skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Microsoft villianised over the decades seems to be better than Google and Facebook.

A villian doesn't become virtuous just because someone even worse turns up.

The criticism of Microsoft a few decades ago was in relation to Apple, OS/2, BeOS, Linux/BSD/etc. and I'm pretty sure those which still exist are still less villianous than Microsoft. Note that Apple is still villianous, but rather than just extorting their users directly, they prefer to extort everyone via massive tax avoidance.

> Have you paid XX money for a service that doesn’t show ads. Are you happy with it?

I make regular payments to the Free Software Foundation, Open Rights Group, Wikimedia, etc. and am generally happy with what they do. That's not always a direct contribution to the particular software I use, but it does support some things indirectly.

In relation to Microsoft, I hear that they charge money and show ads, and I mostly hear their customers complaining about their software and services rather than praising them. For example, the centralisation of Skype for spying purposes seems to have crippled its throughput; I saw someone struggling with this recently and suggested they try meet.jit.si which turned out to give a far smoother connection (since it's P2P, like Skype used to be).
In the US it varies by state and even city, but they did not teach calculus in high school in Philadelphia at least. Students could chose whether to take statistics or pre-calculus. Pre-calc was just basically trigonometry.
>> Look, science doesn’t make everything clear cut 100% if the time. Science is the act of making theories, and looking for evidence to dispute those theories. Sometimes, in some areas we have to be OK with not understanding things. That’s part of science, it’s not it’s limitation. By admitting ignorance in some areas, we open the doors to the pursuit of knowledge.

> I think that's the key takeaway of the article, to be honest.

If that's the key takeaway, why write an article about it? That's how science is supposed to function. It's not controversial.

>> How about instead we suspend our beliefs and wait for data, rather than trusting someone just because? It’s okay to say, we don’t know!

> This is what I think the author is saying, though. It's a political piece--we can't universally suspend our beliefs for the purpose of making policy. But we can try to evaluate what science is a closer approximation to "true" than others.

It would be REALLY helpful if more politicians suspended their beliefs for the purpose of making policy. And if there's an area where scientific consensus has been made, work your policies around that instead.

>> Because none of those other fields embraced abandoning beliefs in the face of evidence and data. How one could even compare them with science clearly demonstrates and attempt to misconstrue facts.

> You can say this with the benefit of hindsight. If you were, say, an American social scientist in the 1920s, you might be supporting eugenics, as it was quite common at the time. If you dogmatically defended eugenics as being "science," called people who questioned the value of it deniers, and equated it with truth... well, you would be wrong. And if you can acknowledge that it happened in the 1920s (and numerous other times), then it can be happening today. It's about being open-minded to the possibility that science (and its process in practice) has varying levels of value, and being able to rationally assess that is important.

Eugenics wasn't science... it was an attempt to use artificial selection as a way to mold human society. The artificial selection is the science part. It's use and justification for eugenics was just abhorrent. As for things like phrenology, etc, those were never accepted as science... just touted as so by the pseudo scientists.
Maybe "Indian-South African Gupta family in association with Indian McKinsey partner swindle South Africa yet again?"

>The #GuptaLeaks includes emails between Essa and Sagar dating back to August 2014 https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-09-14-scorpio-a...

That was a couple of years before "McKinsey hired a private investigative firm to dig into Trillian’s background" and found to their shock Essa ran it.

Some more on Sagar https://www.biznews.com/sa-investing/2017/07/14/vikas-sagar-...
... clarification: by humans I mean the receptionists, not the Google Duplex.
https://zulipchat.com/ has a topic/thread concept that is just awesome!
I say I'm a musician on the side, but truthfully I've been messing with sound instinctively since I came out of the womb, and I only picked up programming and design and stuff later on. As such, I gravitated toward electronic music doodads almost immediately.

This issue of "falling down the LCD well" has been at the forefront of electronic music for a while. Synthesizers were cool in the 70's because they had knobs, and any abstract logic involved was done by you, so you had to be into it.

Then the 80's and 90's came along and we got stuff like the DX7 and innumerable "workstation keyboards" that were little more than a tiny display and two or three buttons. Maybe a jog wheel if you were lucky.

These were unambiguously cleaner from a design perspective, but what people began to realize is that the screen was too much of an abstraction. Then of course DAWs came along and even the synthesizers themselves moved into the computer physically.

Music, like life in general, is visceral, and the screen is not. Musicians became frustrated with the lack of physicality.

The modular synthesizer approach of the 70's has made a HUGE resurgence with the eurorack standard.

Not everyone, but LOTS of people actually PREFER a gigantic mess of tangled wires with physical plugs and knobs to a sterile pure-logic implementation on the computer that can do all the same stuff cheaper and in a more reproducible way.

I suspect we'll see a similar sort of resurgence of physicality across every product that has been absorbed into the computer screen.
There are companies that do this, but they do not get involved in the 3rd party SLA legal issues.

In my humble opinion, I think that each consumer of Slack and other web services should implement their own monitoring. It probably would not hurt to open source the monitoring so that Slack and the ilk can help keep your monitoring accurate and honest. This would empower others to replicate your methods for the service providers they consume as well without having to pay monitoring service providers. They will only show outages from their perspective and some of them run from Amazon, which may be sub-optimal in this case.

Some existing open source tooling are Nagios and Sensu. Sensu being a little more dynamic and cloud friendly and a newer kid at the table. There are chef and ansible scripts for both of these.
I completely agreed with you. And in fact, I think this statement from the article's conclusion makes it quite difficult not to! "Science cannot be cleanly demarcated from nonscience, and much of what we are hoping that scientists can tell us these days—about nutrition and health, about economics, the environment, education, aging, and the origins of the universe—will emerge from the vast fuzzy area between the two."

And so I went to find something else from the author that might more clearly illustrate this point. I ended up finding the opposite. This [1] article from him is far more coherent and on point. His focus is much more about the institutions of science than science itself. And in particular how the modern institution of science is creating a 'product' that is often quite distanced from not only what we think science 'ought' be, but indeed what it genuinely was at one time.

[1] - https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/saving-science
Show HN: Ebook JavaScript Awesome Tips
That is not what is meant by the government. They mean Oxford PPE or STFU.
That was my previous solution. It worked well for a couple years until the disk crashed and I lost some of my data :-(
Usually only if the students opts for the advanced maths course/class. (Usually known as AP [advanced placement] in the US.)
Tesla Model S battery reignited twice after Florida crash
Facebook and Instagram spend time building this stuff because buying it off-the-rack would cost more. That tends to be true for a lot of stuff at Facebook scale, but that's also true for much smaller companies that need (note: not "think they need") the feature, too. It's neither complicated nor complex as a feature--the hard part, and the meaningful part, is contextualizing that timer with regards to the application and the decisions being made with that application. Your "free" analytics tool actually costs them a lot of money (because developer time isn't free) and there's an inflection point at which building a tool, bringing the knowledge and ability to maintain it in-house, makes a lot more sense than buying.

It's not that the feature isn't good, or the feature isn't worth $38 in a vacuum. It's that that $38 buys negative value for teams working on products that would derive value from the feature. You're trying to sidestep an existing metrics ingest pipeline and existing analytics tools. But the people who have metrics don't want you to sidestep it and the people who don't aren't the people who would materially benefit from this feature.
> The stock market has fallen 25% this year.

If true, I'm not sure if that means anything. Isn't the Chinese stock market notoriously volatile? I'm also under the impression that there's a much greater proportion of speculative investing going on in it compared to the US market.
rsync.net also supports borg[1], which is how I use it. They also have/had a special pricing for borg users[2]

1: http://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
2: https://www.rsync.net/products/attic.html
...don't catch you slippin' now
They will just shift production to somewhere else in south east Asia. Low margin manufacturing will never be in-sourced again.
IF statements increase cost of unit tests, is what I have found. By enforcing tight code coverage standards you start seeing IF statements disappear from code as developers do not want to write a test case for each of those IF statements.

With tools like JaCoCo we track number of branches and cyclomatic-complexity in our code (which is a measure of IF statements in most cases, try/catch being the other big source of branches). We try to keep that number down to 1 as much as possible. Once was able to take a method with over 160 branches down to 1 by eliminating every IF statement. The unit test was then very trivial and only had one test.
4 big reasons to work for yourself
Surely this is a problem better analyzed by specifying ex ante a set of coding rules in response to measurable inputs, collecting data for those inputs, and then scaling media outlets.

The canonical political science/econ cite for this is Groseclose and Milyo QJE 2005. There are complaints about their approach, but it's certainly better than "I made a chart and just put stuff where I feel like it should be". The website supporting this chart (MediaBiasChart.com) has an interminable dozens of pages long blog post explaining that she wrote down a bunch of policy issues on a grid on a piece of paper and then those magically became this chart. I am unconvinced. This is a problem that a lot of smart and qualified people have explored in data-driven ways.

I mention this because the purpose of the chart appears to be to appeal to professional journalism against punditry and poorly informed "citizen journalism", but it does so through an act of citizen journalism which does not appear to itself be all that well informed.

I also think the visual symmetry in the graph probably creates a false equivalence between the relative influences of "equally bad" outlets on each side -- the Blaze and Breitbart are enormous media empires, and Infowars is what it is, while the equivalents on the left are no-name blogspam places. What was the inclusion rule?
That's pretty much why I got it, and now that the original IntelliMouse is back, I don't know if I need the glowing green death mouse of eventual GDPR compliance?
Would like an example; this is hardly "solved" in C++. There is an old Boost library that does this, but it's not idiomatic and rarely used.

Unless you are using a different definition of named parameters, I've never seen C++ code in the wild that used them.
From a certain point of view, it's Amazon using different terminology - what others call a data center, they call an AZ...or even a subset of an AZ, and we'll never know exactly - nor the capacity of each[0]. And what they call a data center, others call a region.

[0] When a server class is "sold out" in a region, you can't start your server - but there's no indication of this anywhere until you try to start your server. Other cloud providers auto-rebalance VMs to make space - using AWS is sometimes more like using physical servers than VMs - maybe moreso with paravirtualization.
The article is essentially just grabbing the chart from the source, which is worth linking, because there are some great methodology/history posts.

http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/
Terrible not appealing, a synonym was autocorrected
That quote reminded me of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXQR-cPXlmY.
There are two types of addiction: physiological and psychological.

The kind you get physical withdrawal symptoms from are physiologically addictive. These are drugs like alcohol, nicotine, and heroin.

Cannabis can be psychologically addictive. You can crave it when you stop or have trouble coping with life without it -- much like people who are psychologically addicted to eating lots of food. Both are psychologically addictive.

You can get psychologically addicted to just about anything pleasurable or desirable. I try not to do that with cannabis or anything else.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU17sNGs_qA

Would be more interested, if the UI was 100% keyboard controlled.
Keyboard control is largely why plaintext rocks.
I believe some of the questions around Duplex were not whether or not the recordings were "real," but whether or not they were edited. The article was not clear on this...
In that case, consider packet, egress to B2 is free. They claim a good network, but I didn't test (yet).
I mean, Slack isn't federated either. I don't know of any chat platforms that are federated except Jabber. edit Gchat and AIM federated in 2011, but AIM is dead now, so...
That's a terribly flagrant non-answer. If they could seriously form a coherent and rational explanation for what they're doing, people just might understand better. As it stands, everyone just projects their current thinking onto the circumstances to find some explanation all because they won't answer a simple question.

The reasons why are what I think you've pointed out— there really isn't much of a plan on their part. It's just reactionary and rabble-rousing (with a hefty price tag for those who get hit by the outcomes).
Data Science at Toyota Connected
No, it doesn't make sense. Order coupling between destructuring assignment targets and class fields is very similar to order coupling between formal and actual parameters of functions, which is easier to get wrong and for which no protection exists.

Struct X could have a constructor

public X(int first,int second):a{first},b{second}

but a caller intending to set a=1 and b=2 could call X(2,1) instead (particularly if last time they checked the constructor was public X(int first,int second):b{first},a{second}).
You certainly don't want to prevent this "mistake" by enforcing that the first parameter must be a local variable called a and the second must be a local variable called b and that the constructor parameters must be called a and b too.

This sort of easily detected error is exactly the same as writing [b,a] instead of [a,b] in a deconstructing assignment.

Treating a sequence of fields in a class as a tuple is "unusual and slightly flaky" because few and unimportant languages do it, because it's very new for C++, and because it faces complications like inheritance, not because it is wrong or bad; someone might be slow to adapt, but everyone else will benefit.

In practice, only very plain and well documented structs will be suitable for deconstructing assignment; for example, in code generated from data serialization schemas there is a natural and well known order for class members.
Probably you didn't used it often enough. I have some quiet bad experience (never going to get an Uber with pregnant wife), as well as everybody I know and used Uber in London. Also, the standard Uber car in London is Toyota Prius.
Well, Deathadder is the evolved IntelliMouse, after all.
Hipster horror Slack down Total inability to support user procrastination
I wonder if it could be from 2D graphs where the starting point (0,0) is always at the bottom left. Or it could be that in the physical world we tend to start things at the bottom and work up (like a building, or stairs). Or maybe Microsoft Windows where you literally start in the bottom of the screen and work your way up.
Why was there a 17 year delay between the 2nd launch and 3rd launch?
I'm not sure that it's fair to infer that China's course corrections are to avoid espionage. Google Maps satellite view will show you far more, for far less money. And military areas are of far more concern for espionage than cities.

I suspect the reroutes are more for noise reasons, though I am not certain.
Upcoming match times are in the same time zone?

Mexico & Germany are both at the same time but on the right side show one at noon and one at 10am.

They are both in half time now.
Netlify Degraded Performance: slow loads of Netlify-hosted content and web UI
This is how you get it for free
Argument from authority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I disagree with Bret for fundamental reasons. I think Bret is trying to make computing more human, when I view computing as fundamentally unhuman. It seems that there is an inverse correlation between screen use and mental health. Bret's solution is to improve our technology. My solution would be to limit our use of technology. Computers are fabulous for certain things: transmitting information, processing data, automating repetitive things, but they're awful for many others. I worry that by trying to make our interactions with computers more human we're just going to become more dependent on them.
And the US charges 88% tariffs on sugar imports over quota, while the EU has no sugar quota.

It's very easy to cherry-pick particular tariffs, but the truth of the matter is that maximum tariffs are generally constrained by international agreements that have lots and lots of horse-trading over what is accepted. When you look at all products, the US doesn't look particularly generous compared to the EU. Source: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/06/14/h...
Interesting policy in urbanization/national economic agenda in China.

https://www.economist.com/china/2018/06/23/china-is-trying-t...
Borrowing the variable examples from another comment, do you believe that the former is easier to understand for someone who knows English grammar than the latter? (I'm using Python syntax since we're going for English-like readability and added parantheses to the boolean operation to indicate order of operations for the liberal arts major that we've decided is the target audience of this code):

if isAdmin:
return false
if not isActive:
return false
return true

vs

return (not isAdmin) and isActive
If keepalive pings weren’t a thing, you’d have a point, but you admitted they are. The keepalive pings have to happen at least every 2 minutes I think (and usually more frequently than that) as I believe 2 minutes is a common timeout for this sort of thing. Meanwhile polling is every 15 minutes at the most frequent (or 30, or every hour, etc). This means it fires up the radio less often, which means better battery.

I’d also guess the OS tries to schedule these fetches to coincide with the radio already being on as they don’t have to be precisely timed.
If you follow the best practices, that is not an issue.
>Tomorrow, when new interactions will exist, we also will have ads. On the watch, during Siri conversations

Apple's essential point of differentiation with Android is the fact that they make money on hardware. Google give away their mobile OS to funnel more attention into their attention monetisation machine. Every step that Apple takes to protect user privacy deepens their moat, because Google only make money by harvesting data and monetising attention.

Google can't compete on privacy, so it's very much in Apple's interests to push that issue as hard as possible. Their decision to block ad trackers by default in Safari was very smart; deciding to insert ads into Siri or WatchOS would be indescribably stupid.
>“We want to make sure that we’re not wasting the business’s time,” Fox says. “We want to make sure throughout everything we do here, that this is good experience for the business and that they’re not getting frustrated talking to an assistant while they’re trying to run their business.”

What's the added value of sounding exactly like a real person then? Why can't it be a robotic voice following a simple, efficient algorithm?

- Hi. I'm a robot trying to book for 4 at 20 tonight for my client. Is it possible? Please say Yes or No

- Wait what?

- I'm a robot trying to book for 4 at 20 tonight for my client. Is it possible? Please say Yes or No

- No

- Is it possible at any other time tonight? If yes, when?

- Yes, at 21

- I would like to book for 4 at 21. Thank you.

We have had this kind of technology for years.
Anti-censorship has always been the #1 benefit of federation and peer-to-peer connectivity. I don't think any other benefits come even close, and they are usually overshadowed by how much more difficult it is to build a well-working federated or P2P network.

But when you start having global monopolies in various industries that don't care about automatically banning the "little guy" from which they make little money to begin with and when you have governments that are increasingly more interested in let's say "curating" the internet, then that anti-censorship benefit starts to become a lot more appealing to a lot more people.

It's why I'm glad Firefox is not only finally a decent competitor to Chrome but also starting to adopt all sort of anti-censorship protocols and technologies, too (and hopefully there are more to come).
disable password authentication, ssh keys are secure enough
In light of how Slack and other companies haven't been able to get a decent level of uptime, I have to say, the company known to make huge web applications that don't go down in shame every couple of months is probably Google. I can't remember the last time Gmail was down. It just works! If google is down, probably your internet is down.

Their expertise and discipline in distributed applications is unrivaled. I'm guessing because they have datacenters everywhere with huge fat pipes in between, and their SREs are probably top notch who don't take shortcuts.

Google gets a whole bunch of things wrong at times, but somethings I gotta say, they've nailed it.
Faceless corporations have aggregated psychological profiles rivaling those of psychologists on billions of people. Why shouldn't this information have the same, if not more, protections as HIPPA?
Sure but good luck using KeePass across a team on multiple devices.