skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Is white-space PC?

There has been a push to rename "whitelist" and "blacklist":

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/51088/alternativ...
austere
Really? So then we can't trust science - is that the idea?
> Software dependencies really are the worst part of programming

and yet we are making it worse instead of better and most people here tend to find that a good plan.
This action suggests they keep tabs on accounts

No it doesn't. Twitter has a reporting function and whenever content offends a bunch of people then a wave of reports is a predictable outcome. Keeping a record of previous actions on an account is not the same as monitoring it.
Personally I have automated deploys, I was just reaching for an example that was available and relevant for a wide range of projects from inception. I think the thinking is that early on everything is on master so you just do the deploy by hand, run the migrations / tests, and bring the server back online.
> I mean, I don't disagree with your premise that very few people are actually offended, but this is one of those low-effort, doesn't-matter changes so why not do it?

Not doing what this particular brand of moralising busybodies wants sends a message to them, other busybodies and more importantly everyone else involved with Redis that this organisation will not instantly roll over to pressure. If you remember the Drupal controversy where some activists were trying to get someone expelled from the community for their sex life the maintainers rolled over until over a hundred contributors and sponsors said to reverse the decision or they’d fork Drupal.

The principle is the same. If you pay the Danegeld you will never be rid of the Dane. If you don’t feel like giving a mile, consider very strongly whether to give an inch.
Not at all. People already assume they are the same. And they have for 20 years. Nobody reasonable serves up different content on the two URLs. Anybody clueful redirects one to the other. The only reason they're separate is that a) the web wasn't dominant when it was introduced, and b) technology of the time made it hard to manage traffic in ways we can now.
What are the improvements of hiding part of the URL?

>Like, who actually runs separate HTTP servers on example.com and www.example.com anyway?

My university doesn't work with example.com but does work with www.example.com. I see how someone could waste a lot of time trying to solve a nonexistent network issue because typing example.com doesn't work, but he had seen it working before.
With no compelling reasons...

If we instead called it Guard and Concentration Camp Prisoner would more people feel differently?

Yes, if we go to the fringes there are ridiculous things that people can get upset by - but this doesn't seem like one of them.

There are plenty of words that are just as descriptive that we can use in place of master/slave at literally zero cost to clarity.
Training intelligent robots with NavigationNet
Because you need sufficient complexity to design a system where users can make things you dont bake into the system.

Would we have the web if we would design it today?
I agree. Function of devs that have deploy power.
Context is important, as is learning history.
No, actually, there's a really good complaint here -- if you're hiding "www", then the two Citibank URLs look the same when they are actually not in Chrome, and the user will be confused when typing in the URL that they've visited many times before and not actually being able to visit it because now Chrome obfuscates the "www" part.
> Our goodness and values show in our worldly actions.

So, how hard would it be to

sed -ri 's/slave/receiver/g; s/master/sender/g' redis_source/

...to make this product better for more people and take nothing away from it? That would be a "worldly action" to show some goodness.
Fully agreed. It's easy enough to pick differently if you start something, but it doesn't seem necessarily to warrant effort to change it where it's been done differently in the past (If a project's maintainers want to do it, they're of course free to do so!) and the behavior of some advocates for changing it is horrible.
IMHE, generations are a nightmare to operate for high performance servers at scale because you have to balance the sizes of those heaps manually and it can change abruptly with code changes or workload fluctuation.

Go allocations are indeed costlier but the performance critical sections of applications can be profiled and optimized accordingly to remove allocations.

I'd rather have Go's amazing low GC latency and slightly higher allocation costs vs the operational nightmare from HotSpot.

Automatic management of generations has never fully worked in Java. Every new JDK version just adds more knobs. Sounds like you have a different experience?
One plus 3T
>Moreover I don't believe in the right to be offended, because it's a subjective thing. Different groups may feel offended by different things.

Spoken like someone who has never had to face systemic oppression.
Could you have not used a similar argument for AOL Keywords?
This is a smart way to think of testing and will discover bugs when your understanding of the code is the most lucid.

But it does require some nuance. Unfortunately, some people think writing tests or test harnesses are wasteful because they think of shops that insist on 90%+ coverage and have test suites that are easily 5-10x the size of the application's codebase.... so they decide to forgo them completely. When in reality, the answer is probably something like: you have at least 25% of your codebase that would greatly benefit from testing, even if they're just "smoke tests"
This isn't just a different link, it's a new blog post with details posted just today.
A huge diff that doesn't mean anything is a nontrivial cost. Documentation would also have to be changed and articles would have to be updated.

Deprecating something, even terminology, should not be done lightly.
Retroactively changing terminology is a pain, but if you're doing greenfield development, you can just as easily use "Primary/Replica," which in addition to being a tasteful use of language, is actually more accurate in the context of databases.

There are a bunch of goofy alternatives as well, like "Master/Minion" or hell, why not "Dom/Sub?"
It's about as smart as hiding filename extensions, and the results will probably be similar. Increased confusion and more security risks.
Any change in the psycho-spacial context you pegged the forgotten information to?

Hard to say what the minimum change might be; I'm sure it varies significantly from person to person.
Feel free to submit a PR, just make sure it passes all the tests!
People who are arguing in good faith don't start calling their opponents vile names after one exchange.
Users don't see that.

Expecting users to use the URL bar to detect phishing via homoglyphs is insanity.
> anything you say is an intolerable statement because of who might get offended by it.

That isn't what OP said though. I believe they were commenting that all words are not the same to every group of people and cultural and historical context matters.
> racist outcomes

Its not racist if race was not the driving factor. I think that is the big part of why there is so much push back. On this topic. You appear to be viewing the outcome as raciest, but are not willing to see how other factors may result in the same outcome. You have to understand how the outcomes came about to being to fix it. I agree that there is discrimination and much of it can be caused by subconscious bias. To repeat, assuming the cause based off the outcome is completely incorrect. I do agree that people are and can be doing exactly what you are saying, but it is hard to prove and not what is happening in every case.

It is completely bad logic to assume racism is occurring because the results are what one might expect had it occurred. You MUST understand the dynamics before prescribing a solution.

> In real-world scenarios you never have two completely identical candidates.

I had a feeling you might say something like this, but I was hoping you could see past my simple example. When I say same qualifications I mean a range that is acceptable for the position at hand. Lets say we had a scale of 1 to 10 for a marking system. And we have a job that requires between 7 and 9. We would randomly select all candidates matching who were marked between 7 and 9. But you do bring a problem I had thought about and why I hate mucking with the hiring process at all, is the judging system. I think you are suggesting that the judges will rank a group more poorly thus wont fit the bracket and thus wont get the job -- thus we must select the underrepresented person by default. If that is the case, then why have a rank at all, you seem to simply say if underrepresented person applies they must be hired, because the person judging the candidates for rank will give the underrepresented person lower marks, and not get the job. I don't think this is the case but there is a solution to make sure it is that still allows for random selection on equally ranked Canada's. That is simply companies must keep a record of rankings and document their decision's why they chose who they chose for a given job position. These records can be audited at any time.

If you are dead set on the only solution is that a underrepresented person must always be selected over a white person then I think we are done, and I don't think we are going to changes each other's minds. I would be interested in any other solutions you might have. While I have more ideas, I feel that I have already struck out with you and can't put any more effort into this.
Good job antirez, do not give into ideologically possessed control freaks and busybodies that actively seek out offense in everything. You can never fully satisfy them so don't even bother trying. They do not care about the 'morality' of the master/slave language here, but merely use it as a tool to control behavior of others and exert unearned power over your project. It's a pathetic power play, and nothing more.
It's kind of awesome that the calculator doesn't cut off at e.g. 110.
Given that this very site moderates quite heavily, why is it not in your /etc/hosts file?
You lack the compassion that comes with experience.

My $dayjob has our AD root domain the same as our public root domain. Because we implemented AD in the year 2000, and this was Microsoft’s recommendation for domain naming way back then.

And if you use Exchange, you can’t rename your AD domain, you have to rebuild your forest and migrate piecemeal. So we’re stuck with it.

The practice of using Corp.example.com did not evolve until many years after Windows 2000 and Exchange 2000 were in the wild.

So we run http redirectors on each of our domain controllers to send traffic to www.
It seems like the Internet is moving more to a "centralized" design where certain actors have decided "well, here's how we're going to do things now, deal with it".

The golden age of the Internet is already dead, guys. We're unfortunately over the hump.
Discrimination is fine and dandy for any business as long as it isn't part of a protected class (Whether it makes business sense to do so is another argument). The cake shop argument is whether LGBT people fall under a protected class, and the courts have continued to sidestep that issue.

I firmly believe LGBT people should be a protected class like race, and sex, but ultimately we need to have a ruling on that.
And what happens when the box those Perl scripts live on goes down, or loses connectivity?
He touches on something very important when he describes the change as being "for Americans to make peace with their past" and says "it focuses on formalities, but actually it has a real root of prejudice against others". I'd hazard a guess that most of the people who are offended are offended because they feel guilty, and not because they're harmed by the terminology.

Maybe those people should feel guilty. Maybe, as a European, he doesn't want American guilt to control the way he uses language.
Your anecdote supports my point and undermines your own. Use has everything to do with it. That is why your insurance company wants that mileage information. I change my own oil and easily go years between visits to the mechanic, so there is no way my mileage info is leaking. There are only two times I have had to report mileage:
1. when I had a special discount from liberty mutual for driving less than 500 miles a year; and
2. now because I switched to metromile.

In both cases (again) use has everything to do with it.
"If it might offend anyone at all, why not change it?" is simultaneously gracious, well-meaning, and completely oblivious to the actual mechanisms that drive these offense debates.

It doesn't offend anyone. If it does, it's easily cleared up with a broader understanding of the english language. That doesn't matter, though, because it doesn't offend anyone.

The hunt for these righteous stances _is_ the goal.

You don't change it, because 1) it's a weird bid to control the behavior of someone else, 2) you didn't gain anything. the priesthood wants to find your dirty stain, shine the light of an extremely flexible outrage on it, make an example of your submission to their humbling cleansing, then move on.

All you've done is apologize to the no one who was actually harmed, add fuel for the next imaginary incident, and waste your time.
Is this just virtue signalling or are people actually offended by stuff like this? It reminds me of when Harvard Law tore down their school crest recently because it was the coat of arms of a family in the early 1800s that owned slaves.

If you judge historical figures by modern morals and standards you'll find everyone is a bad person. In that case we should wipe George Washington and Thomas Jefferson's faces off of our currency because their families owned slaves too, nevermind their contributions to America.
We basically have the system you describe. I type CNN and the browser brings up a page of things that match my query. The first one is CNN. If I visit CNN a lot, my new tab page will have a thumbnail of the CNN website and I end up with an even simpler UI of just clicking a picture.
> of the road infrastructure here, bridge included, had been privatized

That's not correct. They're not privately owned: they're a sort of lease (I can't quite translate "concessione") because the government is still technically the one who onws it.

And for those other HN readers, there's also a public-owned company that handles roads, Anas, which is not doing well with regards to maintenance (this just to put into perspective that's not just a public vs private thing).
Author of the article here. If you look at the company's website, it is very, very plain.
A visa too! Wow, a fascinating problem with multiple dimensions to consider. And here at the center of it, a gifted analyst.

I wonder what kind of theory or model could be drafted, something that fits the situation like a glove _and_ exposes critical leverage points.

If anyone could do it...(points at you)
The person calling a black person a monkey or a Jewish person a rat is either ignorant of the history of those slurs or they aren't.

If they are ignorant of that history, they can easily be excused. The ignorance is usually obvious based on their history of behavior because the accusation would likely be an isolated incident. Considering the history of accusations against Jones and Roseanne, I am pretty confident in saying they are both aware of how their words could be interpreted.

If that person is aware of the history of using those comparisons and isn't racist, what is the reasoning is still using that specific language? You can call Obama any number of insults and not be called a racist. Why would you choose an insult that you know will draw racial comparisons?
Check out Glassdoor.com.
One really good example would be water desalination. I'm sure the neighbors of the Sahara could use a glut of fresh water.
"That doesn't mean anything to white people", you mean?

Edit: HN is Reddit now. "Downvote if you disagree."
Not to mention SIGABRT.
As noted in another post, this is how some languages were basically designed to be used. I'll challenge that you can't just claim it is lisp. Common lisp, though, is a solid model for this method of development.
HN also actively moderates its content and its users. An Alex Jones would last about a day here before being banned.

> I noticed that the internet is far less angry of a place as a result

I would think it would be quite the opposite: the likelihood of being censored creates inhibition.
This seems to be slides from a recent OpenBSD meetup where they were discussing the implementation of syzkaller[1], an open source tool from Google written in Go, to fuzz C kernels.

Then it lists 9 issues found in the OpenBSD kernel, including two[2][3] issues with kqueue.

Pretty cool stuff!

[1] https://github.com/google/syzkaller

[2] https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=153364550327224&w=2

[3] https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=152930020005260&w=2
Yeah, I like it! I just have never seen that word used in that context.
We all know tech companies can do what they want, they've been doing it from day one. But consistency is a desirable trait for a lot of reasons, not just for fairness or equality but also because it allows one to make predictions about what content will or will not be allowed.

Twitter may be their own company but we all know how large of an influence they are for public discourse, including important public and private conversations such as that between politicians and the citizens of their country, so suggesting that there cannot be an issue because there are no laws being violated is shotrt-sighted. As a thought experiment, imagine if Twitter decided to post fake tweets with any content they want from any Twitter account they wanted to. Is that 'okay'? After all, it's Twitter's platform, they can do whatever they want. I would argue it is not. You could easily construct much worse versions of this thought experiment if this one wasn't sufficient.

Although it's nice that with a free economy one is allowed to create alternative platforms, in practice this has been shown to be much more difficult than in theory, with many attempts being denied service at every level of their operations (banned from their cdn, domain proivder, payment provider, banks, all social media paltforms, etc). A lot of people hate Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, Google, etc, but there are many reasons why these companies are still in complete control.
You would still need the compiler to be written in progsbase too: is it? As I am not quite sure (and you cannot gamble on it) that Java and Java tooling is still there in 100 years. Which then brings you back to Haxe ; kind of the same gamble there but that is open source which makes it longer lived generally anyway.

A language for the ages would be a Forth imho; you can write the language on the back of a beermath and it takes mere hours to implement on whatever system.
They seem to view the Internet as their platform, given the way they like to bully the tech sphere.
That isn't a consequence of exceptions, it is a consequence of the fact that your move can fail and that std::vector has to maintain a sane state in the case of an error. You could write a bad::vector that just clears its contents in case of an error and it could use a throwing move just fine.
h-t-t-p-colon-backslash-backslash-doubleyou-doubleyou-doubleyou-dot...

I've heard people say "backslash" when they insist on reading out the whole URL with protocol, which I'm pretty sure is the wrong slash, I honestly don't know, but I've never understood why people felt the need to say it at all. Do they type the protocol into the address bar when they visit sites?
I could have been more precise. The Garands were a mislead. I served in 08.
These are great techniques and should be done more. But I'll add a caveat: they don't cover all the ways software can fail and we probably shouldn't pretend they do.

The environment in which the software runs is also an input, and you often don't get to pick that. Consider new browser releases, browser addons, and browser bugs.

Performance is a global property of a system that crosses most abstraction boundaries. Outside hard real-time systems, we get few performance guarantees.

Some domains are simple on one level and very complicated on another. The set of all <=280 character strings may seem simple as far as the data goes, but setting policy for Twitter is not.

Still, being able to decompose problems and treat bugs as either functionality or performance (and not a complicated mixture of both) is pretty helpful.
Surely that coal is as big an argument for Saharan solar farms as it is for Washington dams?
Why not assume good faith on the part of the people who used the terms "master" and "slave"?
Except it isn't really a debugger. It is just a repl in the environment you have constructed. The difference is most debuggers don't let you do as much as these would let you do.

Well, a difference. There are others.
Regarding the parsing of URLs, this is a common, but mostly counterintuitive argument: Take for example names in most western countries, addresses (street-zip-city-country), etc. Most of our most important identifiers work this way.

Regarding lacking binding of identity: On the other hand, this has been one of the most important features of the web, from the very beginning. Also, there is no way to setup a system, which will attribute to a single person in a readable and intuitive way. (E.g., names fail to do so.) Arguably, this should be left to (optional) extensions.

I'd argue, the knowledge required to parse a URI safely may be conveyed in couple of minutes. Why not enforce this knowledge? Why not have a URL-parsing note on the start screen of any browser? Why dumb down the system and introduce ambiguity – and by this even more insecurity – instead of educating users? URL-parsing is a vital skill, which can be acquired in less time than memorizing a basic table of partial addition results. Why do we still try to teach addition, if we can't teach URLs?
If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement.

The cost/benefit doesn't work out. It's a usability improvement, but it comes with a huge cost, where many, many sites have the fundamental function of a URL -- that of an address/specifier across the internet -- basically broken. The person who implemented this change either didn't work out the cost, or decided they didn't care.

Everyone is hyperventilating over contrived "the principle of it all" examples.

How would you feel if primary keys in your database started to change their semantics? How would you feel if your phone started to change the telephone number it dialed? I guess we're kind of alright with the message app editing our messages as we type them. Now we're supposed to adapt to our tools, not the other way around, and insisting on tools doing what we say is "pedantry."
Large, unconditional cash to refugees: phase 1, complete
I’m fully expecting that to rise to 75 before I am able to retire. Feels like everything I get old enough to enjoy gets pushed out every time I get there.

What annoys me is that those making the decisions claim it’s for the betterment of the country which is fine but are totally unaffected by it.
https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/status/1037804427992686593 says they "permanently suspended" his accounts. Merriam Webster defines "suspend" as "to debar temporarily". So what it is, twitter? Permanently or Temporarily? It may be just sloppy writing or they are leaving a way for themselves to restore the accounts?
Author of the article here. Yes, they are apparently hiring, or so suggests some of my internet research. One of the founders' linkedin profiles said they're mostly building in Haskell.