skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
However, I think you should consider how autonomous vehicles enable better utilization of existing cars on the road. If you own a car, what % of the time is it sitting in your driveway idle?

Rather consider how with autonomous driving, when paired with services like Uber/Lyft enable a car to be active 80-95% of the time - driving folks around. This means that your cost “of the trip” can be significantly less once you factor how his affects vehicular depreciation.
I wonder if there are people revisiting non powered 'machinery'. Instead of using your hands directly (which are probably super inefficient), why not make rail to guide the force ?
I don't think you can place the burden of evidence on one side alone. Enough people have experience with YouTube as users, creators, or both that it's not wild to think that many people have reasonable intuitions about why YouTube dominates the market.

And if we are going to demand evidence of critics, I think we should also demand evidence of promoters of things like this, who often seem guided by a Big Idea rather than any evidence of user needs or proven ability to solve those user needs.
Recently I've seen a friend collaborate with teammate by sending each other zips. Using Skype! And as far as I can tell they're pretty productive. Dedication and hard work generally tends to produce results regardless.

When you use git you still need to use it right. How many times have you cloned a repo just to find out it won't build/run/compile without help? Personally, with small projects - more often than not. And I have a habit of asking if they do know for a fact it's going to build without assistance. It doesn't help.

I like git as a glorified change-log, slack commit messages especially. I try to keep everything tidy and build-able as much as anybody. But I'll still give people an archive (with .git included). And ironically this keeps git tidier as you don't obsess over whether or not to commit certain things.
Have you ever read Peopleware[0], particularly the chapter called “Bring Back the Door” and the various studies it cites about distractions in software engineering and effect on defect rates?

Note that this was written in 1987. And cites even earlier works on the topic. By now there’s been an explosion of research on this topic.

> “Glib? I'm sorry friend, but no. Absolutely not.“

Uhh, yes. You are being glib by making a certain phrase (“senior developer helping a junior developer”) have a twisted meaning (that it can only mean a real-time, interruptive audio interaction, rather than scheduled time to help). That’s glib because the short phrase “senior developer helping a junior developer” unpackages into a bunch of complicated factors that need to be considered, and a very important one is to not presume that an interruptive question is worth disrupting someone else’s work over in the moment. You glibly try to side-step this by acting like disrupting someone to ask for help is the primary option and that it’s de facto a good thing to encourage this type of disruptiveness by giving instant gratification with an immediate answer, but it’s not! Glib absolutely is the right way to describe how you are trying to sidestep the real, material meaning of what it is to help out a junior developer (which generally has nothing to do with answering their real-time audio questions in the moment they ask).

> “Answering a question quickly is productivity-killing? Then how are you defining productivity, friend?”

Yes, stopping what I am already working on in order to answer your question will kill my productivity by a lot in order to help your productivity only a little.

This is pretty simple stuff. Why are you unsure about it?

> “went as far as to suggest that when the person is sitting mere inches away from me, that is a scenario that I personally consider "within reason".”

But this is a harmful attitude on your part. It makes no difference if the person is sitting inches away from you. Why would you think physical proximity has any effect in this? What matters is whether the other person is deeply concentrating on something that they judge to be highly important to maintain focus on. Your point of view seems to be about your convenience and not the damage it would do the people who are distupted around you.

Your vitriolic reaction is very frustrating to process because you still do not seem to engage with the basic aspect of this whole topic, which is that if a question pops into your mind that affects you, that does not mean it is worth wasting someone else’s time over if they are busy. That is one of the fundamental problems of open plan offices that encourage ad hoc verbal communication, which is incompatible with modes of working that require extended concentration time for most hours of most days (e.g. almost all of software engineering).

[0]: < https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopleware:_Productive_Proje... >
We're giving away 3 free student passes to this year’s Decentralized Web Summit
Why would someone who controlled this technology practice only notable killings?
Swift Vapor + PostgreSQL and you're done.
At the very least, hold a personal meeting with your H.R. department and let them know you feel uncomfortable working with this person. Perhaps they might serve the company better in the mail room instead of being outright let go?
@mathgladiator sometimes such rules are aimed at limiting the advantage you can buy with money. Not sure if this is the true motivation here. Or in Formula 1, the restrictions are generally for the safety of the drivers. Anyway, engineering within constraints can still be competitive.

(I don't feel strongly about this personally, just listing some of the counterpoints)
Because that's always what happens when you make something better: people use less of it. What?
Depends on language, but if the type system supports encrypted and plaintext types/traits, this is the way to go.
When aero gear was introduced to cycling there was quite a bit of turmoil. Not the least of which was the fact that Greg Lemond used it to demolish Laurent Fignon in the last time trail, and jump what seemed to be a comfortable gap and win the Tour. By six seconds. I can still picture Fignon laying on the ground at the finish line, hands clenched in fists wondering where it all went wrong.

There were limits then and there have been limits since. No fairings. How long your helmet can be. I have a vague recollection about them banning inserts in your clothes (no teardrops for your calves, no articulated helmets or dorsal fins).

[edit: and apparently disc brakes were just approved last season]

These days Lemond is watchdogging for electric motors hidden in the bikes. Which is a side effect of trying to fix two other problems. First, PEDs aka doping. Second, paying to win.

The exotic materials some teams could afford resulted in light bikes that other teams couldn’t approach. They set a minimum weight for bikes, which meant you either put heavier equipment on the bike (eg, torque gauges in the rear hub) or you loaded weights into it. Or you hid a flashlight battery and a tiny 20 watt motor in the bottom bracket...
I've heard a few times that Google's containers actually run inside of VMs. I'm curious if anyone knows what their VM implementation is or what its based on?
Not only "doesn't really solve", but "makes vastly worse".
Optimistically, self-driving vehicles may allow the west to finally discover the joys of share taxis, which would increase people/vehicle and (hopefully) decrease congestion.
You're making an assumption-- namely that federated or decentralized systems must be harder to use than centralized ones.

Present decentralized alternatives usually are. There are numerous reasons. Some have to do with unsolved or inadequately solved problems in distributed systems engineering, but most are I think more pragmatic.

The two largest reasons for distributed/decentralized/federated services sucking are (IMHO):

(1) Most of these things are developed by geeks who lack an appreciation for the critical importance of user experience and lack expertise in areas like GUI and UX design. The result is products by geeks for geeks and that fail to get much traction outside small geek-centric markets.

(2) There is no good economic model, which means that there's no incentive for developers to do the parts of software development that are not fun. Solving grand problems is fun, but fixing a trillion trillion edge case UI/UX and platform bugs is not. Supporting users definitely is not. But those are the things that take something from a niche or nerds-only product to something regular people will use. Centralized platforms have two economic models: charging directly for use or monetizing the user through surveillance capitalism. (The latter is more common.)
Ease of user interoperability trumps nearly everything else. Most users don't care about your conceptual and moral motivations as an engineer. All we need to do is change the tech serving the problem underneath without necessarily changing the user-facing solution too much. It's such a simple idea yet people seem unable to grasp it; and end up whining about issues that have minimal relevance. There's a gap in the thinking somewhere. Plus, please carry on arguing about why I need to view 3 advertisements simultaneously (yes, use the YouTube mobile app). Engineers who have been reading the news and seeing the results of our latest technological models for the past 10 years don't want the same broken manure that is good for the bottom line but bad for people. Literally stop thinking about the bottom line for one second and focus on the people and maybe you'll see sometimes it's not about choking every last bit of stink out of the old model but completely changing the game. Apparently these are broken dreams though.
Conversely, if we aren't sufficiently critical of new projects, we risk wasting incredible sums of money on things that never could have worked.

Our industry has a long history of that kind of waste. Exhibit A is the dot-com bubble, but there are plenty of modern failures too. If we want to maximize innovation, we cannot be too suspicious of novelty, but we also can't let it blind us.
Torrent works exactly like this, doesn't it?
All it needs is WebTorrent to become more popular so you can stream videos directly from the browser.
Ranking the most in-demand programming languages in banking technology
Or use like lots of other languages that provide all these "wins" without having to provide justifications like "only for release build and if your tool gets used more than once".
> Both have reasonable use cases.

Building is a reasonable use case for cars while protecting yourself from polar bears is a reasonable use case for guns [0].

I don't understand why you, and a large number of other people, are being willfully obtuse about this. 10+ miles on dirt roads to get to a tractor is not someone who lives in civilization, it's someone out in the wilderness.

[0] https://www.cntraveler.com/story/alaskan-town-kaktovik-polar...
I mean I get it, but I also don't get it.
Beautifully put.

Programmers have had DRY drummed into them so hard that it is almost heretical to even consider the tradeoff of increased coupling that arises from it. Coupling is good if things should change together because they are linked in some fundamental way such that it would be wrong for them to be different. Coupling is bad when things should evolve independently and the shared link is incidental.

The problem is that it is surprisingly hard to tell the difference up front. In the moment of writing the code, the evidence for the shared abstraction seems overwhelming, but the evidence of the cost of coupling is completely absent. It exists only in a hypothetical future. Unless there is strong evidence for a shared underlying conceptual link, I often consider only the 3rd repetition of a shared piece of code evidence for the existence of a true abstraction. Two times could just be chance, three is unlikely to be so.
Then you're in luck. This isn't a minor UX quibble. It's a dog shit UX approach that attempts to fool users into signing up before they get introduced to the product at all. It's not the worst approach ever, it's merely intentionally somewhat abusive.
Sure, I just don't think that is as much of a paradigm shift as gradual improvement over time. It is not self-driving so much as the deployment of self-driving that will make that change if that makes sense. If everyone drove XC90s on barrier separated roads with automatic traffic cameras that enforced things like speed and distance between cars, we would also be much safer. But it would still be largely the same thing as today.
I'm getting at the fact that it's 9 times slower than Perl 5 at doing something which made Perl famous - parsing files with a regex. Perl 6 seems to have thrown away the basics of Perl while trying to be all things to everyone.
I definitely was. It's much easier to appear smart when being critical than when being positive.

One of the things that helped me was the notion of Appreciative Inquiry. Basically that when you are dealing with new things, you first look for the good points that you can amplify, not bad points to beat on.

That said, I think coding is a powerful push back toward the negative. Code breaks so easily that we're thoroughly trained to be on the lookout for the next failure point.
I see three factors that together have prevented recycling:

1. quickly raising demand (this means the recycling pool is small relative to production)

2. low cost of the mined source materials

3. established processes

Oh I forgot number four the human factor: general shortsightedness.

As the supply of old cells grows relative to newly produced cells, the incentives will change. Especially if we hit supply shortages that increase prices.
Excellent post!

I'm similar age and had a similar sounding childhood, but maybe a bit less to do with concrete, and more to do with the woods and the peripheral mechanical stuff that seems to go alongside. Some of my fondest memories are around fall arriving; the sap going down in the trees meant it was time for sawing - mainly for heating, and a bit for cooking. Nicer pieces of hardwood would go to dry for a year or so, then to our little sawmill and be turned in to all sorts of things. Dad was particularly known for the shaker-style spinning wheels he made occasionally, and bits to help with Mom's weaving.

Fast forward to a few months ago - my partner and I bought a house in a town that we moved to ~3 years ago, far from where I grew up. I guess I'm known here as a guy who works from home writing code and doing stuff with electronics, not as much someone who might be comfortable handling a chainsaw or a tractor. It raised a few eyebrows when one weekend, a station-wagon load of timber, box of screws, case of beer (to incentivise helpers, of course), and some old roofing steel from a friend's place turned in to a decent little firewood shed, to go with our new fireplace. I didn't shop around first, but would be shocked if the cost of that shed was anywhere near to what a commercial job would've been, and there wasn't much compromise in the fit either. All this with no youtube video nor real plan, beyond basic dimensions of the finished structure.

Not to disparage youtube of course - I use it all the time to gain short term expertise, especially for car problems. My point is more to share the value in a sort of "muscle memory" that comes from long term exposure to doing this sort of stuff.

How to share/learn these skills? Hard to say, but I remember that my Christmas/birthday gifts started coming from the hardware store (or Computer Shopper) instead of the toy store when I was pretty young, maybe 10, and that materially enabled a lot of learning for me. So, when I have the opportunity to get gifts for friends' kids, I usually look for things like soldering irons or good screwdrivers. When something breaks, I like to think about how much worse it could get if I were to fail at fixing it - usually there's minimal real risk. If you make it worse, you're not likely to repeat the same mistake; you've learned something, and there will always be another broken thing to apply that knowledge to.
Even with the raw materials, making batteries is very costly, toxic and value adding.

Apparently, this method avoids taking the cathode materials back to their raw state so a lot of the work doesn’t need to be redone.
I wish there were better options for 2FA than SMS or voice calling.

Maybe PGP?
> In particular, an interviewer doesn't generally expect or hope to learn anything useful during an interview.

Really? then why are they always asking questions? :p
>You don't even really need a sequence of closely-related brain states encoding a coherent stream of consciousness. Maybe you only exist right now, and nothing else ever happens in your life. All you need is a single brain state

Agreed mostly, though personally I think Permutation City was dancing around trying to imply something one step further than that: maybe you don't even need that single brain state to exist in some objective reality for it to have a coherent stream of consciousness. In other words, the Mathematical universe hypothesis[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes...
Why cannot Java probuce binaries that can be mapped into memory and shared like native executable files? It could solve the startup time problem.

Google even had to invent a zygote process in Android to make apps start faster.
No one in this thread can imagine getting rid of their personal vehicle; each and every one thinks that everyone else is going to get rid of THEIR personal vehicle, freeing ME to drive fast anywhere with no traffic.

It's some kind of narcissistic tragedy of the intellectual commons.
Yeah sure, in the fully shared/non-owned system that would be it. A fleet of non polluting transportation mules.
The word "history" is literally "his story" - stories about people by people.
TLDR: Netflix gives over $250mil to their competition every year.
Even if Facebook were completely evil, why not take their money? They will benefit from your research just as much even if you don't take it, because you're publishing it. Are you concerned that Facebook is telling the scientists what to work on?
The most popular videos on YouTube and the most clicked articles on the web are generally those that complain, troll, mock, criticize, or fear-monger. Humans seem to be biased toward paying attention to criticism and negativity. Maybe it has evolutionary roots. If you ignore good hunting advice you'll probably live, but if you ignore the person telling you there's a mountain lion in that bush you're cat food. The paranoid probably passed on their genes a bit more often than the optimistic.

You also see it in the arts. Dark edgy music is deep and profound while happy dancey music is trite and stupid... in spite of the fact that dark edgy music is often no more musically interesting or innovative than the happy dancey stuff.
I know what you mean, but you need to find a different or more nuanced term. Deduplication is abstraction, it just isn't an abstraction mapped to the domain problem. Even a compression algorithm abstracts:

An abstraction can be seen as a compression process, mapping multiple different pieces of constituent data to a single piece of abstract data; [1]

There are wrong abstractions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction#Compression
Run GoCD on Kubernetes – GoCD Blog
Autonomous cars could allow space currently devoted to idle car storage to be reused for denser development patterns, which would reduce the need for car-based transport in the first place.
I'm not exempt. What laudable goal could there be for such a fine?
I think people and cultures that store information in a leading 0 to a number are stupid and this practice needs to be discouraged. I have no problem with not supporting this.
Even if some shared code is currently branch-free though, it may be unlikely to remain that way if the abstraction is fragile.

A red flag is vague function names like "processThing" or "afterThingHappens". If a function can't be summarized concisely, it's probably doing too many things, and the abstraction is likely to break down later when the callers' needs diverge.
strip it
>You could have made a parallel argument, before Youtube, about how people wanted only professional content, why a service for user created content would never work etc, because that's all that had worked, up to that point.

I remember in the early days people in the entertainment industry dismissing youtube as a useless piracy website which could never deliver any worth while content by itself.

This was in 2006 when the only real use for youtube was to watch music videos because of the 10 minute video limit.

A lot can change in 10 years once the base technology is in place.
> YouTube's audience doesn't care about anything at decentralized

You're speaking for quite a huge number of people about their preferences vs. something that does not exist. "Content creators" didn't care about the internet, until they did. For that matter, apparently I'm not a member of the "audience", either.

Maybe you're right. I'd need to see some argument other than "because I think so", and look at these failures[1], though.

As far as bald assertions, here's mine:

Video consumers on average don't know what the word "federated" means in the context of networked services. Nor do they care. They don't know that email is federated. They know they hit "send", and their words pop up in grandma's inbox.

Users don't care about the tech under the hood. They want the payloff. If the economics of federated content networks work, they will take off once someone figures out the proper feature set, placement and happens into a bit of luck.

If not, we're doomed to sharecropping on FaceGoogazon and this whole conversation is pointless.

[1] I have here a list of social network failures that prove nobody wants to use social networks. QED.
Your plan includes banning personal car ownership? If it doesn't, then how do you plan to reduce it?
Visit your local "Natural History" museum.
>A lot of times it reads more like an advertisement than actual journalism

that's because a lot of it is advertisement. Paid posts are rampant, but so is lazy "journalists" simply copy and pasting press releases, maybe re-wording a couple phrases to make it seem like their own writing.
I use upx if I don't plan on having binary patch updates.

But I wanted to be fair with the article.

Well, to be fair with Go, I should say 2MB for an hello world app like the one they have.
Ask HN: What do you do when the bar is full?
How do you deal with scarcity in social situations?

- When you goto a bar and literally every seat is taken, what do you do? Do you goto another bar, and if so, how do you know that bar also isn't full?

- When you goto the grocery store and there are literally no empty parking spots (and several others are driving around the parking lot), what do you do? How do you know other grocery stores are not also literally full?

- What if you went to the coffee shop to work, but every table was taken? Do you take your coffee and return to your office or home?
This is an illusion; “his” is a Germanic word but “history” is derived from the Greek word “historia”.
Previously discussed on HN:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2861825

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2897277

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11913825
From what i can tell, the main thing that games journalism is doing right is to find an audience with very low standards for journalism.

Can you point me to a single piece of significant reporting on video games, that came from within the "video games journalism" industry? i.e. not just reviews or rumours about upcoming games, but actually breaking a story that holds people or companies accountable for something in a way that had a lasting impact?
My rule of thumb is that unless I'm going to do arithmetic with it, it probably ought to be a string.