skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Firstly, I never compared flavors of Ubuntu as being lesser. I only asked why each DE needed it's own community.

Secondly, you didn't report your issues, enough said. When you are a volunteer team, you can't buy every piece of hardware. You absolutely depend on logs and more importantly people willing to test. I had an early Ubuntu beta format my partition when I hadn't selected to do so. I wouldn't say Ubuntu sucks and should give up. It was addressed as a bug and fixed. Such is the nature of software.

I don't think any promises were made. Antergos is an easy installer for arch. I don't know if you know all that goes into an installer. It's way more than I assumed when I signed up. Just writing py3 bindings for libparted, for example, didn't exist. I upstreamed those to RedHat. For a distro, I'd probably say the installer is 20 to 30 percent of the effort. Packaging is the large remaining majority. *buntu flavors reuse packaging, and reuse an installer.

I will never claim Antergos is perfect. It's not, and it does break as Arch changes things. But saying 'it doesn't work' or 'start over' is dismissive and borderline ignorant. Most of the issues over the years were due to changes in Arch packaging, not due to bad code.

I won't reply further, feel free to stand on your soapbox and continue badmouthing something you did nothing to help.
Any idea why it ended up so differently to scripts found in Eurasia?
I dont know what you consider as prototyping, but yes they both can run a basic app with minimal effort.

Look into AppEngine which is a few CLI commands for deploying. Same with Firebase which is widely considered a great mobile platform with everything you need. You can also use the Serverless.com framework to build apps on Cloud Functions, and they recently announced running any container in a serverless fashion (similar to Azure's ACI).

If you still want to run servers, then they have the best VM platform around.
This is bad. I love google fiber and see that what they are trying to do is valid but when one utility company touches another company's facilities it compromises the other facility and makes it vulnerable for service disruption.

But the regulation to ban or allow should not come at the Federal level. It should be governed by the utility pole owner.

In NYC for example con Ed owns a large number of poles. And then Verizon owns the next number of poles. Verizon and other utility companies pay ConEd based on how high their utility is placed. If it's a Verizon pole, Verizon will put their facility on the very top and spectrum will put their facility on the lower part.

This means that another utility company cannot just come and move someone else's facility around.
There is an assumption among folks in the tech community that there is no competition between providers serving different markets--i.e. what Verizon does in Maryland cannot affect what Comcast does in Delaware. However, the idea that Google Fiber is "spur[ring] the rest of the ISPs" to roll out gigabit is accepted without question, even though Google Fiber serves very few markets. Verizon, for example, upgraded FiOS to gigabit even though Google Fiber serves no Verizon territory and has shown zero willingness to overbuild another fiber provider, and after Google Fiber announced it was downshifting deployment.

One of those premises has to be wrong.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are we supposed to consider it normal that something which used to work is now broken? I hope not, especially with something as well-defined as a calculator.
Interesting they mention the Aussie wrens, as I have observed most birds ignore cactus wrens in my corner of the Sonoran Desert. They chatter and alarm constantly. Birds of differing species also pick up when bandits raise false alarms to snatch food from their peers/other species. Fascinating how the differing types comingle and compete. Am glad they're not 10+ feet tall, even the seemingly docile doves can be vicious.
Level 4; You don't know what your vacation cost.
When someone dresses up their politics as apolitical, it's impossible to discuss politics with them. Usefully, anyway.
None of those are natural monopolies. Every human could easily switch from Facebook to any competitor right now. The same is not true of cable, ISPs, electricity, gas, etc.
Frequency Scaling as a Security Threat on Multicore Systems
A professor of mine once said to me that all teaching was a process of lying, and then of replacing the lies with successively better approximations of the truth.

This is the opposite of what Feynman thought. He said, and I agree, something like "the hard part about teaching is making concepts simple without saying things that are false." The whole challenge of teaching is NOT lying, but instead saying simple things that are still true.

That said, I see the appeal of choosing omega.
I think for me ideally I would place the order online and drive through to pick it up.

Eventually it’s a robot doing the drive through pickup. You just load the items into a trunk which automatically opens.

But I always liked the idea of streamlined pickup not last mile in-home delivery.
It has made the front page now https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17674859
The problem as I understand it is that deregulation helps a lot in situations where a compelling business case exists for companies to expand/compete, and it hurts a lot where said business case does not exist.

As it so happens, crowded urban centers, where a single cell tower or fiber-optic network can serve thousands of paying customers, benefit a great deal from deregulation. Sparsely populated rural areas, however, where "last mile" really means "last 30 miles", get screwed over by deregulation since companies have minimal incentive to expand if it only means 10 new paying members.

I'm not saying either extreme is perfect -- indeed, deregulation likely helps more than it hurts given increasing population density in U.S. cities -- but it seems to me that there are advantages to both sides of the equation.
I think if Luddites really did understand technology, they would have realized that they can't stop it by destroying things, and they can't stop it by attempting to ban it either.

They might be right to fear it, but that doesn't mean they understand it.

They might be right in proclaiming that they don't deserve to be left behind as a result, but that still doesn't mean they understand it.

At least, that's what I mean when I talk about Luddites not understanding technology.
I have no problem with this rule. This isn't SV's domain expertise.

Maybe if political/social science is included in engineering schools as Fred Turner suggests, the quality of discussion and outcomes produced could be more constructive over the long term.

But with the current generation or two or three forget about it.
I think that's fair. Personally, for a long time I didn't want politics to exist. I wasn't good at it, thought it was a waste of time and resources, and hoped to ignore it. But that clearly didn't work. E.g., the innocent BBS nerd havens of my youth turned into an online communication system that has let terrible people organize around the world.
Later, when this causes a portability problem, it will be replaced. As long as you, your manager, and your teammates are fine with having to replace your work, go crazy. Write an HTTP server in Pascal. Create a linker in awk. YOLO.
Remember that the customer base is global, not just U.S.

But just ask yourself, over the next 30 years will somebody produce that much profit for the company? Think of the 10 cell phones, 7 laptops, 5 iPads, Apple Music subscription, etc. that you'll purchase over the next 30 years. If you spend $1,000/yr on Apple products and it's 20% profit, they make $200/year x 30 years = $6,000. Then discount accordingly...

There's nothing crazy about it, no shark-jumping necessary.
I got excited because I thought that I might finally understand infinity. Unfortunately I am still not there as I am not there with quantum mechanics. I have read many books on both with equal non-success.
This seems really awesome, but my God is it expensive. Maybe I am not reading correctly but it seems like just the nuts and bolts from McMaster cost $230 and that's still excluding the electronics and additional hardware! I guess I'll have to save up a bit before I can play with my own minituare rover.

edit: the motors also are going to cost around $500
Thank a lot for sharing! That was interesting. So the desire to hover around 50% requires 2X larger batteries as would otherwise be necessary?
No, bias is still bias. You do not beat discrimination by discriminating against another group of people.

Don't focus on the outcome and try to engineer what you think is fair. That only leads to chaos because you can't possibly understand every individual's life experience.

Life will never be fair. That is a fundamental aspect of reality, so trying to arrange the future without perfect omniscience means you are doing nothing more than adding another roll of the dice. It may seem like you're equalizing things, but you're not.

Like I said, the focus should be on opportunity. That is vastly different than outcome, and it does mean that we should strive to make it so that anyone from any background has a chance to do what they want to do. That doesn't mean that some won't have to worker harder than others, again life isn't fair and that'll always be a part of it, but the chance is what matters. As long as people have a chance, then they have a chance to achieve their goals and dreams and actually find happiness. That's the only way it works.
> All the usual suspects occur, but a new addition is the puerile addition in position #20 of the concatenation of 420 and 69.

Neat
Bio-engineered lungs are the first successful organs made in the lab
I think you have the causality backwards. If we never talk about it, the quality of discussion isn't going to get better. And as the article says, "The design of technology hides its political imperatives by presenting as neutral." Us not discussing politics here is part of that pretense that what we do is somehow neutral. The pretense that things that touch millions, maybe billions of people could possibly be apolitical.
I used to watch Moviedrome every week and I cannot find the Videodrome intro from Mark Cousins but everything from him was pretty great, for instance [1].

The way he introduced movies and in particular the horror ones made me never forget them.

[1] https://youtu.be/jRcOgZD5ffw
Is it that bad, though? Apple is selling $1000 iPhones at 70% profit margins with a US market penetration of ~40%. Handwaving some really bad math, Apple will have a trillion dollars in profits from that segment alone over the next 10 years. This discounts worldwide markets and every other product line that they also have.
As a n00b just getting into software development this might be a dumb question but does saying "Yup, still workin' on those bugs" really create a sense of blockage or such?

I gotta think that's kinda a common thing to be said and other devs would understand that that happens...
Nope, it makes perfect sense.

Current revenues and profits are a drop in the bucket compared to the next 30 years, you should focus mostly on the future.

And these aren't casino gamblers, prices are ultimately set by the professionals who analyze this stuff full-time for a living. The market cap is simply the "wisdom of the crowds" who are putting their money where their mouth is.

If you have a better way of calculating the worth of companies, then you'll become extremely, extremely, extremely rich. Good luck.
What's TC like for those?
"PIN number" is just a shorthand for "number that is a PIN." Never understood the pedantry on this one; when spoken (a lossy channel of communication), "PIN" is similar enough to "pin" and "pen" and "pan" that people have found the need to further disambiguate to be understood.
This is known as local loop unbundling and is mandated by the FCC... for phone service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling
On the flip side, that means there's nothing to stop the pole owner from delaying, as (if I understand correctly) Google argued was happening here. Sure, you could try to fine uncooperative owners, but the delay will kill small ISPs who can't afford to wait; the potential fine would have to massive to deter such behavior, and between lobbying and general antipathy toward regulation, that size of fine would likely never occur.

I don't disagree though that there should be some form of middle ground (which it seems Pai was trying to find) -- I'm just unsure what it would be.
If I think someone else YouTube video will get popular, can I monetize that?
If I think a youtube video will get popular, is there anything I can do to buy ads/sell ads to monetize that. Or any other way?
Launch checkout page in 30s with 0% transaction fees. Announcing PaySwift
Fantastic, that confirms it! And kudos to barbegal for recognizing the base.
> All so you can spend an extra 30 minutes at your job waiting for someone else's groceries, which you will then spend 2 hours to deliver, by hand, to their (assuming) nice looking house with their nice looking family, as you then trudge back to your apartment and sit on your Walmart couch, in your Walmart clothes, eating your Walmart food and watching your Walmart TV.

That's exactly what pizza, take out, Uber eats, news paper, usps delivery is about. Do you really think these delivery drivers make a lot more? Definitely more than Walmart but it's still not a lot.

I think if Walmart had a better pay model, things would have worked.
It isn't that politics doesn't exist, it's that politics and engineering are two different things.

Nobody designs an infrastructure to change your desire such that you desire a red Popsicle and not a green Popsicle. They design a generic infrastructure that can influence your desires and the specific desires are fungible parameters. It's equally capable of making you want red over green or green over red, or want to conserve water, or stay home from the polls on election day, or drink more Ovaltine. The engineering portion is the same in each case. It's a general-purpose tool.

The politics is in what you use it for. But that's the same as anything. A wall or fence with the same engineering specs has very different consequences when it's used to corral livestock than when it's used to imprison people.

The issue is that some companies (e.g. Facebook) are not just doing the engineering, they're also making the political decisions. They're not just creating a general-purpose technology, they're also deploying it in a specific way. And making the decision for everyone because they don't have enough competition.
That many microservices from the beginning is premature optimization. I'm not really convinced it would ever be an optimization, honestly.

It sounds like your manager sucks and work culture isn't great. Why not apply for other jobs while you're there? It doesn't hurt to have options.
Off-line processing is absolutely in fashion with SDCs. Can't quickly react to a pedestrian jumping in front of your car when you have to bounce 12 1080p video streams to a AWS server.
Pai worked at Verizon from February 2001 to April 2003 when he was four years out of law school. What evidence do you have that Verizon are his 'paymasters'?
See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17676956
Most large European countries didn't expand unbundling to include cable and fiber either: https://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/2-7.pdf. None of the five largest EU countries (which comprise the majority of the EU population), applied unbundling to coax. Most don't apply unbundling to fiber either.

U.S. copper unbundling rules are weaker than the U.S., but copper is also largely irrelevant in the U.S., because most broadband is over cable or fiber. Unbundling matters more in Europe, but primarily because DSL is much more common in Europe.
The problem is that product managers and management in general want features and don't care about technical debt.

So if you are working on a bug (fixing technical debt) then you are not working on a feature.

Also, working on features is often (but not always) more predictable in time estimation than working on bugs, which can be a completely exploratory task with the only endpoint being "it works now"...
Very interesting. The XP calc.exe/Calculator Plus is able to compute 10^43429 (and the result is 1.e+43429), but not 10^43430.

What's the significance of 43430?

e^99999 = 1.0325137485899245994533393888277e+43429
e^100000 = 2.8066633604261231793183858185717e+43429
e^100001 = Invalid input for function.

(XP calc.exe)

According to Mathematica,

e^100001 = 7.6293020112481304176946586569717e+43429
e^100002 = 2.0738593021001839250781552880629e+43430

and likewise,

ln(1e+43429) = 99998.968003638410011217350885487
ln(1e+43430) = 100001.27058873140405690136887694

It's off by a tiny bit, but it's round enough to give some hints: 10^x is internally being computed using e^x.

Edit: some more interesting, possibly relevant search results for the numbers 43429 and 43430:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33515746/why-is-this-c-p...

http://delphiforfun.org/NewsLetters/Nbr32.htm
Smartphones should've been banned from schools 5-6 years ago. It's too late now. These days kids start tapping smartphone/tablet screens at a really young age. Taking away there smart devices now is like sending them to school blindfolded. Doesn't matter if they use smartphones for work or as a distraction, they're hooked!
Relevant:

https://librarianshipwreck.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/why-the-...

> There is a widespread belief in contemporary computer dominated societies, that regular people are not allowed any say in the discussions around the types of technologies that radically reshape their lives. And the way that the term Luddite is commonly used functions to reify this belief by making people believe that they cannot push back against technology. Of course, as the above history demonstrated, the irony is that what the Luddites prove is that you actually can push back, you can build up a mass movement around it, and you can in fact be so successful that the government is forced to deploy soldiers and pass harsh legislation in order to squash you.

> Need a more recent example? How about Google Glass. When Google unveiled that wearable high-tech headset it was framed as “inevitable,” those who raised worries were dismissed as “Luddites,” and Google seemed hellbent on pushing forward regardless. Google Glass was going to be the next thing, not because regular people wanted it to be, but because Google insisted that it would be. But a funny thing happened: people said no, and Google’s “world changing” product was shelved. There’s certainly a difference between the public rejecting a piece of consumer technology and workers pushing back against mechanization – but the common thread that connects them is that you do not have to let a tech company screaming “technological progress” in your face turn you into a paragon of passivity. And what’s more you don’t have to accept a false dichotomy wherein saying no to one kind of technology means that you are rejecting all technology.
I generally avoid grocery store ice cream and either make my own at home or prefer to go out to any local place that makes their own.

But as an example of an ice cream that’s entirely too sweet: anything from Coldstone.

The one exception I have to grocery store ice cream: I’ll buy Häagen-Dazs vanilla for making a Guinness float.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_closure#In_graph_th...

> In computer science, the concept of transitive closure can be thought of as constructing a data structure that makes it possible to answer reachability questions. That is, can one get from node a to node d in one or more hops? A binary relation tells you only that node a is connected to node b, and that node b is connected to node c, etc.

That snippet defines a function path(A, B) by specifying two cases:

1. a link(A, B) exists

-or-

2. some element I exists, such that a link(A, I) exists and path(I, B) exists.
A medical school in Japan didn’t want too many women. So it lowered their grades
It seems to me that these kinds of authors always see the alternative as a Silicon Valley with their politics. This article describes a bunch of concrete things that tech companies ought to do: ensure the poor aren't marginalized, bring local communities together, and don't provide mechanisms for creating echo chambers. But what neither Turner nor Khan discuss is how tech companies will realize they ought to do this.

What if Amazon politicizes in the direction of libertarianism, and decides its only social responsibility is to increase the world's GDP?

What if Facebook politicizes in the direction of social justice, and determines that segregating people into identity-based safe spaces is the way to go?

What if Google politicizes in the direction of some political party, and decides it's duty-bound to tweak its search algorithm to hurt opposing candidates?
Chrome already handles this: if you want the domain enter in the protocol - https://

If you want to search leave it off.

On top of that Chrome already has the ability to redirect you straight to the domain if it is well defined. I can't imagine it difficult to move that logic to google redirects instead.

e.g. "test.vm" goes to a google search despite being url format. "test.dev" goes to domain.
Great Partnership of Infinito Wallet with Coinfirm and AMLT Network
Ready, Aim Hire a Fortnite Coach: Parents Enlist Videogame Tutors for Their Kids
Man I hope someone like Massdrop can find a way to source these parts a little cheaper. It seems to me that there has to be a way to build this thing for at least half that price.
> infinity is a useful made-up number that's bigger than all other numbers

I love the emphasis on this being a choice, and I wish this kind of thinking was taught more in math. So many math explanations act like these things are immutable facts of the universe, rather than human constructions. We lose some of the history and character of math when we teach it as law rather than invention.

Zero is also a useful made-up number, and it didn’t always exist as a concept. We understand 0 so deeply now, it’s not longer possible to imagine a world without that idea. Another fun one, 0^0 gets defined (chosen) to be 1 sometimes, because it makes other formulas work out, not because it’s the correct or only answer.
Yeah, this was a great idea but terribly executed by the execs.
Why doesn't everyone just write what they're up to today in a chat channel and people can reply if they want?

It seems kind of silly to me to have everyone dial in or stand around in a circle, to each have one person speak. I'd much rather see a list of what's going on with everyone today and if anything catches my eye, I can talk to them about it.
It is a writing system found in Eurasia. Hit its wikipedia pages, on the right hand side there'll be a little thingie that lists 'parent systems', you can follow it back to Phoenician which also happens to be an ancestor of the Latin alphabet.
The unfortunate thing is that this kind of stuff happens in our industry, regardless of architecture choices. Many developers are overworked through a combination of being short staffed and poorly managed.

The odds of being able to change this company are quite low. So, you'll need to make a choice. Do you want to stay until it starts to hurt your health, or do you want to leave and risk long term unemployment?

If you want to stick it out, you might need to take control of the team. In that case, I'd start by figuring out why the developer is having problems maintaining 10 microservices. Is it death by agile, is Go the wrong tool, or is it a case of massive technical debt? Or, was the whole project built by a burned out developer?

Once you figure out what's going on, you'll have to be open and honest with your CTO. Maybe your CTO needs to back off? Maybe your CTO needs to get more involved and start writing code? Maybe the other developer just isn't cut out for the company?