitions to.

And even if you never end up using it, it is a nice mindset to get yourself into.
I wasted a lot of time and money on a series of A7 cameras for machine vision.

Hard crashes common among all models and firmware versions requiring removing the battery. No good for machine control such as aerial photography.

Hope they have fixed it but just a warning - the sensors are simply the best but you pay for it in average quality cameras, the likes of which a nikon or canon would never release.

They even released models with the same known bugs as previous models.
Oh yes, I signed up on day0 and finally scored an invite few weeks back. Coming from Adobe PPro/AE motiongraphics background, it was so exciting to see a timeline based tool.

But I primarily viewed it as micro-interaction & animation tool (like Lottie or Rubberhose) - didnt think of it as a UI interface builder. I didnt know it can do Vue. I'll fire it up again to see how I can use it as a lively UI/Interface Builder.
"Why Developers Should Be Force-Fed State Machines"

https://shopifyengineering.myshopify.com/blogs/engineering/1...

I always thought all computer science students had to take a compilers course, or some course on theory of computation that required some level of competency in lexing/scanning/tokenizing and parsing. This blog post appears to be directed at "web application developers" who lack "awareness about state machines".