skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> it's not obvious to me what the business case would be to containerise everything

Containers allow you to move apps trivially between environments and guarantee that they will just work. It allows you to isolate dependencies between apps e.g. Python 2 versus Python 3. It allows you to move apps between cloud providers or between on premise and cloud. With platforms like Kubernetes it allows you to easily scale and self heal when nodes die.

And compared to rewriting your app in Lambda which is expensive and complex it is simple to build a container as almost every language has automated tooling.
Bytepdf: Submit research paper with runnable code inside [PDF file]
> Also, it’s a lot easier and less error prone to compose dynamic queries with Linq

That's the general assumption of people not familiar with SQL, RDBMs and full stack architecture. One of my issues is that ORMs and LINQ have become crutches. Also, you are ignoring the major problem of security and auditing. If you are working on a local toy project, then sure, you can just do whatever you want. But if it is an enterprise project with real security concerns, the idea of giving read/write access to web server accounts is amateur hour. Trust me, I've seen it with my own eyes. People who spend 2 days reading "Learn web dev in 21 days" and "Learn SQL in 21 days" and putting today something akin to "Hello world" projects because their managers didn't know any better.

> - ie keep chaining Where clauses and OrderBy’s based on a condition.

You can use LINQ, chaining, lazy evaluation and all that on data/Enumerables/sequences retrieved from a stored procedure.

But hey, what do I know.
Don't forget the N active trade wars we're in right now. Historically those have been bad for economic growth.
Ha. EKS is a joke.
I have written services powered by lambda. As a matter of fact I’ve used AWS/GCP/Azure. I mentioned lambda as an example of a fully managed service - it was not to “endorse” serverless.

Also if you look at a container long enough and squint you will see the words serverless emerge.

I also had the “pleasure” of working with K8S. If anything, this looks like a pretty good play from Google to get you to eventually run your workloads in GCP.
I've been enjoying the struggle through Statistical Inference by George Casella as a foundational text. This was the introductory text for stats graduate students at Arizona State University a few years back.

The Mathematical Methods of Statistics by Harald Cramér is also excellent.
That was the touchscreen, not the trackpad
Why not both?

The economy is healthier with safety nets that prevent people from "dropping out" of the economy through homeless, excessive debt, being trapped under huge debt burdens that limit their options, etc.

But the economy is also healthier when it is fully participatory. When only a small slice of the public has any significant amount of discretionary spending the economy tends to stagnate.
EDI/SWIFT slowing Blockchain adoption through Hybridization/Sailing ship effect
Errands bank account = etrade, boo typo!
I agree with you whole-heartedly.

My programming career has gone from "I don't know the best way to write something", to "I know the best way to write something and I'll do it this way every time", to "often it doesn't fucking matter, just get it done and move along to the next problem".
Correctness can just mean "does what it's intended to do". This is fairly unambiguous in cases such as if you intend to implement A* Search. If you hit a NPE and your program explodes, or if you aren't calling your heuristic (central to A*), then you have skimped on correctness. Furthermore, basically any time you hit something like a runtime error you likely did not intend to hit it. Therefore, regardless of problem domain, taking approaches that minimize these types of errors is an uncontroversial way that correctness can be prioritized.
casella and burger is the standard grad math stats book and good-ish departments i.e. it proves things using calculus but it's for statisticians (covers things like efficiency and biasedness and etc).
That argument relies on somewhat circular logic. You say one cause is that home owners don't want new housing. You solve that by repealing prop 13 giving them a financial stake in the market value of homes. However, why would the home owners support that repeal if they are against new housing in the first place? Either the home owners are against new housing or they aren't. If your suggestion was a feasible solution to the problem, it would prove that that your proposed cause was not actually the cause of the problem.
FWIW here is a list of texts used in a data science conferene as references in presenter's slides (Cassella Berger was mentioned here by others, Hastie Tibshirani is also good). https://hastebin.com/raw/upiqumenas
Thank you, it was an interesting read. Guess it really depends on the company then...
This gives me some closure, thank you!
Not sure I agree. If you need a container to do the things you mention you’re already in a pretty bad shape.

Not to mention that a lot of people don’t understand what a container is.
UK STEM academic salaries are an embarrassment.
Eh, static site generators, CMSes, and bloghosts didn't break the web. Sure, they made it easier for people to churn out content, but it was authentic material they cared enough to write about. Whether they posted under their real name, or under a screenname, they built little fiefdoms of content with their personal time, and made it available for anyone to read, without an account, and without any obligation of feedback.

What changed was when people began putting their content into siloes protected by a login wall, and platforms strongly defined by visible indicators of popularity, which didn't really happen until Facebook and Twitter.

Even in the Livejournal and Myspace days, a lot of profiles were public, but quasi-pseudonymous, requiring some effort to actually find. It was Facebook that mandatorily juxtaposed one's real name with one's real words, which quickly led to predictable outcomes: people being doxxed, harrassed, turned down for employment. Within a few years, most people set their profiles to private in an effort to protect themselves from snooping employers, colleges, exes, and trolls, keeping most of what people write and share walled off behind a login and a friend approval gate.

Twitter was billed as "microblogging", where one could publish short snippets with more frequency vs. a long-form blog, but its bizarre interface, unclear direction, and feature competition with Facebook caused it to evolve many of the same mechanisms and signals of popularity as Facebook. Facebook's status updates were a direct assault on Twitter, so Twitter eventually morphed 'favorites' into 'likes'. With it, it was blindingly obvious that most people's content wasn't even being read.

All of this social transition took place in the shadow of the commercialization of the web, where websites were no longer just billboards for businesses, but platforms where one could conduct commerce, consume professional content, and be subject to behavioral analytics that fed back into ads. With the abundance of commercial content, consumption went up and amateur production went down.
Eh, in the last press release from Mozilla, they say otherwise:

> Confidence when doing systems-level programming. For old hands, Rust’s guarantees mean you can spend less of your time and attention on avoiding pitfalls, which makes it possible to reach for more ambitious goals. For newer systems programmers, it means a shorter path to being able to start writing production code.

> This second point is worth emphasizing. In traditional systems programming, there’s just an intense amount of discipline you need to learn in order to write production code. Because the discipline takes so long to master, and the stakes of slipping up are crashes and security vulnerabilities, most people will only trust seasoned veterans of systems programming to ship production C++ code. But with Rust, you don’t have to master this discipline to start shipping production code; you know the language has your back.

As far as I can read, it states the purpose of the language is correctness, and developer productivity?
>"The problem is that understanding all of the mathematical machinery is tricky and, unfortunately, these details are needed to tune the hyper-parameters."

You don't need to understand anything about the math to run a random, or grid, or bayesian optimization, or whatever search of the hyperparameter space.
> Data is not permanent

A blockchain is getting close to permanent. I wonder if there is a blockchain-based version control.
I think you can understand what the borrow checker is doing and still think it is being too stringent.
Could you elaborate on your question?

With a 2-node example what do you mean? Like a race condition? A mutex or some kind of lock to prevent this?

When you say node cycle. Do you mean like in graph theory where you can have the "fast and slow traversal" find a cycle?
I only have time for a quick brain dump, but I hope my observations are useful to someone:

- It needs a "happy path" with the very minimum you need to learn to get started. Something like create-react-app and what you'd need to learn after that. This diagram is too scary for beginners. Bury the full diagram further down in the README.

- Each of the tools listed relieves a real pain point in large applications. You need to know what that pain point is and if you even need that relief. Understanding when you need each of those tools is important but missing info from the roadmap.

- It does represent most the types of tools you would be using for a very big app on a large team. Frontend is just as complex as backend these days, and complex in a good way not a bad way. The tools aren't there to look cool. You need them in a huge app.

- It is super helpful to understand which tools solve the same problem. But this should be explained better for beginners looking to use the road map. "Oh, I don't need to learn Jest, Mocha, Sinon, Enzyme, and Chai, they all scratch the same itch" (mostly, let's not get pedantic).

- The other comments that say none of this is necessary, just use React, are great comments. It's true of a one person team for a small app. More of this kind of thinking should go into the minimal "happy path" roadmap.
Is the Bitcoin network an oligarchy?
From the relevant wikipedia page: "envy-free divisions of connected intervals to 3 or more people cannot be found by any finite protocol." - I can agree that your algorithm is quadratic, and therefore, that your algorithm is not envy-free.

Your suggested algorithm seems to be unfair because the first party to choose has a clear advantage over the parties who choose later and did not cut: depending on the order of the parties there is also likely to be collusion.

The immediately easiest (and politically realistic) way to game your system is to split yourself into multiple parties and then cut your allies/sock puppets a massive slice.
Ahh it’s because of people like you that I’ll always have a job. He’s right folks Please don’t try to understand the math behind it, actually the less you know the better.
> The fact that your face can be tracked does not mean your speech will be curtailed, those two things are fairly unrelated.

Anonymity is one of the most effective tools for preserving free speech. If you can't speak anonymously, you're more likely to self censor what you say. If you can't consume information anonymously, you're unlikely to seek out or research unpopular views or ideas.

Barring massive social changes that are realistically never going to happen, a world where your identity and actions are always visible is a world without free speech.
It's manipulative in the following ways:

1. The good guys win, the bad guys lose

2. Going along with (1) there's the morality message

3. The events in the book serve the purpose of the plot

4. Lots of books are formulaic, i.e. the author found a formula that sells.

5. There's got to be a beginning, middle, and end.

6. Many novels are written as a series of cliffhangers. Crichton would do that, as would the Outlander series, etc.

Real life is much more messy and unpredictable, hence more interesting.
From the title, I was rather expecting an argument along the lines of "Git is not revision control of code, but of snapshots of a filesystem"; I opened the link expecting to see an introduction to a patch-based system like Darcs or Pijul.

Pijul's theory, in particular, is extremely intuitive (if your intuition extends to "cocompletion of the category of files and patches", anyway) and it truly is born for the task of versioning text (and hence code). Git, by contrast, versions anything, with the result that very weird and counterintuitive things can happen when you merge branches. I recommend https://jneem.github.io/merging/ for a glimpse of what a distributed version control system could have been.
I also saw (1) be true most of the time. Why isn't Copy / Clone / Immutability the default (pass by value), as opposed to the exception? It seems like if you found this was slow, you could go back and fix things when you need the performance, as opposed to wasting time doing lots of copy / clones (and really ugly code).

How does binding all sorts of short-lived variables make your architecture better?
True, people use a grid search, but I am always very uncomfortable using things as black boxes. How does tree depth affect generality etc...? Effectively using a model means understanding your tools, in my view, but easy to get started w/o the math as you say!
Probably I just misread your intent. It seemed off-topic and the sort of accusatory nitpicking that users vent on each other when they're feeling flamey.

If that wasn't what you meant, I'm sorry I got it wrong! Moderation is guesswork. We try as hard as we can to guess right, but definitely still get it wrong sometimes.
Jobs are the wrong thing to focus on period. Focus needs to be on ownership.
The problem starts when your constructipn guys start to cheap out to the point they violate some expectations you may have about your house that you don't realize. Like that walls should actually support the load with some margin, so that the whole thing doesn't collapse after first hole you drill. Or that elecrical cabling shouln't me aluminum wrapped in paper. It may sound like a strawman, but we have tons of regulation (paid for in blood) in this space precisely because markets incentivize people to cheat if they can get away with it.

I see markets like combustion. A powerful force if you can contain and channel it, but an absolute disaster if you let it roam free.
This argument is absurd. Git is clearly useful for revision control tasks, and so if it doesn't meet this guy's definition of a revision control system, the definition isn't particularly useful. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, even if someone doesn't think the delicious pudding qualifies as pudding.
"Theory of Probability" by Bruno de Finetti is the best text on probability ever written.
The tantalizing question is: why would employers choose to hold out for employees who will accept lower wages, rather than offer higher wages and employ more people immediately?

Higher wages are a commitment to long term obligation. It's a drag to lay people off and employers seldom decrease wages as a tactic to control costs. Corporate profits are high -- often the result of vigorous expense cuts in the past.

Maybe doubts about the future? Maybe local prioritizations around profit margin vs revenue growth?

For sure, treating all jobs and job seekers as equivalent seems likely to produce confusing analysis as well.
Or your home is in a hotel but you walk down to the cafe ... should you renumber ?
Smaller increases in cost also result in some passengers choosing alternate modes of transportation (for example, driving) which are invariably less safe.
Yes, this is what happens. National sovereignty still exists. Maybe, since Europeans have a supra-national entity above their countries, they don't quite grok that everywhere else a country is the top giver of the law.
I'm not arguing the borrow checker is wrong, I'm just saying, rather than being the Star Ship: Enterprise's computer, and asking me to put up shields, I want the language to put up the shields for me. Yes, they might result in a power drain, but 99% of the time, I don't want to get shot, at the expense of power.

Just treat things as immutable, and copy them around, or automagically allow for wrapping / unwrapping a (Ref)Cell/(A)rc
> But I just found this written so matter o-factly ("It's impossible to refute this line of reasoning in my opinion.") for something that seems to make no actual point at all

What's truly terrifying is this style of argumentation being applied to every technical decision.
It tastes great! And having a savory drink seems somehow more satisfying on a flight.

Bonus, if you like bloody mary mixer. That, on ice is wonderfully complex, and contrasts nicely with the bland airplane atmosphere.
Interesting. Can you point me at the timestamp or a paper which shows the algorithm?
I find it very useful for questioning things like “If I’m on rev 1000 and see the bug and you are on rev 990 and don’t see the bug then we have 9 possible culprit commits”.

This is possible to talk about in git given “HEAD~N” etc but it’s cumbersome. Git should out of the box have support for the default scenario: there is a blessed branch on a blessed server. Revisions-as-numbers are the ordered (first parent) commits on that branch. Probably easy enough to hack into a tool, but to me it’s a mystery why this isn’t part of the standard behavior.
OMG! This is why I love HN. I downloaded Jim Weirich's presentation so I can watch it offline a few hundred times.
Have you written Erlang?
I cannot disagree more. It's a "minimum wage". What good is it if it's not a living wage? What's the point of having a minimum wage that one cannot survive on?
Please don't get personal or swipey in HN comments. Rather, the idea is: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Feller is damn hard work. I'd put feller's probability on the same level as Rudin's real analysis.
Maybe in the sense that webpages cannot talk to each other directly.
Well, it's not like people go out facial-recognizing for sport or recreation...
Show HN: LineUp – A search engine for brand recommendations from Reddit
Of course they are. The challenging part is reading different accounts of the same events, and attempting to discern the truth. For example, was Edison a good guy or a bad guy? Did he invent the lightbulb or steal it? And if you find something interesting, you can dig into it and find out more. Not so with a novel.

Fictional universes evolve into 'canon', where certain explanations are correct and others are dismissed. Star Trek, Star Wars, etc., famously have 'canon'. People get wrapped around the axle arguing canon. This is ridiculous, as it's all made up nonsense.
I believe it's the latter, given the last two paragraphs of TFA:

> In order to protect civil liberties without hampering innovation, lawmakers should require public input before surveillance tools are deployed and ensure that facial recognition databases are purged of data related to law-abiding people.

> lawmakers should ensure that real-time facial recognition capability is not merged with police cameras, whether they are dash cams, CCTV cameras, or body cameras. Facial recognition may well be a valuable investigatory tool, but outfitting police with real-time facial recognition capability will only increase the likelihood of needlessly contentious and violent confrontations between police officers and members of communities across the country.
I have no reason to believe either of you are being dishonest. So taking what you've both posted at face value, i have to conclude that nearly every other adult demographic in the US, does much better employment wise than men. Which is odd?

I wonder if you actually only counted white and asian men, would the statistics look any better?

EDIT: I just realized how terrible that may have sounded. I'm genuinely only curious about what's causing this apparent disparity. (A disparity that must be a bit severe mathematically speaking.) So my "off the cuff" guess would be that large sections of black, hispanic, and native american men are not really able to participate in the employment markets. And that's maybe how the numbers get so high for men in general?
Agree that it's a problem that needs to be fixed in more permanent ways, but debatably protesting and slowing down companies like Amazon gives us more time to find a solution.

It's a band-aid, but band-aids are an extremely useful medical tool. They only become problematic if used as an excuse to avoid stitching the wound.
The web is not broke. People just prefer stories, situated within time, to "homepages," which are like reading resumes.
Researchers find Amazon is selling white supremacist products
Two other great history reads are -

1. The Great Game - by Peter Hopkirk
2. A History of the English-Speaking Peoples - by Winston Churchill
Heck, I feel like once you are a programmer, you are a programmer.

Even after a decade of programming, it still takes me a few days to learn new concepts/libraries.

My thing is, if you already know it, copy paste and edit. If you dont know it, build the code for the first time. I feel like this is the difference between a 10 year programmer and 2 year programmer.

I have the foundation for sql databases, so it would take me mere moments to write a new full stack if I already had the code.
It’s interesting that while, as the author notes, the map seems to skew red overall, with more places opting for a late time zone, the few deep green areas there are are among the most heavily populated regions in the world - the northeast US, Japan, central Indonesia, coastal Brazil, Southern California. This is a typical issue with geographic visualizations. I’d be interested to see a population histogram for how many people are on late solar time vs early.
Pretell, how does my code not show an understanding of the memory model? I understand how the memory model works, I just want the language to _do the easy thing_ (copy) in most scenarios, and make embedding (Cells, RCs) / unwrapping more straightforward.
The poorly named but very interesting "hypothesis"[0] is a quickcheck implementation (extension?) for python that might provide the "easy" access to these tools that you're looking for.

[0] https://hypothesis.works/
I agree with some of the principles you're articulating here, but I think the general class of position you're taking here is a bad one. Free speech has an actual meaning. It means the government does not restrict speech. Tracking people does not restrict speech. It may impose a social cost on you for speaking, but it does not prevent you from doing so. Nowhere in the constitution of the United States, nor any constitution that i'm aware of, does it say that you are to be insulated from the social consequences of speaking your mind. Nor do any guarantee the right to anonymity in public spaces.

Now, will this have a chilling effect on certain kinds of speech? Most likely, yes. Should we be concerned about that? Probably. But please, do not conflate 'free speech' with 'freedom from social consequences'.
Besides having a basic understanding of what the parameters do (this is depth, this is learning rate, etc) I don't see what insights are to be gained. The optimal parameters depend on the particulars of your dataset, that's why everyone just does a search.

Maybe I am wrong, does this tutorial contain a derivation from the math that shows something like "if your data has these properties then you should set maximum depth to be this value and learning rate to be this value, and dropout to be that value"?