skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In the early days of linux, contributors were mostly individuals. At that time, that critical group of people- were effectively socially ostracized by Microsoft. Fellow engineers turned against them.

For someone living in that time, I can't imagine it being easy for them to forget.
I do work on instagram and yes engagement has been down. But they just said in the article that they prioritize posts with people you DM, people you comment and people you have been tagged with (ie: your actual real life friends). So this would explain the drop in engagement. Also have to keep in mind the platform has already more than doubled in users since the algo changes, that means people follow more people and this also dilutes your importance in someone's feed if they now follow twice as many people.

I think this means they prioritize people within your close circle above brand that try to engage with thousand of followers.
If anything we want _more_ trust stores rather than less, although I'd certainly take "uses the latest Mozilla NSS trust store" over "I pasted in this list I found on the Internet fifteen years ago and have never updated it" in most applications.

One reason to desire separate trust stores is that your model of trust is almost certainly not "I wish my application trusted exactly the same CAs as [say] the Firefox web browser and I will incorporate all the same special rules and exception as that browser".

Example: Back in 2016 the US government expressed interest in operating its own public CA. This probably won't happen under Trump of course, but in Firefox this would have been no problem if they met its other criteria, it's easily able to accept a new CA and apply constraints to it. So that in Firefox a US Federal Web PKI cert for whitehouse.gov works, but one for gov.uk or google.com does not. But does your application have that logic? Or would it just blindly trust the new CA because Mozilla added it to their trust store?

The other reason is that your application is (especially if you aren't on the ball enough to run your own trust store) probably not able to keep up with the security treadmill, and falling off may be painful.

Example: If your system depended upon SHA-1 certificates to function, but you used the Web PKI CAs from somewhere like Mozilla's NSS store, magically in 2016 no more new certificates were available. No problem for the browser vendors, they had voted for exactly this outcome. Too bad for your application.
> Yet us tech workers are some of the highest paid people in the world

...and inequality is skyrocketing.

> technological progress is advancing at a rate never before seen in human history.

Compared to the growth between 1900 and 1950, we should have teleportation now.

I'm not making a joke: life-changing progress keeps slowing down. E.g. refrigerators, washing machines, cars, airplanes, x-rays VS internet and smartphones.

> I guess the current system isn't so bad.

Compared to what? That's a false dichotomy fallacy.
I think parent was joke.
Gitlab 2017 -> We accidentally deleted production data and might have to restore from backup.

Just curious why no one is mentioning this. Although, i've never used Gitlab myself. It was a fiasco.
> If you want to do fractional reserve in say crypto you need to have a blockchain where the “bank” can print crypto like they do with current currency until then it’s off the books accountign or a ponzy scheme like MtGox.

Okay, I think maybe what we're arguing about is definitions. I'm trying to say, "off the books accounting" is perfectly legitimate fractional reserve. It is not possible to create more on-chain Bitcoin, but something which looks exactly like fractional reserve is possible today and would end up creating "off-chain" Bitcoins, increasing the Bitcoin money supply without increasing the number of on-chain Bitcoin beyond 21 million.

Maybe you don't think that such a system should be called Fractional Reserve, I guess that's where we disagree.

> you can’t loan more bitcoins than you have

Fractional reserve isn't about loaning more than you have. In fact, kind of the the entire point is that you must loan less than you have: you loan out at most some fraction of your deposits and reserve the rest.
I believe numberphile (a youtube channel) made a video about this some time ago. Look that up if you prefer watching a video to reading wikipedia articles.
Is that really the case, obtaining to own code? Depending on the Terms of Use, did GitHub receive a special, separate license that allows them to make use of code under separate permissions of what's otherwise libre-freely licensed or proprietary/closed/private? If so, wouldn't the acquisition allow to exit existing contracts? Sure, the metadata is exclusively on GitHub and moving will result in a loss of stars, followers, contacts, etc.
Yeah -- that is a bummer. It may have been acceptable if the OS were free, but not when you paid the full price for the license.
You can just call it "hyperbole."

It's a cheap trick which is why it belongs in dramatic literature, not in a discussion based on reason and facts.

Another cheap trick is making an alternate throw-away account rather than having a history of comments that people can refer to, to see if you have contributed positively in the past, or if you're just an obnoxious troll.
What's the economic incentive to build, enforce and pay for the emissions trading setup?

Realistically if it works it will be at a huge cost to the oil-exporting countries of the world, so they're going to delay it as much as possible.
I didn't know before today that Monsanto was owned by Bayer. But now that I know, I am not surprised.
Your Open Office Is Too Loud–Here’s How to Escape and Work Anywhere
So basically your argument is that corporations should be trusted to self-police, because they know that bad things would happen if they get caught misbehaving? Like, Microsoft would be destroyed if they were found to be sending users' information to their servers and the average user didn't realize it?
I have another one: GitLab is slow, GitHub is fast.
I think the lesson from this article is that overprotection carries its own risks.
For those who haven't tried MS Windows recently, it now comes with tons of ads you have to opt out of. The settings to opt out are scattered around and unclear ("pipe up thoughts", "show suggestions", "show me what's new"):

https://www.howtogeek.com/269331/how-to-disable-all-of-windo...
> Most obviously, users should be able to edit their documents immediately, without even touching the network [...]

> The user should never be faced with a “pick the correct revision” dialog box.

These two goals cannot be reconciled.

If we both synchronize a document with content and then we both go offline and we make conflicting edits then someone will have to resolve the conflict.
Central banking evolved as a series of hotfixes for various macroeconomic edge-cases. Bank runs is one. Wildly varying inflation rates is another.
My mom does this too!
You are right — this MS will instead mine data the hell out of your repositories and spam you (LinkedIn), and that’s only the best scanerio. Of course, they acquire GitHub to upsale Azure and integrate with LinkedIn. They will have a very complete profile of you, as a developer.
Protobufs and similar projects like it (gRPC, Cap'n Proto) seem really interesting, but I haven't come across a time at work yet where it's made sense to the team to adopt it. Maybe that's just my own inexperience, but the serialization scheme is low on the list compared to optimizing DB queries, getting rid of bloat in the app, etc. I've been waiting for an excuse to adopt this stuff at work because it seems really cool!
Ruby's GIL will get in your way when working with real world apps. Also in this recent run gin doubles Sinatra's performance

https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=test&runid=a...
"hard part the policy itself is" which is ultimately the point of a 'central bank' really.
> We've been reading and seeing this shit since Socrates.

No, we haven't. That beautiful self serving quote is from a students dissertation from 1907 - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehaving-childre...

Novel quotes which have a ring of truth don't get to invalidate peoples' opinions.
That won't help with the hosting, the github.com URLs of tons of public projects, the community, followers, etc...
How to be defensive while investing in cryptocurrencies
It ties in nicely with the other open source (compatible) solutions they're trying to make money off of right now. The money is in GitHub Enterprise, and in how they can roll the product's workflow, issue management, and huge developer base seamlessly into their cloud offerings.

They don't lose any customers by open sourcing it. Nobody's going to use GitLab if they can just download GitHub, and companies will still pay for Enterprise because they still need support for their massive investment in GitHub's extended features.
Right click and publish to Azure. For the win!!
I was really hoping GitHub would focus on a IPO vs. acquisition. I honestly think we would be saying the same things about Google/Apple if they had decided to swoop in and make a deal here (so none of what I say is directed specifically at Microsoft).

I think the general consensus is that we want a new, independent org, that genuinely cares about OSS but has the mind to create/maintain a sustainable business model and ensure the long-term success of an OSS platforms is extremely important (and now we'll look to Gitlab and others for that).

Microsoft will, no doubt, have their fingers all over this platform in short order. It's what they're paying for; and it's an extremely smart move (EXTREMELY). Some of GitHubs product offerings have competitors within the Microsoft ecosystem already, which may spell bad times for those long-term. Atom directly competes with VSCode and it simply doesn't make sense to continue development of two, independent, IDEs. Electron utilizes Chromium under the hood, and I'd be hard pressed to thunk Microsoft wouldn't want to try and inject Edge/Chakra into that platform somehow.

It makes good business sense to consolidate efforts once a company is acquired. I give it, at most, 12-18 months before you start seeing major changes to both of those platforms that reflect Microsofts own interests.
That's really what I meant by efficiency. Ease of use increases that for businesses, that's the only reason they really care about ease of use of products they want to buy.
They should be opt-in, not opt out. And opting-in should come with some benefits. For example, you can get Kindle cheaper if you can live with ads. I can, kind of, understand ads if the OS were free. But someone who bought the OS for full price shouldn't have to deal with them.
Github is very unlikely to be a massive cash cow, unlike those other two. And even if they make it Open Source, who's going to compete with them? If Microsoft revs up the enterprise sales machine, there's only a handful of companies that can compete with them. And none of those will want to build a company on FOSS tech owned by a direct rival.

This is not a case of Red Hat EL vs Oracle Linux. Microsoft has a mean enterprise sales machine and it's huge. All those Microsoft sales folks want to hear from a competitor is "oh, by the way, our enterprise SCM offering is based on a Microsoft solution".
Buying slave labour from the Nazis, massive stake in the company that made Zyklon B, invented heroin, knowingly gave people AIDS with an anti-haemophiliac drug when it was banned in US markets. Quite the rap sheet.
Improve Your Search Autocomplete Timing with Debouncing
> It still seems to me, however, that at the end of the day there's a net settlement process which happens at the central bank

There is a daily settlement process via central bank, but you do not need to settle daily. Imagine only transaction today was me sending 10 bucks to your bank account. Your bank would likely say that hey, pay that 10 bucks (plus interest) some day later when there is a bigger payment coming. And by tomorrow someone from your bank paid to my bank 10 bucks, so then there was no need to do transfers. Banks do run credit lines against each other. Obviously, if I were to send one hundred million bucks, your bank would cough and say that okay, let's see when the money is at our central bank account....

> I don't think this would constitute a run,

If there is a long term systematic and significant outflow of money from a bank, that is definitely a bank run. Banks can't create central bank money, so if my bank needs to send daily money to your bank and is not receiving anything back, it needs to start liquidating some of the assets.

> I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to Google this, would love any pointers you can give.

Unfortunately I have found very little good information on money, these thoughts are just based on lots of thinking on the fascinating thing called money... Most sources belong to two camps:

1. Basic , naive economics that is saying that money is created when I deposit money and then bank lends it to you so that you have the cash in hand and I have the money in the account so the amount of money is doubled in society

2. The ones who think they are smart and say that hey, that naive theory is false. Actually banks just create money with double accounting wizardy and loans. Or something like that.

The first one fails to capture the technical details of money creation and the second ones fails to capture the economics.
The stakes have never been higher for Apple software
See quote on this article:
Instagram’s main goal is to help you see content from your “friends and family,” and with the algorithm they say that people now see 90% of posts from their friends and family, instead of 50% when it was the chronological feed.
https://later.com/blog/instagram-algorithm-update/

That means that if you're not friend or family, you are being seen less.
Is traffic really that deadly? I feel like urban crosswalks are a solved problem, even for young kids.
Profit Sharing for Bootstrapped Companies
This post never actually explains why any of this was needed. The closest it comes is this bit:

"If [...] the same-origin policy for XMLHttpRequests relaxed, said services could now receive a deluge of DELETE, PUT, etc… requests from any origin"

But why on earth is this a problem? And in any case those services always could receive requests from any origin, browsers aren't the only HTTP clients in the world. In the old days you could simply proxy through a server if you needed to get around the same-origin policy, and I'm sure lots of people did.

I'd love if someone could explain why the whole CORS rigmarole was considered ncessary.
Dealing with data as my day job I've become highly sensitive to schema's. And I hate those "schemaless" (aka schema-on-read) serialization formats more and more. No, there is no schemaless, there is a schema, but it is buried in your code in a convoluted way on each line where you read and interpret your deserialised data and all tests and assumptions you have there are a horrible representation of your schema. That is an important dimension to compare serialization on, and JSON is a complete loser in that sense. Not to mention how it flawed its numeric type is.
That view is pure social darwinism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
>>and have it work 100% of the time. These companies have plenty of their own flops. Many things come to mind: google plus, amazons smart phones, MSs acquisition Skype...

when it's your startup it's 100%. But they don't need to score perfectly always. They can raise your costs by 100 fold if they want, and if they fail, so what, they try another thing. Time and time again and still have tens of billions in bank. The startup has 4-5 months of salaries, if lucky.
I don't think their official statements match that? They say their fundraising approach is 2yr runway, which is only 6mo longer than the advice for a regular VC-backed startup, and they've been raising increasing amounts ~annually.

Based on that, having 275+ employees, and their stated IPO targets, I ran the numbers recently. My guess was their costs are ~$40M year (admirable: I expected way higher but they focus on non-US hires and pay only 50% percentile in _local_ markets: super low!). Likewise, their stated IPO and growth targets make me guess they make ~$20M/yr. So two different reasons to believe they're burning... ~$20M/yr. The positive thing for them, which they're not public about but I'd guess, is while they're probably growing OK in regular accounts (hard competition vs bitbucket, github, etc.), they're probably Super Great on retention + internal expansion, so net negative churn, compounding factors, etc. I think they _can_ stop hiring and let revenue catch up, though other forces take hold then: so it does look like they're on the classic growth-over-control VC treadmill (despite saying they're not), and will keep ceding control to VCs.
fingerprint reader doesn't have drivers available, even blobs
I already self-host personal projects but that is only part of the story since I cannot (and should not) dictate what solutions other people use. A pretty significant proportion of open source projects I have contributed to have been Github hosted so even if I don't use it for personal projects I still will need to use it if I want to continue to contribute to those other projects.
Google doesn't care if you click the ads. They have already been paid by the time it's shown.

They're paid to deliver ads to specific user groups, which are paid for in advanced by said companies that are advertised.
Candycrush soda pop saga ?
If you consider fractional reserve banking as fraud (banks should only be allowed to lend out funds that you have lent to the bank for a period of time, not funds that you are merely storing in your checking account; a bank run in this context is when account holders want to withdraw their money and it is not there), the system should be fairly stable without a "lender of last resort".

I don't really see why fractional reserve banking is necessary.
Recently acquired I believe.
That echoes my own upbringing. When I was very young, 4 or 5, my parents tried to get me to learn to swim using traditional methods and utterly failed and left me slightly terrified of water.

The summer when I was 5, my brother (an excellent competitive swimmer in his youth) brought me to a pool and we played a game called "jump and I'll try to catch you" and in the course of a couple hours of him moving to deeper and deeper water and farther away from the edge I basically figured out how to doggy paddle to him. By the end of that summer my brother had me fetching coins from the bottom of a 3 meter pool from a steady tread.

Only then did he start to teach me any formal strokes, but to be honest, because of how he taught me, I think of swimming as a perfectly natural activity like walking, where I decide where to go and at what depth and my body simply figures out how to get there. Specific strokes and techniques don't really play much part.

To this day, I love swimming.
https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/import/github.html
Blockchains and the Opportunity of the Commons
I don't like the idea of this, but even the implementation is bad. If we're going to do DNS over HTTPS, then there should be a standalone application, and the system should be reconfigured to use it, so all running applications on the system use it.

I mean, do we really want all of our desktop applications to have their own built in custom ways of mapping domain names to IP addresses?

[edit] E.g on Linux, it could install an application with a DNS interface listening on localhost port 53, which would then convert the request into a "DNS over HTTPS" request, and resolv.conf would be updated to use that resolver.
You've got a point there. I'm just so sick of all this. The Internet's a great thing, but it just seems to be going downhill with corporate interests.
That is a complaint I have with the first movie, but my main beefs are with movies 2 and 3 making almost no sense whilst having bigger and more expensive set pieces. The first movie's main crime is that it promised so much but never really explored any of the themes, characters or locations that they established.
First sentence... “Germany’s Bayer (BAYGn.DE) will wrap up the $63 billion takeover of Monsanto (MON.N) on Thursday”
A big problem seems to be stability/error reporting and averaging of statistics. I've frequently had the following experience:

- I can't push or something in general goes wrong with one of my repos (but not others).

- Gitlab's status page is green

- Other people are having issues on Twitter and tweeting @gitlabstatus about it but there is not general across-the-board outage

This seems to indicate that Gitlab tolerates (and very often has) a reasonable amount of instability and error rates across its platform, but just takes the average of these as a baseline of performance: i.e. it's a very spikey graph with a reasonably high average line fit.

This tweet supports this impression:

https://twitter.com/gitlabstatus/status/1000001988183158785

"Errors should be down to normal" - the idea that there is an non-zero error rate that is openly described as "normal" is worrying. Not that I'd expect a constant zero error rate, but at least aiming for it should be a consideration.
A more realistic one IMHO: GitLab is slow, GitHub is faster (but really, it's still slow).
> VS.code being based on Electron

(self reply as it is too late to edit)

As pointed out in another location I post: Electron was created at GitHub and they are its primary maintainer which may have had some bearing on the decision, and a wider effect as it could touch many other projects. Though as Electron is open source there is always the fork option if the community doesn't like the direction MS go with it.

Looks like their will be two sets of automatic posts on news of any project that used Electron: those bemoaning its use because it is Electron and those bemoaning its use because MS!
Prague: The Musical City. Charles Bridge – The Blogging Musician
Defining your schema upfront and have types generated in multiple languages is the real value add. The performance is a nice cherry on top.
Okay, but when?

I ask because I've seen this claim made about Austrian economics lots and lots, but haven't seen anything telling a consistent story -- just a lot of "it's coming, keep waiting".

Seriously interested in seeing these claims either supported by a real world narrative.
Interesting! Maybe you live in a country that wasn't occupied by the Germans or otherwise affected much by the war? It's a major item in history lessons here (also Europe).
I distrust Google more with privacy. I distrust Microsoft more with 1) not running newly acquired services into the ground, 2) not integrating it into their ecosystem until it's unusable from the outside, and 3) yes, with free software. This is still the company whose founder, Gates, and its former CEO, Ballmer, wanted to rid the world of free sofware. Yes, there's now a new CEO, but you can't tell me that this culture was at the top of the company for decades and then swapping out one person suddenly switches everything around.
RD 14 | Paris, France | Full Time | ONSITE | €40-60k About RD 14
We are a newly founded company supported by a global corporate leader in transportation networks, our ambition is to become the future of BI for transportation networks, by using AI, Data Science and powerful data visualisations. Our solution is in use in major global cities. We are expanding.

Jobs: - Back End Software Engineer - Lead Data Scientist - Lead Front End Developer

Jobs at: https://angel.co/rd-14/jobs
Regarding JSON, this page says:

> Performance is not good when dataset is huge. Program usually needs to load all data into memory first.

This is just downright false. There are plenty of SAX-style JSON parsers.