skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> those that insist on throwing shade at npm on HN should be corrected.

Preferrably by giving them better ammunition, since I do see NPM as substandard in quite a few ways, which is inexcusable when there do exist examples to learn from (whether it be a positive or negative influence).

First, it helps to clarify whether we are talking about npm the client or NPM the repository and ecosystem. Client issues are generally easily resolved, just use a different client. For npm, this could be yarn. For cpan, this could be cpanm, or cpanplus, etc.

If it's indeed the repository we are talking about, there are some obvious things that could be done to greatly improve it the NPM module ecosystem. For example, how about automating module tests against different versions of Node to determine whether it's in a good running status now for the current and prior interpreter versions, on the platforms it can be run on? [1] How about a prior version, in case you're trying to figure out if the version you're on has a known problem on the platform combo you're running on? [2] Or perhaps you want to know what the documentation and module structure looked like for a module a long time ago, like20 published versions and over a decade ago, because sometimes you run across old code? [3] Or as an author, the ability to upload a version, even for testing, and getting an automated report a couple days later about how well it runs on that entire version/architecture matrix with any problems you might want to look into?

In case you didn't notice the trend, I'm talking about CPAN here, which has been in existence for over two decades, and many of the features I've noted have been around for at least half that time. All in and for a language that most JS devs probably think isn't in use anymore, and on encountering a professional Perl developer would probably think they just encountered a unicorn or dinosaur.

Sure, NPM isn't all that bad compared to some of the examples that were put forth, but the problem is that those examples are a limited subset of what exists. Given the current popularity of JS and the massive corporate interest and sponsership, I frankly find the current situation somewhat disgusting. The only thing keeping JS from having an amazing module ecosystem is ambition. Sure, NPM might be a sound, well maintained project (points I think are debatable), but it could be so much more, and that's what we should be talking about, not almost annual fuckups[4] they seem content with dealing with.

1: http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=DBIx-Class+0.082841

2: http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=DBIx-Class+0.08271

3: https://metacpan.org/pod/release/MSTROUT/DBIx-Class-0.08000/...

4: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=npm&sort=byPopularity&prefix=f...
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but why exactly would it be bad if people moved to places with cheaper cost of living or less tax?
They didnt say to ban quarterly releases, they said to ban quarterly guidance.
> It’s a technology narcissism problem.

BINGO! What a great term. I've never heard it called that before (which now seems hard to believe), but have definitely seen it SO many times before (specifically in massive corporate IT programs - the domain I work in as an enterprise architect). Did you coin this phrase? I'm so using this! Thank you.
If you're using PostgreSQL, I invite you to try PostgREST https://postgrest.org/en/v5.0/intro.html which takes the database-first approach even further, with PostgREST you develop all your business logic in SQL, there's no code generation, no ORM, which no matter how elegant will always impose a performance and abstraction overhead(to do an aggregate you have to read the ORM docs, learn/understand the abstractions, add the code, all of this in addition to what you already know how to do in SQL).

Check the API https://postgrest.org/en/v5.0/api.html for more details on all the features that work out of the box, no ad-hoc code needed.
Ryan Holiday Explains How to Recover When the World Breaks You
You are making an assumption. We have not seen the proposed bill.
You are correct, but... Would an AWS monopoly be any better?
Wouldnt this make very little difference for regular investors because of how fast the market reacts to new information?

Suppose you found out Netflix had a $1 billion cost expense in real-time. The market would react to it faster than you or I could anyway. By the time you knew about it, the stock would have plummeted.
Ah, so when you're using two different languages, you're telling me you never have to Google anything for either language? It's all in your head?
> Battery: 5 days standby; A few hours talk time.
Good work been using it as an alternative to Github and Bitbucket for over 3 years now. We have a small team with more then 52 private repository and works good so far. Besides this we replicate all the upstream opensource repository and keep it synchronized in our own instance. This is done very easily as Kallithea supports both git and mercurial. We do pull request review online and merge it offline and then push the changes to main repository. Our costs is $10/month for hosting with unlimited users, unlimited repository and small update maintenance whenever a new release comes in.
I think gold is flawed in essentially the same way as BTC. Mining BTC is called mining because it's a neat abstraction of the old fashioned process. The reason fiat currency took over historically is because there's a tremendous benefit to eliminating the dead weight of mining if you can evolve a more subtle way of limiting supply.
You would need to increase FP&A HC to cover the workload of explaining numbers throughout the org.

Closing the books at large companies still takes time and manual effort as well.
If you don't give him credit for that, what would you give him credit for? If he stopped Carreyrou, you'd obviously blame him. Therefore in order for your judgement to be meaningful, you have to admit that him allowing Carreyrou to go ahead and topple the house of cards was a good action. Otherwise no matter what he does you judge him negatively - and in that case, your decision is predetermined and not of informational value for anyone.
Do like I did: Flag it, please.
Huwei’s founder was an officer in the People’s Liberation Army and is party member. That alone isn’t exactly “strong ties” but I also agree with the other commenters’s points.
What Happens When a Bad-Tempered, Distractible Doofus Runs an Empire?
Sometimes, I get the feeling that we're all in the story of the "blind ones and the matter of the elephant". Design UI first? Design data model first? Design code first? Write documentation first? Write tests first?

How many things can we actually do "first"? All of them are important. Writing documentation tells you about what you might need implemented. So does designing UI, but that might still leave out what users need. Which means we probably don't know enough about the data model anyway. Or the code.

So ... here is one more blind person's view - iterate as quickly as you can on everything.
Ask HN: Would you trust an algorithm to make travel reservations for you?
Yes. But it's not the only one.

I think the question you were hoping to have answered is, "Why would you pick this over GitLab?". And potentially the discussion you wanted to invoke was, "Is there an advantage to going with a full free software solution as opposed to a product that is primarily proprietary, but has an open core?"

Personally, I think there is, but in the case of GitLab it may not matter. Now that there are some free software heavy hitters (Gnome and Debian) who rely on the open core of GitLab, there is some more assurance that this open core will not become a kind of cripple-ware try-before-you-buy situation. Those groups have enough horse power to maintain the open part of GitLab if they choose to do so.

Having said that, I think there is room for other free software entries in this space and I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays out. In some ways the acquisition of GitHub may be the catalyst necessary to get things started, and I think it's a good thing.
Plaintext accounting systems (albeit not the one posted) have a model of a ledger transaction that is basically a list of "postings". Each posting is something moving from or moving to an account. In any transaction you can have many postings with negative or positive values, but the total negatives and positives has to balance.
Some software restricts you to predefine accounts to be sub accounts of equity, asset or liability but for the most part there are no other restrictions, it's very flexible, you can set up whatever system you want.

E.g. ( from ledger cli documentation )

2004/09/29 Circuit City
Assets:Reimbursements:Company XYZ $100.00
Liabilities:MasterCard $-100.00
Company XYZ:Expenses:Computer:Software $100.00
Company XYZ:Accounts Payable:Your Name $-100.00

What I genuinely don't understand is how is this not equivalent to:

2004/09/29 Circuit City DEBITS CREDITS
Assets:Reimbursements:Company XYZ $100.00
Liabilities:MasterCard $100.00
Company XYZ:Expenses:Computer:Software $100.00
Company XYZ:Accounts Payable:Your Name $100.00

My understanding is that as long as you don't use negative numbers the two forms have the same expressiveness.

Please note that I am only challenging the method of encoding, not the rest of accounting. How you set up and manage a chart of accounts and how you take real world transactions and code them into your system IS very important and I very much acknowledge 1400 years of evolution on that front.

This topic genuinely interests me and I have questions. If you don't mind please drop me an email (it's in my profile) I have a few questions.

p.s. Accounting standards vary. I work with startups in the US (little to no standards).
You're already uploading the big one. If you're going to trust Microsoft with your actual data, who cares about the metadata?
Best selling watch is believable, but who the heck buys and wears a watch for anything besides fashion these days? It's a totally niche market IMO.
Thanks. We don't really have a raccoon-equivalent in Australia. Possums are annoying (noisy, steal fruit, get in the roof, etc) but not dangerous. Dingoes generally don't make it into populated areas and foxes mostly traumatise chickens who typically have well-protected coops.
if it's about developer love, then next acquisition target for Microsoft should be StackOverflow.
People will host their own infrastructure if it's the better cost decision for them. No one is stopping a company or an individual from going the self hosted route.

EDIT: I guess you could advocate against Google, Amazon, Microsoft in general for anti monopoly purposes, but that's not the same as using a cloud provider. Granted, those three are the top three offerings.
NPM is the closest environment to the Unix philosophy apart from Linux. Lots of small packages instead of a large base class library like all the other language ecosystems.

The thing is, even with Linux distros, most of the stuff you want is built-in by the distro. Once you start to add your own stuff, it can get really ugly and you have to be really pro to get anything done. It seems like every time I'm working on updating a Linux image I have to do some really bizarre thing where the package manager doesn't even work right and the instructions or some forum have me doing some mind-blowing workarounds I don't even understand.

So I think you are combining two different topics. I am all-in for libraries over frameworks. But the larger, more heavily curated libraries where you only need minimal customization are just objectively better. Having a large, curated standard library != a framework.
But I don't want to run my own infrastructure. Infrastructure is very hard to do well and the problems it poses are not necessarily problems that developers want to tackle. It also requires dedicated resources and staff that many smaller orgs have difficulty maintaining.

I'm fairly sure that's the main reason why AWS and GCP are so popular, not some nefarious marketing conspiracy.
ingenious design when it comes to protection during blade off events
Not difficult, but no other platform offers the same.

Why would you move from Google to Bing?
...hence the need for leap seconds some years.
In my experience face to face communication is great for resolving contentious technical disagreements because whoever is doing the most thinking and the least talking falls behind, thinks "fuck this" and capitulates instantly; usually resulting in the wrong decision being made.

If the metric is "time to decision" then face to face will do very well.
I have worked on Wall Street, and now in FP&A. I agree with their assessment for several reasons:

External outlooks rarely provide value to wall street.

They are internally time consuming for FP&A.

I'm confident that they take time and mindshare away from CEOs that could be spent on improving the company. Further, new CEOs usually have no experience with Wall Street so they must learn on the job which further exacerbates the time and energy required.

I hope that this gains traction as it will help all companies become more productive.
As for designing the simulator engine to solve these kind of cyclic circuits, and advice on how to do it?

The general idea is to iterate while changes are still propagating through the circuit; here's some pseudocode:

changedNets.add(initial stimulus)
for each net in changedNets
changedNets.remove(net)
for each node in nodes(net)
for each output in outputs(node)
evaluate output
if output changed
changedNets.add(output)
if state cycle detected
break

The above algorithm reasonably accurately models what happens in a real digital circuit: changes propagate through each node until the whole circuit reaches a steady state. You can even add visualisations to show each step of the propagation as it takes place, and more elaborate versions can take into account different propagation delays (i.e. the output of each node can change at a different time relative to its input, so you process them in a queue ordered by that.)

To use my example circuit, with both inputs low initially: when one of the inputs of one NOR is set high, in the next step the output goes low, then the other NOR's output goes high, and the input of the first NOR goes high. This doesn't change anything else, so the circuit reaches equilibrium. When you set that input back down, the NOR already has the other input high, so it doesn't change state and equilibrium is already reached.

Cycle detection can be as simple as a hardcoded iteration count, or something a bit more accurate and useful:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_detection

Interesting fact: A true cycle-detection algorithm will theoretically let you simulate a whole CPU running any Turing-complete program, if you clock it with an "inherently unstable" ring oscillator...
It's the same Qualcomm chip as in smartwatches. Unlike a watch, calls will drain the battery.
Our top 5 tips for five-star team management
You'd have the same in a quarterly report surprise anyways.
Show HN: Deductive Reasoning Tool
I agree that time works against crypto, but one point I wanted to make is that the attacker can easily prevent the data wipe from happening. Just physically copy the encrypted user data, or discount that memory from the device.

It’s hard for me to an imagine a state funded attacker that wouldn’t just prevent the data wipe if they cared. I agree at least there’s an extreme edge case where this would protect you from a simultaneously very advanced but also negligent attacker, but that seems so rare that it’s unconcerning to me.

Feels a bit like adding an extra luggage lock to a bank vault since its still better to have more security afterall...
I'm thinking about building an app that takes a users origin and destination [Detroit to Denver] and dates [13 through 19 June]
Based on this data, I wish to build an itinerary for users, places that can be explored, based on those places recommended hotels, flights and rentals can be automatically booked. This is a complex idea. I'm wondering if users would trust an app to make all the decisions for them.
The author cares about that, it's his abstract. In the same way a scientist would care about the precision and conclusions of results obtained from an older study--you are forced to use the original researchers had. Of course you can verify it with new tools, but what's the point if the research is systemically flawed to begin with?

The childhood quote hammered into our ears continues to ring true: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."- Newton

I agree that newer technical formal languages describing our own methods of sound predicate are useful, but that's excessive and even pretentious in this case. Would you use quantum computation to verify the result of addition on a classical computer? It adds nothing, especially when it is quantum computation that is being construed to emulate classical computation!

>How are we to investigate this intuitive logic without probing the technical structure of logic and finding out what is really its essence?

Its essence cannot be discovered, there are "exigent way[s] to surface it", but like experience, it's atomic. In the end the models will just become more comprehensive in terms of formalizing experience. Yet the experience of logic is the essence; how are you able to describe what makes up experience in terms of experience? If this is the purpose of these "tools" (it's not) then they ought not to be limited by objects of human experience, as the noumenon (the negation of experience) is not even guaranteed to be symbolic to objects of perception—by definition they are not.

I would be flummoxed to find fundamental physics constructed, described, and extended from axioms through logic had no connection with logic.

Philosophy of logic continues to discuss other logics, it is only that this particular article that it's of no concern to.
Chai is not a testing framework, it's an assertion library compatible with all the other main testing frameworks you mentioned. Yes, we do need experimentation and innovation in testing frameworks. Jest was a real innovation to the space and is particularly awesome for React testing with it's snapshots feature. This kind of argument never gets made with anything else. "Why can't we all just stick to the Model T. It's perfect."
I like how they are coy about how fast it can go, the max speed is reached when the combined rotational speed of the rotor and the forward speed of the vehicle result in the leading edge of the rotor going supersonic. At that point of max dynamic pressure the rotor propellers will self destruct :-). Because the rotors are small, they have to rotate quickly in order to achieve the necessary lift and that means it will be unlikely for you to go 100MPH in this thing.

But that should not take away from the fact that they have a decacopter[1] than can carry a person around for 20 minutes. It would be awesome to park a car on either side of San Francisco (or Seattle) with a charging station and one of these, you hop out, zip across the annoying city traffic jam, and then get into your next leg car on the other side. :-)

And eventually we'll crack the charge storage system with either better batteries or super capacitors or something which will make it easy to use electricity as the fuel of choice for transportation.

[1] And unfortunate that spelling correct wants to make that decapitator :-)
There’s no server with Git. You only have remotes. The fact you can use a server and others as well is a byproduct.

Regarding pull requests, GitHub’s implementation is their own, but Git does have `requests-pull`, https://www.git-scm.com/docs/git-request-pull
Besides the less appealing stuff you mention, I don't see how it would do any good in a system which is already so shareholder-value driven.

Don't get me wrong, there's probably benefits to having it in real time but I think it'd make any top exec job a nightmare.
Except k8s doesnt federate
My Series Zero is still going strong! Has been a delightful purchase, almost as good as my AirPods.

Don’t understand the issue over the original Edition watch. Obviously, like any computer, it wasn’t getting updated forever. The only reason to get one was perceived prestige, it was the closest thing to a Veblen good in consumer electronics.

And it should be cheap and easy to replace an Editions guts with series 3 parts, too.
However you can simply use a d-flipflop to do what you need.

The point of my exercise was to test a basic functionality. If you cannot simulate that, the feedback loops which arise naturally in more complex circuit designs won't work either. It's like the "fizzbuzz" of logic simulation.
Then they'll jailbreak your face
You make a good case, agreed 4.0/2.9 is a noticeable difference and I can see how a 1-4 core boost (once CCX) would be useful.
> If all information is visible and everything is well documented, it should be rare to have the situation where one person is the only one that can answer that question. This will totally still happen for remote teams, but I think it happens more in other organizations that rely on face time and verbal information exchange.

I worked at my last job for just over 2 1/2 years and, while we had an actual office, for the first two years I was there, we also had a true "unlimited vacation/remote work" policy. It wasn't unheard of that some people would take 4-6 week vacations and others would work remote for multiple months.

Documentation was great, but you can't document everything you know, so there will always be gaps. I'm a developer, so these will be dev focused, but some scenarios I can remember where one specific person was needed are:

- Legacy code. Bob was the only one around when this code was written and it hasn't been touched in years, now it's breaking and no one understands why. (In an ideal world, there wouldn't be knowledge silos like this, but there always are)

- Specialties. Most developers know this tool, but Bob is an expert. We need to do something that requires an expert. We need Bob.

- Bob left an ominous, yet vague comment on my PR. I don't want to merge until I get clarification. (something like "This looks hacky. I guess it works, but we should probably change this ASAP." or "Eww")
Life Insurance Bonus Plan – Best Bonus Provider Insurance Companies List
My Apple Watch is surprisingly useful: I can figure out which conference room my next meeting is in with a single tap of the home screen, control music, etc. It honestly surprised me how much value I got out of it.
There are a lot more eyes on those repositories than you think. Things like misplaced API tokens are vacuumed up nearly instantly. You'd be much, much better off hosting private stuff on GitLab or BitBucket.
The idea and the website, both, trigger in me a visceral discomfort that I cannot put into words. If this is for tech, I hope it doesn't catch on.

A resume is not soulless. If it is soulless, then a video is even more so.

Also, video is a horrible medium for most people. It takes time and effort to be good on video. Good developers may have spent their time and effort elsewhere. I would point to Ryan Dhal's nodejs regrets video on the front page as an example.
Substitute Elon Musk and Tesla (particularly back in 2017) with Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos back in 2014, before the big exposés started coming out. From the perspective of the lay investor, what distinguishes the two cases?

This goes to answer both your comment and (at present) the top comment of this post, which asks why people ignore a chorus of naysayers saying that what's being done is impossible. The entire mindset of the Silicon Valley disrupter--we're the plucky underdog fighting an established oligopoly by doing the impossible (at least for the established oligarchs)--is very ripe for an unethical fraudster to milk. Distinguishing between the two cases is not easy, especially given the tendency to believe your own hype and oversell your current capabilities.