skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I used Itanium from 2003-2006 for scientific computing on a big cluster. For that purpose it was much faster than Intel's Xeons of similar vintage. It was also significantly faster than the MIPS and POWER systems we had. Caveats:

- The simulation suite that I used most heavily was developed in-house at the same lab that bought the hardware. It was profiled and tuned specifically for our hardware. The development team was a real software development team with experience writing parallel simulation code since the early 1990s. It wasn't just a bunch of PhD students trying to shove new features into the software to finish their theses.

- There was also close cooperation between the lab, the system vendor (HP), and Intel.

- Other software (like all the packages shipped with RHEL for Itanium) didn't seem particularly fast.

- God help you if you needed to run software that was available only as binary for x86. The x86 emulation was not fast at all.

It was great for numerical code that had been specifically tuned for it. It was pretty good for numerical code that had been tuned for other contemporary machines. Otherwise I didn't see particularly good performance from it. I don't know if it really was a design that was only good for HPC or if (e.g.) it also would have been good for Java/databases, given sufficient software investments.

Maybe it would have been competitive against AMD64, even considering the difficulty of architecture-switching, if it had not been so expensive. But I'm not sure Intel had wiggle room to price Itanium to pressure AMD64 even if they had wanted to; Itaniums were quite big, complicated chips.
This sounds good, as a person who specializes in domain specific languages. Maybe we'll see higher demand and corresponding salary increases...
MS WSL might be a subtle step in this direction.
You may be right; I recall, though, hearing some fairly convincing counter-arguments at the time the first Roe v Wade hypothesis was floated. But maybe there's been more research since.
A lot of this is probably true, but it's really to your benefit to understand, as a businessperson, that this is generally how large clients expect to conduct business. You can fight it and even establish better payment terms, but it isn't always worth it. It's usually cheaper just to build a business that is resilient to late payments.

Over the last 15 years or so, a lot of my best customers have been super-late payers. You take the good with the bad.
Small point - we replaced about a third of the fuel each refueling. That is about 70 fuel assemblies. If memory serves me right there were about 10 or so assemblies per truck. The are shipped in large, accident proof, casks and each assembly is individually packed. They take up a lot of room.
> But it also ought to be possible to say "this is a dumb idea" or to engage in friendly ribbing when someone does something dumb.

"Friendly ribbing" doesn't translate well on a public mailing list, especially one with an international audience.

> People should be teased for breaking things.

Again, that doesn't work very well on a public mailing list, especially one with an international audience. If people break things they should be told clearly and precisely what they did wrong.

> There is such a thing as attempting to be too professional.

Do you have an example of a current FLOSS project that is too professional?
France is also a full time zone West of where it should be.
In Maine we passed a bill to move to Atlantic time as well, but it's conditional on Massachusetts and New Hampshire moving to the same time zone: https://www.pressherald.com/2017/04/27/maine-may-switch-to-a...

(I would love this)
>"It screws third party logins and integration (mainly google/facebook logins) and Google’s captchas, which will be way harder than when cookies are shared."

Could you elaborate on this? Whats the connection between shared cookies and Google's captcha intenstity? Thanks.
That's only half of it. Users choose software, and that includes developers when choosing programming languages / OSes / servers. We are "lazy" too.

If you really cared about security without regard to any other property, you would probably be using DJB's software to serve your website and such.

But you probably don't, because it doesn't have the features you want and you might not want to spend the time figuring out how to set it up.
And they said naming shit is hard.
The author offers rules of thumb for evaluating research, but is a business school grad (MBA? BBA?) and "a data science amateur, from the Latin amare – to love." Am I misunderstanding something? On what do they base these instincts and intuitions for evaluating research papers? If they wrote a blog post on rules of thumb for evaluating code, would you take it seriously?

The "scent" here may be something on my shoe ...
Some have suggested that certain common algorithms (or needs) can be rewritten into the types QC are good at. I'm not an expert so cannot confirm such. It may await new algorithm discoveries to answer anyhow.
A lot of people in this thread seem to be assuming that IBM was laying off software developers mainly.

Could've just been managers and the like.
I have very little faith in the opinions of "browser security developers" at the moment on account of browser security being a joke. Their focus has been on technical security but lacks practical security. Yes, stripe.ian.sh exists, but have you ever seen a truly malicious use of EV?

Browser security developers concern themselves with arcane exploits of sandboxes while they don't mind nearly that every browser extension has full read/write access to everything people see and do.

EV has flaws, but it's better than literally anything else. We shouldn't be promoting HTTPS if it isn't solving this, the other problems it attempts to solve are mostly overstated problems. Because phishing is a vastly bigger threat than MITM.

EV has theoretical flaws but solves real problems, HTTPS without it has real problems and largely solves theoretical flaws.
I'm seeing lots of posts full of frustration about cost, clients, support, protocols, direction of the company, whatever . . .

I don't care about any of that. Okay, I do. But mainly, I need the thing to be secure (zero knowledge, encrypted between clients), and I'll pay a high premium for it. People are suggesting other providers. Are there other providers that have a better product in terms of security?

I'm not saying there aren't; I'm just having trouble figuring out which providers are judged to be better in terms of security.
Last three 'mastery', 'autonomy', 'purpose' is a straight ripoff of Dan Pink's TED talk (though Dan Pink gave the talk not by claiming it's his ideas, but that it's based on statistics or something).

> So Good They Can't Ignore You

The title itself doesn't hold. You will get ignored no matter how good you are. And you will get picked no matter how bad you are.

But maybe he's talking about the likelihood of being ignored going towards zero. Well, then we have to define 'good'.

And then you find out that reducing the likelihood of getting ignored has pretty much nothing to do with 'autonomy', 'mastery', 'purpose' but the impression you can instill in the mind of whoever you want noticed by (whether it's real or an illusion is secondary). So what matters is your influence, not how good you are.

So yeah, not interested in this at all.
I've had two startups "fail" for unusually clear reasons:

Startup #1: too hard to believe it could be big. Widely loved consumer website we tried to fund with angel/VC money, and it was too implausible it could ever be a $1b+ company. We needed a non-VC strategy to fund that business but didn't realize that - ran out of gas.

Startup #2: found PMF, business-model fit, high-growth, and had an amazing team. Blown up by a nightmare original founder (I was part of re-founding an existing business) and poor corporate governance. The original founder blew up a Series A and re-cap after the team new team made the company actually work.

What I learned from both is how finicky startups are and why conventional wisdom exists. The more you try to re-invent things that aren't core to the business or fit a square peg into a round hole, the more chances to fail you create.

Don't try to get 1000 things right. Try to get 1 thing right and rely on the wisdom of others to get the other things "close enough" to right to attract talent, capital, time, and attention to the 1 thing you did get right.
An very simple reason I use it: being able to push the arrow keys to cycle through search hits. Google used to have it, but it's gone now.
If your business's revenue is based on B2B service sales with an extensive client educational sales process with regular renewals and varying client contacts, assume you will need built-in re-education salesperson time costs of renewals factored into the price set for your services. Don't assume clients will recognize the purpose and value of your on going services and renew automatically without proof and convincing all over again. Otherwise, your client re-education sales overhead will kill your profit margins.
Sunstein needs to put his glasses on. Professorial monocultures are much more specific than mainstream left/right dichotomy.

It's a safe bet that half of the "liberals" in the 20:1 departments have a major axe to grind with the other half for being on the "wrong" side of whatever academic pissing contest is raging at the moment.
It's way easier to push the limits on simple things. We need languages with fewer features and clear design, running on hardware with less exotic features.
Even a small business can easily do better than A (when it comes to fees). The only time stripe would be a good deal is if you are processing almost exclusively high end corporate cards like Amex or corporate purchasing cards.

Stripe and others like them is also the best rate if you are processing very small annual amounts. Because every merchant account has around $10 in monthly fees, minimum. If you are not paying a monthly fee, either your processor is paying it, assuming that they will make enough on the spread to make up for it, or they are running your processing under their own merchant account and taking on the risk. Which is likely what stripe does until an account is large enough to warrant moving it under its own merchant account.
"maintainers pledge to making participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of...level of experience"
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/7876320f88802b22d4e2d...

The code doesn't say they have to work with people of low levels of experience. It simply says they won't harass people for their lack of experience. Rejecting PRs submitted through github doesn't have to be abusive can simply be "We don't accept PRs via github, please read the contributor docs"

The effort of dealing with legions of unskilled programmers isn't made easier with harassment or abuse. It's made easier with documentation, tooling and a legion of patient programmers you can delegate management work to.
It’s not just the ability to sue. It’s partly just the labyrinthine government procurement process that favours larger suppliers who can deal with all the red tape.

There is also an element of cargo-culting in government procurement, where they think that if all the proper rituals are being observed they must lead to the right result.

It probably works well when procuring janitorial services, but with IT it just helps cement lock-in.
Why? If you want to do some particular thing during sunlight, schedule it that way yourself, don't force everyone else to change our clocks and lose an hour of sleep for your convenience
If it's not working, kill it. Your time is worth too much to waste.
I don't think it's a dumb question. And I think you're right: the closer you get to the way the CPU you're targeting likes its memory optimally managed, you're basically heading towards assembly.

I have notions that there can be something 'between' assembly and, for instance, C, but that's a daydream of mine without any details worked out yet.
> will be cleaning sewers until death comes.

What does this mean? Is this a prison punishment?
Ok, we've put some typewriters up above to ward off this case of the dreaded title fever.

It's an interesting site, so hopefully we can discuss it in its own right, rather than alternative associations to this quote.
DST feels more natural to me.
When the clocks go back in November, the "dark times" begin, and it's depressing as hell.
How exactly does this work? As far as I know, most ISP's send all traffic from their CPE equipment to their main data center where it is then routed. Which means if you happen to know your neighbor's IP address, and try to ping it, the packet goes 100+ miles away before being routed back to your neighbors CPE interface.

And I don't game, but if I set up a gaming machine I can "rent" it out?
>"If you don't use a very sophisticated blocking system (for example uBlock Origin in medium mode + pihole)"

I have a related question to the OP's question - why do you need pihole if you are already using uBlock? What does pihole provide beyond what the uBlock plugin is providing?
Twitter will revive the purely chronological timeline
What was the name of the product/service if you don't mind me asking?
> But I'm not aware of languages where e.g. declaring alignments is part of the base language

It is part of the base language in zig: https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Alignment
And after your experience would you buy Apple again?
> hydroplaning when there is over 1" of standing water on the road because it's coming down faster than gravity can drain it away?

I'd say that's pretty calculable, and has a solution, slow down to a speed that the tires can shed water.

Perhaps most telling about your qualification is the misplaced risk; the light precipitation with a little oil slick is likely more dangerous, mostly because you don't slow down for it.

Anecdotally, an even harder problem is when water exceeds 4", negotiating with traffic so you won't float away or get water in your intake.
Looking Back at Josh Gordon's Career at Cleveland
> You haven't stated the population risk of having a pathogenic de novo PSEN1 mutation.

The population prevalence of any early onset AD is, and always will be, extremely low because of its pathogenicity, just like any other gene which is terminal with ~100% penetrance. The prior probability will be low, even without checking, and the posterior won't be large either for the usual Bayesian reasons. I shouldn't need to state this about the population risk, it should be obvious, especially to a cancer genomicist. Unless you want to argue that the mutation in question is very common...?

> 'few major issues' is a liberal interpretation of being shut down by the FDA.

Being nearly shut down by the FDA is no one's problem but 23andMe's. I was actually referring to unwanted discoveries about family secrets, which are the major downside of 23andMe testing. (Infidelity is a good deal more common than early-onset Alzheimers.)

> Warfarin use is being phased out anyway, because of the many non-genetic causes of variability and the availability of drugs with more reliable pharmacokinetics. This same principle applies to the vast majority of serious medical conditions - lifestyle factors greatly outweigh any genetic component.

'Warfarin is being phased out' is another way of saying 'warfarin is still used', and the uses go well beyond just warfarin (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/07/23/065540 covers a number of other drugs, 2 years ago), the uses only increase with time, and of course there's a chicken-and-egg thing here: drug response can't be predicted without large datasets, and large-scale sequencing supply will induce its own demand. (Just like how the UK Biobank's results induced even more interest in genetics.) Many other things can be usefully predicted and PGSes are increasingly of clinical utility (https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2018-khera.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/selection/2018-torkamani...) and they add onto 'lifestyle factors' prediction, considerably, there is no reason to use only one.

> They don't do a proper damn test, they just test 3 out of the thousands of variants in the gene. Why do you think that is?

Presumably because validating the other thousands of variants to the degree it took to satisfy the FDA for the 3 variants they do look at would be extremely expensive, and I suspect there may be other reasons as well (why would their Illumina chips look for those variants in the first place given that they are rare and they can't use them?). And knowing isn't that useful. DeCODE knows the Icelanders with BRCAs, but isn't allowed to tell them: http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/right-not-know-when-igno...

> Re the 'billions', which of the following is more likely:

You're backpeddling furiously. First it was '23andMe made billions' off poor helpless customers, now it's merely they might make billions. So now you're damning them for doing what they haven't even done yet. Wow. It's not a negative-sum game, you know.
I’m in the Waze beta program, and just received the update that has CarPlay support. I’ve only done about 15 minutes of testing but so far it works pretty well.
It turns out that it is possible to optimally minimize the number of beta reductions in a lambda calculus program. See this excellent blog post: https://medium.com/@maiavictor/some-functions-may-have-negat...
Your username has nothing to do with your email address. Usernames take the form of @myusername@instance.domain.

You lose followers when you change instances but you can set a flag on your old account that points to the new one.
Somehow missed this and I’m a big PH user, but you’ve built an awesome product!

Love the simplicity and way you’ve refined the marketing around your app.
CCleaner Disregarding Settings and Forcing Update to Latest 5.46 Version
maybe if college campus tech leaders didnt ogle 19 year olds, there would be more women in tech.
This comment is ironic given your previous praise for Linus on acknowledging his rude behavior towards other developers.

The language you're using is pretty abrasive and it can come off as quite hostile even if you don't intend it. You also get defensive when someone interacts with your easy-to-misinterpret comments and you gaslight them by saying they shouldn't be quick to "take sides" about your ripe-for-polarization statement.

Maybe you could take a queue from Linus. As you said in your own comment in reference to Linus admitting he had an attitude: "Good for him. These are hard things to admit, and he's setting a great example."

If I'm so lucky, I look forward to a quippy response about how that situation is totally different.
I wonder why high level languages themselves don't add syntax support for wide-math instructions? I understand why loop unpacking is a little tricky, so why not let the programmer take care of it?
The startup failed because so much time was spent consulting to bring in revenue to pay meager wages, and not enough time was spent on building product.

If you're going to fund your company with consulting, make sure you have a very strict rule about how much time you spend consulting. At the end of the day, you need to build product.
Infrared vision seems to handle a lot of these, if not especially the last one
Inserting multiple rows with node/postgres without an ORM
Survey – how do you manage your SaaS applications?
> Tough on crime was a misguided attempt to change the culture of drugs and violence.

- Why is violence a sibling of drugs?

- Why do people feel the need to take drugs?

I think you're right that poverty is the problem, and its not only the "culture" of poverty to blame for it. The criminal justice system upholds poverty as a way of life by mass incarcerations of working-age people rather than treatment and rehabilitation. The lack of any social real safety net also upholds poverty - an entire town can be devastated by an arbitrary boardroom decision.
That is an interesting way to describe the most effective mover in all of TLS security. No company has done more to improve it. We owe to Google, in at least a substantial way, if not always entirely:

* The dis-trusting of basically every skeezy dis-trusted CA.

* The adoption of TLS 1.3.

* Certificate pinning.

* HSTS preloading.

* The modernization of OpenSSL.

* The Heartbleed attack that prompted the modernization of OpenSSL.

* Certificate transparency.

I'm rattling these off my head and certainly forgetting something. Obviously, if you broaden the question to everything relevant to browser security, the list gets much longer.
Actually, if you want me to make it detailed it goes like this.

card issuer(bank) ---> processor (square) ------> ISO ------> merchant ---> customer
| | |
V V V
card network underwriting bank

the only way the processor will ever eat the cost is if the ISO couldn't cover the loss, bankrupt. The only way the ISO can't collect from the merchant is the same or if the merchant stops processing. If the merchant can't beat the chargeback and isn't fraudulent, their only option is to sue the customer for fraud. But usually the ISO will take the merchant to collections. Disputes are like hot potatoes, everyone keeps tossing it till there's no one to catch it.

With that said the underwriting bank doesn't eat any of the chargeback on behalf of the merchant. The underwriting bank will only eat loss that they underwrote for a processor or an ISO acting like a PayFac

At least this much I know from my side of the industry, perhaps you work for a bank that eats the cost. I do like to know their name and become a customer!
Your comment is totally absurd and unrelated. We are talking about Privacy - if you're in the business of selling targeted ads (Google), you have a conflict of interest with regards to Privacy. What does this have to do with driving competitors to ground!???

Edit: Looks like you've edited with additional information. Still you're off track with my point.
That actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks!
I worked on two that failed, one because of Napster-Induced Hysteria ("nobody will ever make money with online music!") and the other because we were myopic enough to think Orkut might bury us. Those were days, right?

From the first one I learned two things that are probably still applicable today, and from the second I learned one big thing. In order:

1. If people from outside the tech world end up controlling your software startup, that indicates you are doomed. Pretending otherwise will just make it worse.

2. Great teams are incredibly rare, and if you have the good fortune to be part of one you should really try to keep it together for the next challenge. (We dissipated so hard it was ridiculous... one went into motorcycles, one got a PhD, two floated back to Europe, one became a bartender...)

3. If the founders can not convincingly dogfood their own product, you are doubly doomed. I remember sitting at a table with founders while they tried to think of things they could maybe do with The Product we'd just spent months building, and feeling the rats of doom nibbling at my toes. It had not occurred to me that this was a possibility. Engineers: vet your founders!
This exactly. Pay grade and composite sets of professional skills acquired are not protected classes. You can't prove it was age discrimination if you are paid higher and don't have skills that newer employees have (because both of those things also made you a target.)

That being said, I am probably younger than all y'all and I've been trained to remain in constant motion on the skills treadmill. I don't know if that's a good thing for either employers or employees. (I certainly feel under-utilized.)
I agree in general, and while I think that is totally completely possible in languages and operating environments, I'm not so sure it is in hardware, at least not without sacrificing a lot of performance. People respected by people I trust, who have a lot more domain knowledge than I do, don't seem to think it is.