skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
As to reasonableness: I spent a couple summers in college working for helicopter sightseeing companies in Alaska. Part of my job was doing flight manifests, assigning passengers to aircraft with an eye towards weight maximums, and we had passengers from all over the world. Not to reinforce stereotypes, but from that experience, these numbers are probably reasonable for their target launch market (Manila), and would probably also be fine for other Asian markets. For US markets, this would be tight, but not that tight if they didn't have much stuff. Your average group of four Americans probably has somebody in it that weighs more than 200lbs, but others who weigh less; still, groups of four Americans traveling together that all weigh more than that were not uncommon, so at these limits passengers would need to be cognizant of their weight and the overall weight max before boarding. If it were me I'd probably market them as 3 passengers max in the US just to be on the safe side.
Producing the work needs to cost money though for it to be viable.
I would love to see this be pitched to an american city.

Response: 25% of americans won’t be able to fit in this...
> The two do not exist in any sort of conflict whatsoever

The "right to be forgotten” debate [1] neatly encapsulates this conflict. Journalists' rights to pry versus citizens' rights to avoid being pried on is another example [2].

This is a balancing act. Excessive privacy restricts what third parties can talk about. Unrestricted speech means anyone can say everything they know (or know to be false) about others' private lives. There are multiple equilibria. But acknowledging the trade-off is a pre-requisite to writing good law.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten

[2] https://www.economist.com/node/18621060
Oh he did this on purpose. He clearly wants the money.
Only problem is the second law of thermodynamics but sure, why not.
I use also easydns and hover and have nothing but good things to say about the support for both of these registrars.
If you could do that so easily, you'd already do it in aluminum plants, which are kinda like bitcoin already -- electricity in, aluminum out. Suffice to say, it doesn't really happen.
I'll add two things that help me. I have this same issue. I feel depressed about the authoritarian nature of the 9-5 society we've set up.

1. Read about FIRE. Live frugally and save 50% or more of what you make. At that rate, you can retire in your thirties. This is especially possible for us tech folks who make abnormally high salaries. A great first resource is Mr. Money Mustache. Read the entire blog from post 1 through to today. Take from him what makes sense for you and leave the rest. It will change your life and your goals. Or at least it did for me.

2. In the interim, be selective about your employers. Maybe you want to do software engineering for a non-profit that you care about? You probably won't make as much, but your day to day life will have more purpose if you know you are doing good in the world. Alternatively, if your goal is to stack up money as quickly as possible so you can retire as soon as possible, go for a more typical corporate job. But still be choosey. If you think advertising is a net negative in the world, don't go work for an advertising company. Find a team of people you enjoy working with so that at the very least, you have people around you who you like.

Overall, I don't think what you're going through is abnormal. We probably all go through something like this along our journey, so don't think it's something wrong with you. Surround yourself with good people. Think about what is most important to you and do that.
He say it takes 2.55 GW now and "potentially 7.67 gigawatts in the future" because "Economic models tell us that Bitcoin's electricity consumption will gravitate toward the latter number"

I'm not sure what 'economic model' makes him able to predict that mining will triple from where it is now.

This would also imply 6.7 Billion dollars per year just to buy the btc that the miners generate and around 6 million mining rigs running at 1300W.
Grumpykins here. I think the term "Modern devops" sort of nails it but not quite how you used it. Most departmental/enterprise sys admins/engineers of lore that had even the slightest necessity for life outside the box scaled anything resembling automation to its breaking points. Combined with knowing and serving the reasons for their existence - developers, users etc., and devops is nothing new - it is now simply the necessary manifestation of progress at scale (albeit positively devoured by managers speaking business, not entirely unlike "agile").

"Use what works" definitely presents a lot more choices these days and likely will forever more.

"Use what works well" is something different where "well" implies helpful, dependable, predictable, manageable and so on that will continue to scale with your needs. Only breaking things down the "old-school" way will lead towards success, stability, security and life outside the box.

Good devops is still, primarily, good engineers engineering good things, for themselves and others.

Granted the article is from 2015 but my impression is author is not just cranky, but scared.
> just simply don't care (Equifax etc).

And, honestly, why should they? Security breaches have yet to hurt an actual company (they hurt users plenty, but not the organization that's actually responsible).
You, yourself, personally, are about .000000013% of the population.

Is it ok for the rest of us to regulate you out of existence? I feel like this is required to ensure our continued wellbeing, given that you spend time spreading utter idiocy.
At human civilization's scale, the energy production/consumption market is not a zero-sum-game. I would be curious to know how much extra energy production the crypto-currency world has caused/incentivized to be established (e.g. increased capacity factors of underutilized hydro-power, etc.). It's not as if consumption will grow until there is no energy left for anything else. We will just produce more (which can also be a problem - e.g. CO2 and such).
> Shell is the lowest common denominator. Expecting everything to at all times be written in and for that lowest common denominator is not reasonable

Is it that hard to learn shell? Why is it so painful? What makes it the "lowest common denominator"? I use it all the time, but I admit at work I am one of the few.

> Expecting everything to at all times be written in and for that lowest common denominator is not reasonable. We're a tool-using species and we refine tools over time to make them better.

This is too vague. What makes a Ruby based build or JS based build a more "refined" tool? It sounds like familiarity is the real issue here.

> If old tools were sufficient, people would use them because learning new ones is hard.

How many people even know Makefiles these days anyway? The "modern" approach seems to be, learn a programming language and then try to do everything inside of it. Some languages are more interested in this cloistered philosophy than others (like JS).

If anything, I think the reason these build tools keep being proliferated is because nobody wants to learn anything more than the bare minimum to "be productive" (which, depending on what you're working on, can be anything from pushing out customer demos for a company that will never sell, to microservices operating at scale). Learning a language and never leaving its paradigms/comforts is easy.
If a mom and pop shop paid someone to follow me around all day and suggest their products/services for every little thing, and constantly remind me that they exist and what they do, and even recruit other mom and pop shops to do the same and share the info about where I was, I would ABSOLUTELY hate them.

I'm not asking independent third parties to do anything. I'm asking companies to let me do what a Free market is supposed to let me do: Let me make my own educated choices about what I purchase/use, untarnished by psychological tricks and manipulation and tracking.
> Every zero-sum adversarial system would be a lot more efficient if they accepted the judgement of a third party instead. How much energy could we save if we dismantled the court system, elections, and pro sports?

None, since players would devote their energy to influencing or becoming the third party instead of playing these games.

DAG coins just distribute the mining work across the entire network including edge nodes. That's not necessarily more efficient but it is more decentralized. Of course it remains to be seen if DAG systems can be robust against attack. I'm familiar with several attacks against DAG-type cryptocurrencies that don't seem to have really good answers.
Cryptocurrency and Blockchain is easily the most misunderstood technology thats existed. I blame ICO youtube videos that propagated the myth that Blockchain is going to cause a revolution.

Blockchain ONLY exists to decentralize and validate.

This is useful for currencies, voting, timestamps, and maybe a few other niches.

Centralized applications are cheaper and faster than blockchain. You wouldnt use blockchain unless you needed the decentralized validation worth paying for.

Users like OP mentioned doesnt understand what the Work is doing. Most people who 'know' crypto, have no idea what blockchain is.

The only people worth listening to are ones that spend crypto and have developed. Everyone else are parroting myth.
jails are actually very mature if you compare them to docker. They have a well working security system and sane networking. (docker just does endless NAT abstraction, which is terrible for certain use cases. Not to mention it breaks a ton of useful networking features)
I've got very high hopes for the associated ODAY coin https://xchain.io/asset/ODAY
How do you know that gold mining uses more energy than bitcoin mining?
cheers. this was the first appealing thing that came to mind. I am constantly stripping off those query string parameters just to share stuff.
Product idea: a dongle with male & female USB connector, that you can place between USB drive and computer, and which catches possible security violations.
But it's also got nice folks! :D
> What happened to telling someone to go to the proper sources?

Good question, why don't you trying actually doing that with references to specific, useful sources if you think that is what is necessary?

> Indeed, due to the settled nature of REST it seems hardly a suitable topic for HN

If you feel it's OT, then flag and move on rather than threadcrapping.

(Also, REST is rather far from settled; a variety of different things called REST are popular, but they aren't the same thing as eachother or over time, and they often are quite distant from the architectural style Fielding described.)
IMO, this is because there's a general attitude about porting to Rust that porting to Rust, by itself, makes a material improvement in the quality of the software (e.g. reliability, performance, readability), and that these improvements that can't be achieved in C/C++. Entrenched C developers then rise to the debate to defend their language.

This debate has happened often enough that any time someone ports something to Rust, even if it's just for fun or for the author to learn more Rust, C/C++ advocates see it as an attack on their language, and bite back.
> "If people were deeply individually concerned about the risks vs. rewards of these technologies, they'd stop using them."

Why do you think that? It clearly doesn't apply to stuff like oil, for instance.

I could give up my phone, but I would be in deep shit if I did it tomorrow. It would take a lot of arrangement to do so and it would piss off my family and lose me work.
Ah, interesting. How much excess energy is actually generated? What happens to this energy generally?

Slightly related to my question:
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/117437/what-...
I can’t tell which group you’re referring to.
40% of gold consumed is in investments, 50% in jewelry, and 10% in industry, so I'm not totally sure how it works out in terms of energy per unit of gold, but it's likely some mining of gold would be necessary even if you stopped using gold for jewelry and investing. But you could get rid of bitcoin (and other crypto currencies) without any real impact.
I read an article a while ago about some scientist who decided that he wanted to go around investigating a certain species of leech that lives inside a hippo's butt, like attached directly to the colon. He suggested that, as big as the hippo is, it probably wasn't really all that aware that the leeches are even in its butt, but that's where the leech likes to be because there's a good source of blood there for the leech to feed on.

Now, the scientist is probably right, the hippo probably goes its whole life not really knowing that it has all these leeches in its butt. It might feel a little pain in the butt, but the hippo probably isn't concerned with why that pain is there, much less how or even if it can get rid of it, it's just something that the hippo has always lived with. The hippo accepts that one of the facts of daily life is that you just need to live with some pain in your butt.

Now, imagine (and believe me, this is a hypothetical), if the hippo let someone root around inside its butt and remove every one of the leeches, and even stop any others from attaching. It might take a day or two to get used to and get back to normal, but the hippo would wake up one day and realize that it no longer has a pain in its butt. It can still do everything it used to do, it can frolic in the water, it can roam around and find the tender little pieces of grass, it can do that thing where it poops and swishes its tail around to spread it all over its neighbors, and it realizes that it can do all of those things it likes without having that pain in its butt.

Now, maybe the leeches could talk. Maybe the leeches talk to the hippos and they say things like, listen, hippo, my life cycle depends on you letting me get into your butt when you're in the water. I need to drink your blood and drop out some eggs, so that other leeches can be born and start the cycle all over again. It's not really a big price you pay, I mean sure, there's a little pain in your butt, but I need you to do this. If you want to get in the water, it's just something you have to deal with. It's the price of admission. If you get in the water without letting me in your butt, it's like you're stealing the water.

I bet that the hippo would hear that, and would still want to continue going about its day without any pain in its butt. I don't think the hippo would feel very sorry for the butt leech. Sure, maybe the butt leech contributes to the aquatic ecosystem, maybe its eggs or the dead leeches get eaten by other things and fertilize the grass that the hippo likes to eat. But, if the leeches weren't there, the grass would just find other nutrients. Even though the leech is trying to argue that it's a necessary part of this ecosystem, it's actually just a pain in the butt. In reality, despite what it tells everyone else, the major beneficiary of anything that the butt leech does is the actual butt leech.

Anyway, I just had a thought that advertisers kind of sound like hippo butt leeches.

--amicusNYCL

https://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8027411&cid=5054...
That doesn’t make any sense. The cost of a particular PoW can vary enormously. Mining a Bitcoin block in Hawaii using a CPU will cost orders of magnitude more than doing it in Iceland with an ASIC, but they are treated identically in the network. It’s proof of work. It just so happens that work costs money.
In Fedora, there is the Fedora Tools container [1], in RHEL, there is the RHEL Tools container. I don't envision either of those going away because they allow you to do all kinds of fancy stuff including things that require kernel compatibility, like SystemTap, core dumps, etc.

I am a product manager for containers/rhel/CoreOS at Red Hat, and I very much foresee a similar container for Red Hat CoreOS which will provide similar functionality for troubleshooting kernel, and user space (aka other containers) problems.

[1]: https://www.projectatomic.io/blog/2015/09/introducing-the-fe...
[2]: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2015/03/11/introducing-th...
These sorts of 'grey market' APIs already have a lot of infrastructure support too. Paid APIs haven't been the push, but people have wanted programmatic access to other peoples' site data for a while now. The real driver has just been "no API", not "pricey API".
This is absolutely false. A fairy tale told by those who want you to buy their crypto currencies. Take Wenatchee, a village in Eastern Washington, USA, for example. Wenatchee has very cheap power because the water dam is very close nearby.

When crypto currency miners poured into the city, the power grid got overloaded and the local authorities had to raise prices drastically. The city finally decided to ban all mining but there are still many rogue miners left, operating from basements around the city. They let the local population foot their costs by mining for cheap and leave when prices need to rise to support the grid.

Mining crypto currencies is morally corrupt and hurts our environment more than anything ever before without generating any value.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/09/bitcoin-m...

https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2018/feb/23/wenatchee-ba...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/11/wenatchee-washington-and-the...
> At the scale of our systems, any grumpy sysadmin would have spent at least several days untangling the dependencies and carefully restarting all servers in the correct order after some manually `sudo apt-get`ing (and probably forgetting a few of the lesser used systems).

if you are operating at suchs a large scale, your sysadmin should be automating things (not necesserly with docker mind you).

This automation has been possible on *nix for the better part of a decade by now.
They'll never die.

Some monkeys will just keep swinging branch to branch. Some monkeys check out the tree.
Screw that. Put together a consumer stalking website, sell the data directly. Advertise, make tons of money, and let the outrage from that bring light to the entire industry.
If people changed to cryptocurrency, it would eliminate the need for governments to move money around.

That might save money in its own merit.
I believe you are talking about Ansible tower, the paid tool from RedHat that gives a centralized server.

Ansible is not centralized. It configures servers with SSH and can operate from any user or host who has ssh access.
I understand that the exams are very rigorous, but that doesn't in and of itself prove any particular thing. Somewhere some other guy's brother is studying for a master acupuncturist exam and he probably believes it's just as rigorous.

What I'm asking about is evidence of the usual sort - published results that can be duplicated, and whatnot. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable standard for believing something is real.
The GP does this via a neat hack, but you can also do this in a much more understandable fashion by simply having the body of every Makefile rule start out by shelling out to some script in your favorite language.

I think you're (understandably) misinformed about what Makefiles do because you've run into some bad ones. The thing they're doing is managing a N-level deep dependency tree in a declarative way. So if A->B->C you can run something to generate C, then B can run, and finally A, and this can all be done in parallel for hundreds of files.

On the individual rule level this is really simple, e.g. just turning a .c file into a .o file, then finally some rule that depends on all *.o being generated creates a program out of them.

The language-native ones are usually much worse. They're easier to use at the outset because they don't make you create this dependency graph, but that also means that they can't run in parallel on your N cores, and they usually suck at incrementally updating the build.
"I'd also like to push back on the idea that perf comparisons are meaningless if one implementation has degenerate cases."

That's not what I said. I said, you can't use "X times faster" comparisons if the O() of the two algorithms in question are not more-or-less the same. That does not prevent you from still characterizing performance differences. You just can't do it via "X times faster" statements, because those are only well-defined for things separated by linear factors, and practically defined for things separated by practically linear factors. f(x) = x^2 is not "2 times bigger" than g(x) = x, or any number of "times bigger", whereas h(x) = 3x + 5 can be reasonably said to be "3 times bigger" than i(x) = x + 50, even though it is not the case that h(x) = 3i(x).
I’m going to teach my children how to navigate the world of insane Harry-Potter-esque rules which all IaaS/PaaS platforms enforce upon you. They will become software language lawyers and be masters of the electric Disney dollar.

You know like “ahh don’t call the messaging endpoint more than 800 mega-milli-times per mega-nano-second or it will cost you three bazillion CPU credits, but only on three and a half cores which will starve all your instances, issue an invoice and proceed to melt your credit card.”
> WASM is a compilation target.

Like the VM in the Flash runtime that runs ActionScript bytecode. Part of the GP's point still stands regarding MagicBlob™s. That said, it does differ (massively) in that it doesn't cast the spell of being a closed proprietary format: primarily driven by motivations of it's owner rather than the benefit of it's community.
This is wishful thinking. How confident are you that you'll spot a well planted backdoor? Hint: the more capable you are, the less confident you should be.
Christ, we didn't even need to invent AI before we started getting paperclipped to death. All it took was direct monetary motivation.
> This is unfortunate. As more and more big tech companies do this, the tech industry is turning more and more into the bad guy, and something I didn't want to be involved in.

This is true of most established industries like Pharmaceuticals, Chemical, Nuclear, Mining, and Automotive.
I don’t think anyone is presenting it as a zero sum game. The concern is increased pollution. In a way it would be much better if it were a zero sum game, as that would mean that bitcoin doesn’t increase pollution levels.
> In San Diego, a senior sw guy can expect to pull $120-160k(there are outliers... I have a friend making $240k, but it's unsustainable) as an employee with benefits.

The benefits, if they are competitive, will cost the company ~20-25k. The employer's portion of social security taxes and medicare is another 10k. Add vacation and holidays (~25 days a year, out of 260 work days), so you have to multiply everything by 1.106. That employee sick for a few days? Had a kid? Grandpa died, and they are taking unpaid time off for bereavement?

After all that math, the 120k/year employee will end up costing the company ~$80/hour to employ... But only $60 of that goes to their salary.

And, of course, he needs a manager. And a desk. And bathroom facilities. And HR. All of these costs keep running up, both for the employee, and the contractor. At the end of the day, if overhead is another $20/hour, said employee will cost you $100/hour.

Or you can pay a contractor $120/hour in cash, $20 in your own overhead, and the end cost is $140/hour. You're paying 40% more for someone who is probably an expert in whatever you want them to do, that you can fire anytime there's a lack of work. (Yes, you can fire FTEs at any time, but that scares the rest of the company - not extending a contract doesn't.)
We have satellites to monitor those people.
I would imagine the airplane mode deactivates GPS signal recipience?
5 years ago I'd be like: Noooooo

Today: My body is ready