skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think you can assume anyone that sends those links knows that they are rude.
I'm not. I'm saying that even if I were to be protected for standing up for immoral practices (which by and large I'm not) we're still putting the burden of morality in the wrong entity, the employee at the bottom of the decision tree. This is a burden that the state needs to impose on the top of the company directly, not have it be shifted to the bottom.
Texas A&M's engineering program has a required course called Engineering Ethics. A portion of the course is devoted to analyzing the Challenger disaster.

During a late-night teleconference the night before the launch, the engineers pleaded with their managers not to launch. One decision maker was told, "Take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat," and he reluctantly changed his mind (a decision he has regretted for decades, of course).

It's also telling that, after the decision was made to approve the launch, none of the engineers agreed to sign off.

https://www.engineering.com/Blogs/tabid/3207/ArticleID/170/c...
https://thelawdictionary.org/professional/

1. A person, who is a member of a professional body due to the education qualification and follows the prescribed moeal and prefessional code of conduct.
> I always forget how must support for communism there is here in HN circles...

I always forget how libertarians think that anyone who holds views that don't completely conform to their ideology is necessarily a communist (or "collectivist").
more specifically, it can lead to cataracts.

Not to downplay it, but cataracts are probably the easiest operational procedure on the human body. At least in the rich world.

Most people will have to deal with that at one point in their life.

Source: Myself; I got both of my eyes fixed last year. While I can appreciate the horror of your eyes cut up, the actual operation is really minimally invasive.

Mind you, I'm not arguing that excessive IR - or UV exposure is generally a good idea.
Well, that's going to kill Bird.
Apologies, I may be speaking out of my $(# on that. I'm aware Clifford has used it to demonstrate formal method techniques, but I don't know the full extend to it. Caveat Emptor to anyone who decided to rush out and add it to their SoC. ;)
I wholly object to this line of reasoning. I don't see how this wouldn't blow-back on software developers and make them an easier scapegoat.

Take these car manufacturers gaming the emissions test, for example. I find it very easy to imagine management making a series of requests for changes to the software that seem innocent but allow for this exact outcome: changing the way the system performs when being tested for emissions. They may have asked the development team to add some kind of a switch so that they could toggle the behavior on and off in order to assess how overall performance was impacted.

That sounds innocent enough to me that I wouldn't be eager to risk my job (and perhaps the ability to get work in the future) over suspicions. Certainly it's not enough that I'd try to get law enforcement involved.

This idea that software developers (or engineers, if you prefer that term) should be responsible for the entire system, even though they likely only work on one component, sounds to my ear like nothing more than setting those developers up to be easy scapegoats. If you wanted to get me on board in any way, I'd need to see some system where all code is signed and, perhaps, stored in some tamper-proof write-only storage system managed by a third party. I'd need to be able to verify beyond any doubt that code a particular developer wrote hasn't been tampered with before I'd be willing to send that developer to prison, or at the least, ruin their career.

Management is at fault for requesting the feature that enabled them to game the system. Management should pay the cost, I see no reason to cast any blame on developers. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that the developers knowingly added code specifically to game the system. If evidence of that is out there, I would be super interested in reading it and would appreciate any links anyone might have.
Yes, and the the thing is that most people are "on the border" - that is to say, little more than a product of their environment (speaking of their actions/attitudes, not their worth as people). If you teach an entire population ethics (assuming it's done well and everything that comes with that), you will still have your 5-10% of rotten apples, just as you'd have 5-10% who would seek out ethics on their own. The big difference will be in the 80-90%.
This is not a heat engine, as there is no cyclical nature and it's not turning the heat into mechanical energy, therefore the Carnot efficiency need not apply.
This looks nice! Would you mind commenting a bit on implementation of the actual editor components? It looks like you're heavily using swift/xcode - is it entirely swift?

How does the editor itself work, does Xcode have components? Are you drawing them?

I've been curious to try and make GUIs for my editor of choice (vim and kakoune), so I'd love to hear your experience on the actual editor portion of your app. It visually looks nice!
According to this article[0] those annoyances are still there

> It does look like certain annoyances with Workflow are showing in Shortcuts as well. For example, sending a message via a Shortcut still requires you to manually hit the send button

[0] https://9to5mac.com/2018/07/06/apple-shortcuts-hands-on/
I wonder what people get from such articles, but I suppose I am just a dumb blub programmer. Oh well!
I was referring to cases where "life" is just "not death", in the sense that "this person is alive just because we are keeping him so" (apart from the elementary support like feeding, cleaning, etc.).

I was not (certainly) referring to cases where the person is conscious and able to make decisions. There is little "palliative sedation" in these cases.
Actually in my country the law "soft" encourage you to change the lock as soon as you get the rent contract.

The reason is simple: if someone breaks inside opening the door (maybe even just because they were good lock-pickers) the police has to investigate firstly on whoever has the key or could give a copy of them to others, so if the landlord can it is gonna be some rough months to him while they have to check if he sold/gave a copy of your key to anyone with bad intentions.

Some landlords even ask you to change it yourself asap (like my last one)
It's not an order, it's not "or", you must strive for simple AND correct AND fast, that's how you compete. If you don't have one, it is extremely difficult to compete.
There's an incentive for lawyers, doctors, and accountants. You get a license to work from a board of peers, there's peer review, you can lose the confidence of that board and have the license to work revoked. I don't know the histories of those professions, and what's in common other than "obligations that go beyond self-interest". But I think lawyers are substantially different from other professions, even setting aside the state bar: they are officers of the court. They're an integral part of the legal system and they have a superseding duty to that system's function, not only to a client.

So how would software developers/programmers/etc create something equivalent to that? Seems to me some critical mass of that industry would need to lobby state and/or federal government for the creation of a board who then produces a standard and certifies members conform to the standard under penalty that if they do not police their own members that the state can revoke the franchise/monopoly on that certification.
A probable explanation is that it was made up to discredit dancing.
I stopped cold turkey after taking it for over a year, 3.5g 4x a day, and had no adverse effects at all (well, other than the chronic pain I was taking if for coming back to the fore).

I wonder if perhaps there is some kind of genetic factor.. it's very strange in any case.
Mercedes was entering an allowable disclosed higher emission mode with an unallowable, undisclosed, entry condition.

In EPA terminology, a defeat device.
The semantics are pretty good with the IDE I use most often, IntelliJ (for instance you definitely do have marks, there is a sensible kill-ring-like functionality for M-y, etc.). Writing a custom function is harder (I think you've got to write an extension, basically), but there are a lot of other useful things you can customize (making up your own templates, for instance). Also, the deeper understanding the IDE has of your code compared to Emacs lets it make many more useful suggestions for issues and potential refactors.
You’re two minutes away from browsing a faster, more private internet
(aws employee)

The distinction I've heard and make (regardless of serverless being the right term) is that these infrastructure services expose their control plane and data plane without tying you to the concept of a particular machine. Compare this to all publicly available forms of RDS where I still have to think in terms of machines for scaling and management.
I read it on no filter. It's the best way to fully absorb the community.
I have haad nothing but trouble trying to activate this card
Thanks!

I'm currently in the Czech Republic, where the LA Times is blocked. I'll certainly read it when back in Switzerland (where it's accessible just fine).
Also it's a user-maintenance thing. One more thing to refill on top of your windshield wiper fluid.

I forget if it was VW or Mercedes, but one of them branded theirs as "blue-tec" or something that doesn't sound like you're handling piss bottles. Let the mechanic worry about that.
>Not to mention that coal plants are way more efficient than ICE engine. The average efficiency at the wheel of a car is 18%

I'm not saying a coal power plant isn't more efficient but this is a one sided fanboy comparison if there ever was one.

What's the efficiency of the coal power plant after it's been used to charge up a battery and then discharged to power a car (i.e "at the wheel")? The fact that it's being used to drive a car around is the dominant term in the efficiency equation, not the form factor of the hydrocarbons. You did touch on supply chain but lithium batteries have some pretty nasty environmental impacts. I'm not sure whether they're better or worse than supplying liquid fuel.
Traits don't evolve in isolation though: the need for costly signaling may very well select for increased generalized fitness as a way to "pay" for the signaling.

Bright plumage can advertise "Look at me! I'm fast enough to look this amazing and not get eaten!" For this strategy to work, you need to actually be fast.
This stuff is all supported by IDEs, though. e.g., https://github.com/JetBrains/ideavim
Is it a net negative though? I would in fact wager the opposite. The tradeoff must be beneficial else natural selection would have culled them from the population.

I believe in this specific case, it is likely more difficult for males to attract females than avoid predators.
"It's telling that the automakers have chosen to cheat rather than call out the tests for being unrealistic"

They do that, too. You can probably imagine the response the HN crowd would give, which is pretty much the same response the news media would spin it with... money-grubbing rich companies trying to escape from beneficent, unambiguously good laws so they can make more dirty, polluting money. It doesn't play well, so they don't make this argument in public. But if you live in Michigan, you can find plenty of engineers who grouse about the standards in various ways, and not just "they're hard". (Believe it or not, engineers have families too, and like them and their families to not die in the cars they quite likely drive themselves.)

Between the media's drive to drum up antipathy towards the automotive companies for both their own ideological reasons and simply because stories about big corrupt companies sell, and the ever-present and unavoidable politics (of all kinds) involved in any sort of standards setting, there's so much noise that on those occasions where literally impossible regulations are created, the system is not very good at dealing with it. I am speaking neutrally here, because in the real world, balancing between costs and benefits of regulations is a very hard problem and I'm not really yelling at any particular party here for not getting it perfect. It's a systemic problem.

I rather strongly suspect that if we could get a perfect judge that the current set of regulations is probably already impossible to comply with at all; failing that it probably can't be complied with economically. I seriously doubt emissions are the only problems, they're just the ones people are motivated to test. I bet if Consumer's Reports or a similar organization set up a full legal compliance suite they couldn't buy a single car from a dealership lot that complied completely with everything. I think they'd be close on most measurements. But I bet every vehicle would fail something, and there'd be a non-trivial number of rather substantial failures.

(For an example of the latter, noise regulations on how loud cars can be as they pass you at various speeds are really easy to fail on a specific car. A particular bit of trim that came loose during shipping or something can fail you out very easily. Now, this one is less important in the grand scheme of things than emissions, but it's an example of a regulation that could pass at the test site but fail on many or even most cars in the field.)
Wouldn’t fly in most European countries with reasonable labor laws, union or not. The company would be in deep shit.
if you have the resources use them? 15 years ago your browser had a small fraction of the features a modern browser provides. this argument is tiring.
I think you underestimate just how many hardware startups there are and how many of them are NOT going to license an ARM core for their service core.
Spotify (Audio) Ad Studio
So what is the pricing? The website has a login-wall to access the pricing.
>Ninety-four percent of our respondents self-identified as men, 5 percent as women, and 1 percent as non-binary/other.

Seems like this survey was highly self selective, so I'd take the entire thing with a grain of salt. There's no way the industry as a whole is anywhere near 96% male.
Derek Jones argues McCabe Complexity and COCOMO were scientifically unsupported with little bandwagons pushing them for reasons of fame and/or funding:

http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2018/03/27/mccabe...

http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2016/05/19/cocomo...
You'd be surprised how simple a well written proof can be compared to a program implementing an algorithm to do the same.

That said, Coq itself is not the best vehicle for this. There are nicer high order logic languages.
Yes, I don't think this is the way it actually played out. As you mention, why would such a "rogue engineer" take such a risk for someone else? And why would that person risk sharing their culpability with a "rogue engineer" when I am sure they could phrase things in a way that sounds more innocent and reasonable.
> If we look at nature as a massively parallelized computational system that defined "just live" as the reward (not because it "wants" it, but because it just emerged), it shows us how much power we would need if we would try to build a completely random process that gains intelligence.

With that definition I can't see how artificial life created would be any much different than the behavior of a computer virus.

> I think we're faster when we find the right boundaries and reward functions instead of randomly trying stuff.

Boundaries and reward functions in human society are part of the 'human social organism' that allows each individual human to function with autonomy in a fashion that is collaborative, aligned with our developed value systems, and allows us to live with stability, security, faith (be it in some sense of wonder, divinity, in each-other - doesn't matter), independence - and these things are base needs, no matter what variation they manifest with. Boundaries are redefined when there is conflict, and the less violent and destructive the conflict, the better the chances are for these boundaries and reward functions to continue functioning as they have been developed (rather than being obliterated in entirety, requiring them to built from scratch).

It makes us faster, but it's also us standing on the shoulders of giants. And I think it's important to question what things are worth applying random solutions to, and what things require deep contemplation. It seems very paradoxical, to try to define something that both is a function of the system it exists in, and also something that could potentially break the whole system. But, creation, destruction, clearly an oversimplification.

I do know that what looks random to one person is not necessarily random to another. This goes back to how the context is defined, how society is defined, boundaries and reward functions established a priori.

Emotions can be simple. The problem is that a computer already has them. Computer produces wrong solution, algorithm dies. Computer produces right solution, algorithm survives. We don't give the computer words to express itself about this because we never taught it to do that. What would happen if we did?
>, the timer will expire at the wrong time.

A countdown timer is a runtime concept.

Storing pure UTC and/or intended_localtime_plus_TZ in the database is a static concept of data-at-rest.

A timespan/timer is a different abstraction than a desired point-in-time.

Depending on the use case, the correct timer/timespan value can be derived from pure UTC (e.g. scientific celestial events) -- or -- user_specified_localtime_plus_TZ (recurring yoga class at 5:30pm every Wednesday, or take medication every morning at 7:00am).

For user calendaring and scheduling of social appointments, storing pure UTC will lead to data loss and errors. Instead of complicated mass updates of millions of db rows, it's much more straightforward to take a stored localtimeTZ, and then calculate an up-to-date UTC time at runtime, and then derive a countdown timer from that. The key insight is that the best time to use UTC is when the users need that timer at runtime -- and not when they store the row in the db.
Germany modified most of tracks in Poland from 1520 mm to 1435 mm in 1915 for military purposes.

Poland continued to modify the remaining tracks slowly after it regained independence in 1918 till 1939.
Of course, I wonder if that would result in no-degree-me being out of a job :). I have worked in medical equipment and cancer diagnostics for 14 years now.
I've said it before and I'll said it again, I don't think one can decouple a professional community and politics. (or more appropriately, I don't think one SHOULD.)

Politics is the framework under which we go about our work. I'd say "cool tech" is rather reductionist for what YC encompasses, even the earliest discussions on this site were about fundraising, startup ecosystem growth, economic climate, of course cool tech is a part but just one facet. We were never "just nerds talking about tech", I'd argue we are something far more fascinating than that, in a similar way to how an emergent community of e.g. entrepreneurial accountants or farmers might be fascinating if it started to become a natural center of discussion and focus for a wider audience.

To try and ignore politics insofar as we have a hand in it (and especially given the current zeitgeist we absolutely do) is to abscond from our responsibility to try and guide policy in a better direction, to discuss topics as a community so that we _don't_ devolve into ideology driven filter bubbles or surrender these decisions to be made by a perhaps less benevolent group. I aspire to that we can hold this higher example and try to be a good force in spreading positive debate.

I'm always nervous to say "not talking about politics is how we got here" (although with such low voter participation rates that MAY be a somewhat fair statement) but not talking about politics at _this_ point seems like pushing the giant elephant in the room under the rug.
I'm not sure the children's cognitive abilities are particularly relevant, as blunt as it sounds. It's not like in the last 2-3 days they've trained them to a level beyond the Thai SEAL who didn't make it.

Panicking is almost the worst thing that could happen here. Someone flailing around is a threat to their own apparatus, their rescuer's apparatus, and at best depletes their own oxygen much faster.

It sounds incredibly cruel, but I'd completely understand if they opted for a doped deadweight. I'd also completely understand if they didn't advertise such details until they're certain it was successful. Having the whole world watching adds some political tightropes.
>It seems to me like there is laws against this, there are inspectors, but local corruption and small fines is making it ineffective.

It's not just that, higher government in China have caused the situation - they without doubt hold much of the burden for this. There are multiple angles as for why:

* One of the Chinese Communist Party's main points confirming how amazing their party is (and therefore why it shouldn't be challenged) is the amount it's been able to grow the economy. This has created a national sentiment of "growth at all costs".

* Setting high economic growth goals on local officials means they need to cut corners to get there - including lying about how much money they really made and ignoring laws in favour of growth. The consequence to this is often human lives and environmental damage.

* Preventing the average person from investing in anything other than cheap buildings means that China's housing market has ballooned out of control. (Those who have been able to sneak money outside of China usually also invest in housing.) Building companies therefore want to widen their margins as much as possible whilst competing for investment from locals.

* Trying to maintain a positive image for the Chinese Communist Party means squashing any scandals caused by officials and censoring public discussion/outrage on sensitive issues, such as health and environmental damage. (This doesn't always work, feeding babies cement instead of milk powder was a "little" too far.)

>Of the numbers at the end of the article are just somewhat correct, we're talking about maybe 10 factories (give or take). So this is certainly something that can be fixed.

That's so far and in just one industry. It's also possible other industries are also using CFC-11 but are yet to be discovered.

>At it's so far clear that the government is not condoning this behavior.

1 billion+ people and mass monitoring, I'm pretty sure somebody was aware of this in high level government. By not saying anything, they are effectively condoning it.

Actually, I wouldn't trust the Chinese government to make the formal investigation - they had their chance years ago and did nothing. If we were serious about this, the investigators would be an international team (including Chinese people) and the repercussions would be massive. One "benefit" to it being a dictatorship is that they can arbitrarily set the consequences of these actions and set an example.

Of course this won't actually happen, foreign Countries wouldn't want to risk bad relations with China and the Chinese government wouldn't actually benefit from punishing a large part of their crucial industry who were effectively acting on their orders. They only need to be seen doing the "right" thing.
Ask HN: Would Stratechery for Cryptocurrency/Blockchain interest people?