skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Single-big company control/backing is not sufficient (Dart) nor historically necessary (Python, Perl, Scala, Ruby, PHP, Lua, JS).

I'd agree though that it's a huge marketing win.
Seems the solution is to have mixed use high rises.
Most FPSes do not involve murder. Soldiers kill enemies. No murder occurs. If it were true, then we'd be jailing all of our soldiers.
>MindGeek's (online porn conglomerate) annual revenue was $460 million in 2015.

I'm pretty sure that's literally in the realm of how much Valve makes selling hats and skins for CS:GO [0].

Porn is definitely bigger than Counterstrike. They're doing this for the money.

[0] https://www.hltv.org/blog/11798/how-much-money-valve-is-maki...
You can make C++ types that depend on constant values computed at compile-time, but this isn't the same as dependent types. In a hypothetical dependently-typed C++, I would be able to do this:

template <typename T, int N> struct vec { T data[N]; };
vec<T,n> repeat(int n, T const& x) {...}

Note the run-time value n appearing in the return type of `repeat`. Because of this, repeat (if we could write it) has a dependent product type: the actual return type varies based on an argument's value.
Here's an example of a crash attenuator right near your example: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0928978,5.1609792,3a,60y,305....

Edit:
Also, that gore is freshly painted. Here's the same gore with faded paint. Mind you, it wasn't as bad, but even there you get faded painting: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.0928706,5.1608083,3a,75y,109....
I was disappointed with the author's reason for this fear; his idea is too simplistic and I don't think correct: "In imagining the motivations of this amplified intelligence, we naturally imagine ourselves." -- he's worried that those who think the robots will kill us are simply projecting that that's what they would do if equipped with superior intelligence. But that's just a silly conclusion; fear of the unknown is a far more common and obvious explanation to the frequent reaction to some AI superintelligence.
You completely missed the point. My point isn't that node is better or worse than any of them, my point is that if you're starting from scratch with no back-end knowledge, then the benefit of already knowing the language you're going to use on the back-end is dwarfed so heavily by the other stuff you have to learn that it's inconsequential.
I think Valve is morally in the right with their hands-off approach, but it is politically naive. They need a different brand for this.

Segregating the controversial content away behind an 'edgier' brand with a different client would deflect a lot of criticism, even if it was just a new coat of paint over the Steam client. Valve needs to make the content expectations clear to people who have never used Steam themselves.
on mobile chrome, pull to refresh is already a thing. I turned it off, since i don't want to accidentally refresh a page i didn't intend to, just because i scrolled up too fast.

The refresh button is there for a reason. Web devs need to stop making gestures mean different things in different contexts.
3DFS- Correct electricity in realtime to reduce datacentre use by 20%
That's a bit like saying that C++ isn't multi-platform because Visual Studio is Windows-only.
Crystal Lang core team Q&A online next Tuesday 12-Jun at 2pm UTC
Reservation cancelled.

While the anti-tesla news is bad, tesla needs to be more clear that this really is a failure of autopilot and their model - they can't expect a human to get used to something working perfectly, clearly is hands were close to the wheel in the very recent past (tesla is famous for not reading hands on wheel).

I'm hoping google can deliver something a bit safer.
The worry is that the discussion will create a false sense of future security, undermining current mitigation efforts. Or worse; that hope for future technological options can be politically weaponized to undermine more immediate actions. There are plenty of entrenched interests that have immense short-term incentives to do just that. Climate engineering will eventually help us mitigate some of the consequences. Some form is pretty much assumed as a given necessity even. But there are major mitigation efforts to be undertaken now. The earlier we mitigate the effects, the less extreme the interventions with climate engineering will need to be in the future.

Because no matter how much the price for direct air capture (DAC) falls in the future, it's still going to be massive. The submitted paper estimates a current cost of between $94 and $232 per ton. That's a big drop from a decade ago on a per ton basis, but it's still massive overall. At the low end you're looking at a minimum of ~$1.34 trillion annually if we were able to capture 100% of the 32.5 GtC of emissions accumulated in the atmosphere in 2017 alone. That's also completely ignoring the total ~230 GtC of the same since 1870 as well as emissions absorbed by the land and oceans (which has its own negative effects).

Nobody expects to remove all of it, or even all of what we'll continue to emit via DAC. Just keeping the expected increase to under the 2°C degree upper limit agreed to in the Paris Agreement is going to be challenging in itself even with cheaper, more efficient DAC methods. Actually reversing the temperature changes would be the "dream" for climate engineering. Something like that--which would involve every type of carbon dioxide removal methods along with atmospheric and space-based solar radiation management--would be a herculean project on a scale the human race has never before attempted. It'd make the Apollo program look like a five year old with a lemonade stand. And eventually, we'll have to figure out a way to make real progress on that front.

Basically, the hope that climate engineering will allow us to fix it later--or better yet, the dream that we can reverse it altogether--is both appealing and potentially dangerous. Why sacrifice today when we'll figure it out tomorrow? Just look at US infrastructure spending for an example of that kind of thinking.
Yup. I'm guessing that they got too much false positives with their radar system, a car stopping for no reason on the freeway would be a deal-breaker for customers.
Sure, but they aren't going to overnight take 25% of the pornography business and become the largest porn distributor.
The fallacy in your view is that the earth's climate will always be changing. In fact, before human activity pushed the earth's climate to a warming trend the earth's climate was very clearly starting to tip over into another strong cooling (ice age) trend.

Even if we manage to right the wrong with the current climate situation before the oceans rise 200 feet we will still, over the millennia, face climate trends we would like to correct for. Climate engineering is in our future regardless.
So it sounds like you should be looking for a better career opportunity. In order to make that a natural progression from your current employer I suggest getting to know the product folks, UX people, actual users, or whoever knows, so that you can get a sense of what future or long-term needs are for the system. You aren't after a specific task list but rather a general direction. You can then start looking through the parts of the codebase that are closest to that direction and considering ways of adapting them to the new direction. In the process of doing that you should identify which technical skills/languages/technologies are the best fit and in the highest demand (at other companies) and closest to your current skillset. If it is an open-source piece of tech then engage with the core contributors on that team, subscribe to their mailing lists, and learn from that team rather than your employer. It is better to learn from multiple individuals than from a single mentor.
On the other hand, the Pascal code that can't handle 5GB strings also doesn't have the same pervasive security risk from buggy string manipulation that C code does. Not a bad tradeoff, especially given that you probably want to work on substrings within that 5GB and slicing in C essentially doesn't work because null termination either doesn't exist for your substrings (making them incorrect and potentially unsafe, depending on what you're doing) or the substring null termination breaks your larger string and prevents it from actually behaving like a 5GB string.

Safe string manipulation in C devolves into always passing a char array and a count anyway, which is not coincidentally exactly what Pascal strings look like.
> but apparently it’s enough to establish that he lied to the FBI about his contact

Yes, that's likely the key issue. Once the FBI etc are asking questions, it's already too late. So it's crucial to avoid attention. But that's very hard for leakers like this, where there are few possibilities, and all will likely be questioned.
Is this really required by the definition of dependent types? I definitely agree that this is a difference with Idris (which can parameterize types over not just values but essentially program fragments due to its proof checker and unification semantics), but I was under the impression that this was not required to be considered dependent types.
@jillesvangurp. I am arguing in my post above, that there is a solution.

Solution is in 'fragmentation of power'. Yes it has its costs, but it is just a much better model.

Be it economic fragmentation of power (via de-monopolization), or political (via explicitly enumerating federal powers, and then splitting the rest for states to manage), or moral authority power (by ensuring multi-cultural, multi-view, no-moral-police environment).

Google cannot remain the monopoly it is. And US gov has to accelerate its breakout.
$190k/y cost doesn't mean an engineer earns $190k/year. Not even close. I'd guess that means they're around average $140k/year income - which really isn't that high for engineers, especially since they have a large presence in the Bay Area.

The other expenses break down into mostly marketing ($47M) and "general and administrative" ($59M). The first one makes sense - it's a small budget for a global presence. G&A usually includes office rent, which I'd bet is a huge chunk.

Let's do the math: SF is ~$80/sq.ft. Usually assumed is $175 sq.ft/engineer. That's $16M of those $59M. Then there's utilities, insurance, etc. Let's call it $20M.

Then there's legal expenses - those usually go into G&A. Given that in 2016, Mozilla squeezed $1B of payments out of Verizon ($375M/year until 2019), I'd assume some lawyers made a good chunk of money. Given the huge jump in G&A from 2015, I'm willing to attribute the entire difference ($20M) to legal costs. This was a huge one-time event, it would make sense.

Now we've explained $40M of those $59M. So, at this point, we're debating if the remaining $19M could possibly have been extracted nefariously. Likely, no, because there's more costs. And if you have 1,200 employees, costs add up quickly.

Meanwhile, the only evidence you've brought for your accusation is "because I believe it's true". That's not even close to meaningful. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but the facts we all share say otherwise.
An alternative narrative might mention something about rent seeking.
How to Monetise Your YouTube Channel in Record Time
(1) the TR4 socket is too big for mITX, even the "hold my beer" team over at Asrock only could stuff it into mATX.

(2) TR4 mobile don't have video outputs, so a GPU would only be useful for compute.

If you can't fit a discrete GPU the Hades Canyon NUC is still the best you can do, although AMD is readying their own competitor called "Fenghuang" with a bigger+newer GPU - 28 CU Vega vs the 24 CU Polaris on the Intel (yes, despite Vega branding it's actually based on Polaris).
That segment of the A38 has a 30MPH limit, with the right fork increasing to 50MPH. The dynamics of any crash would be very difficult.
This is one of my favourite articles. It's the first one I link to someone interested in coding or becoming a developer.

Even as a competent programmer, it's worth having a flick through as Paul Ford's presentation of code as a whole is so engaging and informative.
I have no idea what why you are getting downvoted. You speak truth:

>People on the left were screaming that GWB was violating the constitution. People on the right were screaming that Obama was violating the constitution. Globalists et al are screaming that Trump is violating the constitution. But it literally means nothing until the highest court rules on it.

Best to say it was the US highest court that has violated the constitution during all three administrations.
Don't forget that Uber doesn't quote the same price to everyone, they may be targeting that sailor specifically for increased rates based on data mining inferring they have no other options.
There's no clear claim that any such oath -- or other law or guideline -- has been violated.

Consider this statement from Watkins' lawyer:

“It’s always disconcerting when a journalist’s telephone records are obtained by the Justice Department — through a grand jury subpoena or other legal process. Whether it was really necessary here will depend on the nature of the investigation and the scope of any charges.”

It'd look different if MacDougal were confident that the DOJ had violated process or law, including constitutional rights. As it reads, it sounds like he recognizes that right now, there's no apparent violations, and it's plausible that actions like this, disconcerting or not, may well be fully legal and justified.
Just what I was thinking. Like west Texas with wind where electricity prices go negative quite often in the middle of the night.
I REALLY like the .NET ecosystem and have written a ton of C# code in my free time. However, I mostly use TypeScript these days because it's most fresh in my mind(from work), good enough for a lot of stuff, and the obvious choice when doing Electron stuff.

That said, I would love to start using F# for everything even though I have never used it for anything aside from brief experimenting :)
I think it's very interesting how prefab construction seems to pop up from time to time in the media. I grew up in a prefab house, trucked to the property in two halves and bolted together on a poured concrete foundation -- it's incredibly common.

Apartment blocks however, they seem to be locked in a perpetual demonstrator state. One, maybe two prefab buildings will go up, and then no more, eliminating the point of the effort. All kinds of stats will be provided, "built in 30 days", "providing housing for 100 families" and so on. Decades later they'll lay forgotten, or in disrepair, or make for interesting background scenery in dystopian cinema. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakagin_Capsule_Tower

It seems that when populations have to have lots of housing, now and fast, they go more with some kind of semi-prefabbed mobile factory approaches and stamp the buildings out on site. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/wn20...

My guess is that it's a logistics thing. You can more efficiently move 10,000 tons of concrete and rebar to a site packed in sacks and bound in sets, on fewer trucks and in less space, than you can move the same in prefabbed boxes full of mostly empty air. Converting that raw material into the same boxes of air isn't particularly complicated or difficult and can be done at high quality on site anyways, and now you also don't have to pay to have a factory and factory workers.
Yaaay government deciding it's better for my employer to pay a food service provider instead of just paying me directly.
> old enough to remember what has happened to some of Microsoft's other acquisitions†, like Skype

But that was only 7 years ago.
That's what I get for not reading the whole thing
Thankfully the citizens of Hawaii have the state to protect them from all those overpriced rides they would otherwise not be forced to take in a free market. Now that they don't have the choice, I'm sure they will be better off.
Basically AI is a sophisticated ' hotdog not hotdog'.
Unless we stop burning fossil carbon, pulling carbon out of the atmosphere to create fuels that we will then burn makes zero sense, in terms of mitigating climate change; even if we used solar energy to do this, there would be no net decrease in carbon in the atmosphere. This only makes sense if we use a carbonless energy source and “permanently” sequester the carbon somehow.
Hawaii is only 23% white. These things are related.
> Investigators sought Ms. Watkins’s [sic] information as part of an inquiry into whether James A. Wolfe, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s former director of security, disclosed classified secrets to reporters. F.B.I. agents approached Ms. Watkins about a previous three-year romantic relationship she had with Mr. Wolfe, saying they were investigating unauthorized leaks.

Damn, I missed that.

So I wonder if Ms. Watkins can be prosecuted for lying to the FBI. Or is she immune because she's a reporter?
You're right of course, but they're also chock full of consultants doing the same thing.

We joked that the big 4 just had a Markov chain managerial speak program, and all they needed to do was enter the number of pages they produced, and it would spit out pre made reports with the latest buzzwords of the required lengths.
> But maybe there is a third variable or combination of variables that is driving CO2 levels? Is that really so unreasonable.

I see. It's really inconvenient that all this additional CO2 is just megatons of identical molecules and comes without any discernible label that might tell where it came from......

...except that they actually do! Because photosynthesis favors the lighter C12 atom over C13, all plant material (and hence, all animal material, and all fossil fuel) have slightly lower concentration of C13, compared to other non-biological source of carbon (say, volcanic gas). If the increase in atmospheric CO2 is actually due to fossil fuels, we must witness a drop in the ratio of C13. And that's exactly what we see!

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natu...
To push back on a few of these:

Lambdas are best replaced with `def` in Python - you can define a function anywhere and naming it has advantages. It's a tiny bit more verbose, but in any situation the "crippled" lambda isn't enough, it would probably be less clear in a single expression anyway. I get the arguments that it's less expressive this way, but honestly, it's one of those cases where I think it generally increases code quality.

There is absolutely a ternary operator, it just uses a different order and keywords rather than symbols - `x ? y : z` is `y if x else z` - I think this is much better - it reads much more obviously, uses the keywords from the `if` construct it has the same basic functionality as, and isn't symbol-based, which is always a huge pain point for people working out what the ternary operator is for the first time in other languages. I'd argue this is a place where Python is more expressive than other languages.

Self everywhere is debatable - I get why it's a pain point, but it also does decrease magic and I find new programmers actually pick the object system up quicker thanks to it. I think I wouldn't do it if I was designing a language, but it's not the worst thing ever.

The rest have pros/cons but I'm generally more aligned with, but no language is perfect. I think Python is one of the best, particularly as a first language - a lot of the problems people complain about (including your list) stem from familiarity with other languages that do things another way. Python is more opinionated than most languages in terms of having right ways to do things.

It's interesting, because I like languages on both ends of that spectrum - Scala is so not-opinionated there are a lot of ways to do anything, and Elm is so highly opinionated there is almost never another way to do something.

I think in general though, a language should be opinionated, because consistency and readability are generally more important than writing it. I think Python is exceptionally good at that.
Google in its current state. And only because their current iterations of social networks have failed.

Further google does far too much as it is. I don’t want my emails parsed to figure out what ads to present, or my uploaded files.

The addiction mechanisms are a separate class of harm, and I recognize them from when games, far more than social media. They came much later, and were not part of business models back when Facebook etc. were created.

The misuse of personal data to harm people and privacy is a known idea. For example, they were warned about back in the day by people such as Huxley or Orwell.

Either way, this is an odd conversation.

These harms were clear and known.

If you are saying You didn’t see it, then that’s fine many others didn’t see it or believe it.

If you are saying I couldn’t see it, well I have long ago acted on what I saw and believed and oppose Facebook and other similarly privacy invading systems. I’m not happy with the old British surveillance state from the 90s - and I’m neither British nor American.

If you are saying the specific detailed break down of the harm to be caused was not known- sure. I cannot tell you which incident will finally trigger X event but I can predict that you won’t have autonomous cars, (since I see people driving in the wrong lane in the opposite direction of traffic very often where I live)

And a final point - the addiction mechanisms are just being cross pollinated from other systems, just like AB testing and other research helps ensure people stay on web pages.

Your deeper problem is that advertising, once a tool, has now become and end in and of itself.
Of course this is assuming the NYT didn't voluntarily give up the source and then ask the government to send them this letter. Given the NYT's history with whistleblowers, I have trouble seeing how anyone is taking this story at face value.
Is engaging in VR Porn with a virtual character infidelity? How do you explain it to a wife?
Thus the crazy amount of money that is spent on advertising and its silent twin sister, public relations. And bot nets. Don't forget the bot nets clicking on things.
I typically use scripting languages at work and C# for my side projects. I’m of the “reasonable boundaries are a good thing” mindset and find that the structure C# enforces helps me write more readable and extensible code in other languages.
"[The sun] blasts unimaginable quantities of energy into space each instant, and virtually every joule of it is wasted entirely. Incomprehensible riches can be ours if we can but stretch our arms wide enough to dip from this eternal river of wealth."

- Nwabudike Morgan
Or 40000 doing the bare minimum not to get noticed or fired and 9995 playing politics instead of working.
Degrading quality of apple products
wait til there's a game that sympathises with "terrorists".
A strong majority of the population derives direct pleasure from sexual stimulation. And you can physically act on that stimulation, frequently, in all sorts of ways.

A very small minority of the population literally derives pleasure from simulating murder. And you can't act on that / do it in reality to drive the stimulation further, unless of course you want to murder someone and take on the very high risk consequences.

Or put simply, sex is radically more popular than murder.

The difference in popularity between the two is over 10000x.

A sex simulator will typically have a direct, considerable physical consequence to you in real life. Murder simulation very, very rarely will have that - at least until or unless VR gets hyper realistic.
Just anything that is moving your heart a tiny bit. Also old man time will take that all away from you :)
They should be in nightly later in the year, and stable early next year.

We were only recently able to turn those no aliasing optimizations back on, so you were probably using a version of Rust that wasn’t even making use of them.