skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Have to do some clarification here on the point of "Unclear architectural patterns", as the article is way too misleading.

- The reason the API call is made at `created` lifecycle is that the video is a quick, 5 minute intro for beginners. Beginners, as in "people who are familiar building static websites using html/css/js". There is no need to bring in Vuex or vue-router yet. In fact the whole beginner example can be put into a single HTML file by including a Vue script tag. The approachability is what made Vue shine. Some other frameworks assume that you want a build tool, state management, client side routing etc and beginners spend hours configuring those tools and figuring out state management and client-side routing, instead of doing real work.

> To answer to my initial question: API logic should not be written in Vuex nor in components. There is even a good example on how do that in some of the official code examples.

- The example[0] clearly has the API logic in the Actions. The `/api` folder is a mocked API for illustration purpose.

[0]: https://github.com/vuejs/vuex/blob/dev/examples/shopping-car...
> I’m not much of a believer in a western culture change that will see us eating whole insects like we’re living in dystopian Soylent Green

How much of a change is it, really, from [0]?

[0] https://www.foodandwine.com/seafood/shellfish/13-best-places...
"Low-trust" "multicultural" "society" is race-war code language, isn't it? People that don't read a lot of reactionary stuff might try to engage directly with the words "low-trust" and spark a whole unproductive discussion about what it is we "trust" or "don't trust" about people, but that's not the purpose the words actually serve in that sentence, right? "Low-trust" is a way of saying "things were better when we were mostly white Europeans, with other cultures marginalized".

If that wasn't your intention, you'd probably want to know that putting the words "low-trust" and "multicultural" into assertions about American life constitutes a reactionary/neo-supremacist trope.
Basically because of NAT. Because the devices on your network can't all have public IP addressed, you have to have them all connect to a central public server. Public servers cost money->ring costs money.

Of course the reason things are architected this way is so that more people can make money...
I'm always interested when people say that tutorials don't work - I had a site planned called wrongtutorial.com but I couldn't work out how to make it funny/informative without being demeaning.

What tutorial are you using? How old is it? What didn't work?
> I don't think the point of the article was that EFF should _not_ fight government on privacy, but that it _isn't_ also fighting the same fight, for the same privacy, against corporations.

But they are, they're just fighting it on a different front. A lot of bad laws can't be countered with technology because the problem to begin with is that the law prohibits the technology, e.g. you have to fight against key escrow laws in Washington, you can't fix it with technology after the fact (and not expect to be prosecuted).

Companies can be handled in the market, which is what they've been doing. The EFF started the Tor project, which protects privacy and promotes decentralization through onion services. They're also behind a lot of the TLS-promoting stuff like Let's Encrypt and HTTPS Everywhere. The more TLS there is, the less ISPs and other MITMs can spy on plaintext. It also improves privacy against web services because browsers treat HTTPS connections more carefully, e.g. not providing cross-domain referrers.

That's their strategy. You fight the government in Washington and private entities by writing code. That's hardly hypocrisy.
I wonder what prevents them from capturing the steam from the spent fuel storage and running it through a condenser that is connected to a ground heat exchanger (basically tubes run into the earth)
Here's a link from the first author's homepage: http://www.gidinave.com/presscovfefe.html

Being right is always easy when you decide what's true and what's false.
Can someone here explain how Forstall was critical to getting this correct?
> which thousands of experts have examined

Who determines that they are experts? You? If so, are you more qualified than them, so that you can determine that they are experts? Where's your evidence for being a better expert than those "thousands of experts"?
Yeah, that was on purpose. It's no longer obviously just humans potentially doing this. ;)
> "the reliability of the newer Nim is pleasing and coding is fun."

Can you elaborate on the reliability part? I've spent a lot of time grokking Nim specifically to be able to make good judgments about whether there are use cases in which it would be a better choice than Cython, and from a reliability point of view I have not noticed anything that would distinguish Nim from any other language. I can agree that Nim's syntax is nicer than many other statically typed languages, though the language design has some warts with `result` and `discard`, etc. But I can't see any reason to believe it is 'more reliable.'

> "I ended up eliminating all Python code from my back-end."

While I can't know the reason for this in your exact case, generally this seems like a very suboptimal thing to do. Python has a much richer set of libraries, testing utilities, etc. It is a language with a huge community of users and developers, and much more likely to be a known language for someone new who joins the project. If a system was working well and someone proposed to refactor away a solid base language like Python, that would almost always be a crazy choice, regardless of any positive aspects of the targeted new language. It's similar to why you should rarely throw away old code that has meaningful tests. You can slowly refactor it little by little, but wholesale switching to something else is usually evidence of wrong engineering priorities, especially when the something else is a 'latest and greatest' kind of new language or tool, like Nim is.

> "Because Nim is statically compiled I can deploy pieces of it anywhere just like a compiled C program, without dependencies, and it means a lot in my particular situation."

This can also be done with Cython, using the options to embed an interpreter... and there are various other third party tools that allow you to create thick binaries for combined Python programs as executables, including runtimes and dependencies. To boot, you definitely should be managing the deployment of some binaries with proper dependency management practices. So really, if you're already using dependency management techniques for the binaries, the minor extra work to maintain Python environments and dependencies would almost always be pretty trivial, with a huge family of tools (pip, conda, pipenv, virtualenv, etc.) and endless tutorials on the community-developed and mature best practices for packaging Python programs.

I would be curious to know more details about a project where it was truly advantageous from a productivity and deliverability point of view to rewrite the backend to move from a stable and mature ecosystem like Python to a relatively younger and less mature system with Nim specifically to gain a benefit somehow related to ease of deploying pieces of the code to different locations. The details just don't sound like they could possibly be in favor of using Nim in a case like that.
Indexing XKCD with Lucidwork's Fusion and Google Image API
when Vue went from 1.0 to 2.0 a lot of functionality became deprecated. So all those tutorials are basically useless now. I ran into the same issue.

Vue 2->3 won't be so bad because they're promising backwards compatibility.
In suburban environments, robotaxis are likely to be a key firm of public transit rather than an alternative (rideshare as public transit if already a thing in some suburban environments.)
Competent internal teams can produce relatively simple solutions within a reasonable budget. However, it's hard to formalize and replicate such teams and/or team habits. That's why the more formal specification & contract approach is often used instead: It's a BIT more predictable.

The first approach may get a grade from A to F, while the second ranges mostly from B- to D-. Predictable semi-crap is often easier to accept than something that might easily be an A, F, and all between. The first's probability curve is mostly flat from A to F, while the second peaks around C-, and thus it's somewhat more predictable, and that's why managers and bureaucrats often prefer it.
It's best to use some sort of server-side rendering so you get the best of both worlds.

JavaScript-only is not friendly for SEO.
>Some other frameworks assume that you want a build tool, state management, client side routing etc and beginners spend hours configuring those tools and figuring out state management and client-side routing, instead of doing real work.

Okay, say I do the tutorial and build a simple page - how hard is it to retrofit routing or whatever to it? A lot of the time with new frameworks, if I get past the initial setup hurdle, I can't work out how to easily move away from toy apps to something I can use in production.
> "Many Americans avoid "fake meat" due to their cultural beliefs."

Can you elaborate on this? Downthread you mention not eating tofu or veggie burgers is due to avoidance of plants. This seems a peculiar way to phrase it. While many Americans probably don't get enough fresh vegetables and fruits, many still do include various vegetables and fruits and grains in their diets. While I do agree that it's culture in the sense that diet does tend to be cultural, "avoidance of plants" or "avoidance of fake meat" due to cultural beliefs seems a particularly odd phrasing. Culinary customs might be better? (I'm trying anemically to think of some parallel characterization of another cultural group, but doing so seems unhelpful.)
Honestly if our animal-based foods looked more like the animal there would probably be more vegetarians :)

I have a one word rebuttal: ribs. More broadly whole hog bbq, roast pig, whole fish, whole roast birds, etc. Stereotypes aside, a lot of the world’s favorite foods are clearly body parts, or the whole body, and people enjoy gnawing on the bones. Don’t underestimate the degree to which deliciousness overcomes squeamishness.

Bugs tend not to be delicious, although they are nutritious, that’s less of a draw. People struggle to eat fruits and veggies which evolved to look appealing, because a steak tastes better to them. If you want people to eat bugs they need to compete on deliciousness with other available foodstuffs. If a bug burger doesn’t taste as good as a hamburger, or Impossible burger, or veggie burger... it will mot be adopted. The bugs I’ve eaten range from OK, through bland (with good seasonings doing the work) through unappealing. That’s not going to get beyond novelty, or niche adoption. People will eat a grilled portobello mushroom or bean burger before they eat fried crickets, because the burgers taste better.
Disclaimer: IANAL. This comment is not a substitute for legal counsel.

"Are you sure about this? I doubt that communication can be copyrighted. Once you sent me your email, it's mine, not yours."

If you and the recipient both reside in countries which are signatory to the Berne Convention, then this is very much incorrect. Copyright is automatic, and goes to the author. The medium by which I distribute my copyrighted works does not somehow invalidate that automatic copyright.

"Otherwise email forwarding in general is completely illegal."

In a strict sense, yeah, probably. This is why the FSF and OSI don't consider programs without any license to be suitable for FOSS: in the absence of a license, most countries - thanks to the Berne Convention - assume no permission from the copyright holder at all by default unless otherwise established via a license agreement.

Of course, the average person is not going to start suing you for every email from said person you've forwarded without explicit permission; indeed, the average person probably won't know you've ever violated that implicit copyright at all if you're only forwarding it privately. That dynamic changes entirely, however, if you then go on and publish that email as part of a blog post.
No. People are way more complex than that.

It can be very tempting to jump to superficial conclusions by reading these publications e.g. imagine a direct correlation between testosterone and need for status.

Instead there can be a million confounding variable that depend on psychology and society.
Well, if they're scammers, do you think they'll care?
This does not sound safe.
This is pretty much the reason why Docker is so popular.
Guess: tremendous amounts of heat needing to dissipate would overwhelm all but an enormous ground heat exchanger?
we designed flent and the rrul series of tests to be able to look at these issues hard and scientifically. See flent.org for the tool.
Plotly for R has the neat feature whereby you can take a ggplot plot and render it with plotly. Same definition; perhaps more web-appropriate output. I think if I were to try and extend a grammar of graphics plotting system for another language, I might start with Plotly... or perhaps vega-lite.
Hey! Is there a way to contact you directly?
Yes. The newer ones enable control over WiFi. Joule requires you to connect to WiFi to get firmware updates.
Great. Pining users a week before an yearly renew would be nice law too.
abebooks.com has been great for buying second hand text books. International shipping can take a while but it is so much cheaper then buying new.
Relevant: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westin...
we also added ack filtering to "sch_cake" recently. do hope someone ports it to bsd.
Most mathematicians do work that is very different from most programmers. Some programmers do work that is similar to most mathematicians, and some mathematicians do work that is similar to most programmers.

Programming can be very rigorous, and mathematics can be very formal and not rigorous. There is a huge middle ground, sparsely populated between those.
But dropping support for certain browsers/clients without having data on how many of your customers would be affected is silly, IMO. You might decide to drop support for IE 11 because you want to use CSS Grid without hassle, but then it turns out that 10% of your users use that browser! As with everything, you have to weigh the tradeoff, but you can't do that if you don't have the data to begin with.
The reason it's not the same as if...else is that it's freaking backwards :D
Typically Guaranteed replacement is offered by HNW providers such as PURE, AIG, and Chubb. Travelers might do so too. It's hard to find though, so talking to an insurance broker that can access those specialist markets (i.e. they do not sell online) might be your best shot. Also, most insurers will offer some kind of Extended Replacement Cost which pretty much does the job too.

Interesting development though is in CA, insurers are legally required to recommend you a replacement cost coverage amount that is adequate for your place. That probably has a lot to do with the changes you've seen on "guaranteeing" something vs just recommending.
New Sentencing Guidelines for Harassment and Revenge Porn
Not going to comment on whether I have loved ones who are disabled since its really nobody's business here and I don't need anybody "slack", but in any case, I wasn't "throwing such a hiss about this" -- I was asking if it was legal, and if you actually read the rest of my comments, you'll see I explicitly acknowledged that the other side's practice is scummy and that lying to 'get back at people' seems like potentially the most legitimate argument people are making here. Everyone else seems to be raging over this rather than me, so it's weird to give me the credit for it. The companies' practice angers me too; it's not like I'm on their side. But if I'm providing an outlet for everyone's anger then I guess I'm... glad to be of service?
I advise the opposite of these points. Start with es5, at least for a few days. Go through the old tutorials, especially for promises.

Make sure you understand these, in order:

1. callbacks

2. promises

3. async await

And in the mean time :

1. prototype chain

2. classes

Understand them in their old school form, first. The reason being: this fancy new async await and classes stuff is just syntactic sugar, which hides the implementation and will confuse the hell out of you. You will not in a million years understand why you can

return someAsyncFunc();

Instead of:

return await someAsyncFunc();

... from within an async func, unless it’s within a try { } !

But if you understand promises, and how async await is just the same stuff different smell, you’ll immediately grok it.

And god have mercy on your soul if you try to debug code with classes and methods, without knowing about the prototype chain.

JavaScript is, at its core, an incredibly simple language. But es6 introduced a lot of smoke and mirrors, which only really makes sense once you understand precisely the things they’re trying to hide. You can get by , ignoring it, but there lies endless frustration.

It shouldn’t take long to get the basics. Invest the week, and proceed to use the more powerful tools with open eyes.

(And typescript and jsx will also confuse the hell out of you if you don’t get JavaScript yet. It’s so confusing and layered; make sure you start at the bottom!)

That’d be my advice. But I’m a very “depth first search” kind of guy :)
> wasn’t aware of extremely prescient legislation about email privacy which EFF helped crush

Interestingly, while reading that section, I couldn't help thinking EFF was in the right to oppose it. Wanting to restrict what a corporation can mine about you is laudable, but achieving it through a hack such as (in the article's description) "prohibited email providers like Google from reading or otherwise analyzing people’s emails for targeted ads unless they received affirmative opt-in consent from all parties involved in the conversation—a difficult-to-impossible requirement that would have effectively nipped Gmail’s business model in the bud." seems an extremely poorly conceived way to do so. In the real world, that would be the equivalent to requiring you to get permission from anyone that sends you a letter before showing it to someone else. That's an extremely information hostile stance, and would have likely had far-reaching effects the majority of us would consider negative.

If you really want to protect people, you give those people rights, you don't restrict specific types of third parties from performing specific actions, as that's easily circumvented and generally it ends up causing weird negative interpretations later as people try to expand it to new situations it didn't envision and we have case law expanding a restriction instead of legislation (or at worst case law expanding a right).

If what we really desire is that all parties in a correspondence need to agree before it's shared with a third party, we need to specifically legislate that, and not just use it as a shortcut for the intended goal. Something as far reaching as that and possibly conflicting with freedom of speech should not be considered lightly.

Truthfully, that's about par for how biased this article seems to be presenting things. I wouldn't be at all surprised if people found that on researching some of the claims they became more familiar, and they found they did know of them at the time and had a stance, but the presentation here is so foreign to how they remember it that as to be unrecognized when presented in the article.

I'm not going to say the EFF is perfect, or without it's own bias or conflicts, but I would be very suspect of anything you learn about them where the majority of the information is sourced from this article.
Nope. We're all about bashing things with swords.
The article doesn't mention the "other" South Pole explorer who worried about scurvy, but prevented it. Roald Amundsen arranged for seal meat and a version of pemmican that had vegatables and oatmeal[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%27s_South_Pole_expedi...
The link indicates Mammonet moved a reactor built in 1950. Are you sure it is related to pebble bed design at all?
The subshell syntax is great for:

( cd some_directory
do_a_thing_here )

... instead of all the pushd popd nonsense, and so much easier to follow.

You can also do this:

( set -e
bail_from_this
if_anything_fails ) < redirect || echo 'Something went wrong here, carrying on...'

And that won't set -e in your outer shell. You can also set -v to see what's being run just for those commands.

As far as writing functions without braces, I don't. It doesn't do anything useful, it's magical and weird to bash n00bs, and when you have to add a command you'll wind up adding the braces then.

The reason bourne shells have that is because the shell's raison d'etre is composing processes, so it makes sense that compound statements are simply processes themselves. (Maybe process is the wrong term here...) To expose that in the syntax, though, is just being overly clever, and it's more obvious now that people find it confusing.
Generally speaking people working in call centre, or that deal with client all day long, like the NATO alphabet, especially people that have to deal with random code, or need to get names spelled right. People that I know worked in call centre love it, and carry on using it decades after they left that job.

It seems a bit more tedious, but the slower pace with reduced ambiguity means you almost never have to repeat yourself.

Worth giving it a shot, speech impairment or not.
> most UI code isn't a pure function of state; it also sends messages back to state, which means the two are tightly coupled

I think this is what the Flux model is all about, making UI code actually be a pure function of state. By that, I mean literally a function, where state is the argument, and where all you render depends solely on said argument.

If you want to change what is rendered, you send a message and a Store deals with the state modification. Once it's done, it calls your pure function again, this time with a different state, so you get a different render.

This IMO, decouples state and and view instead of tightly coupling it. Redux is the best Flux implementation to demonstrate this IMO because it puts all state in a single Store. The messages to this Store can come from anywhere: UI, server, me typing on the console, etc. The state changes independently of the UI and in fact I could have a full application without having a UI whatsoever. Or I could have a UI without knowledge of my state's topography, because Redux lets me morph and cherrypick my state before I pass it to a component as props.

I think that's a good exercise: to try and build an application thinking of it as a series of actions on state first --and then how that may play onto UI-- to get to appreciate functional components. I'm curious to know why you think why you think Redux only "pretends" they aren't though. (:
All the ones that can't make it will just drop out. And if any random can make it, then your school is not that special.
I once interned at a military base that used punched card readers. Some jobs (processes) would refuse to run if any card in the deck was detected as being bad (using counts and check-sums), such as misaligned holes. Being analog, different cards often were "bad" on repeat reads. It drove everybody crazy. Experienced card people knew all kinds of tricks to reduce such a problems. I learned to respect experience.
Then in Europe, the US and Canada at least, they’ll be in violation of various laws and open to be sued.