skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm halfway through the article right now (thanks to Zealotux's cache link). Don't be discouraged by that 500 error - it seems to be a really solid piece of writing.

EDIT: a TL;DR:

Topic is failures/successes in complex projects/operations, like construction, surgery, or manufacturing.

The article first proposes that the usual way of evaluating safety - by focusing on failure cases - is insufficient, and a more productive approach would be to focus on the success cases.

The article then observes that the following is found in both the failure and success cases:

Workarounds
Shortcuts
Violations
Guidelines not followed
Errors and miscalculations
Unfindable people or medical instruments
Unreliable measurements
User-unfriendly technologies
Organizational frustrations
Supervisory shortcomings

Therefore, it is suggested that focusing on those issues isn't going to reduce failures further. The article then follows with a list and description of things the authors observed to be more frequent in successful than failed projects:

Diversity of opinion and the possibility to voice dissent.
Keeping a discussion on risk alive and not taking past success as a guarantee for safety.
Deference to expertise.
Ability to say stop.
Broken down barriers between hierarchies and departments.
Don’t wait for audits or inspections to improve.
Pride of workmanship

Overall, a pretty interesting article. I await comments from people in the field :).
It won't help if you ignore their existence, just like you're ignoring the existence of counter-arguments to this guy's talk, many in this very thread.
What happened to the famous TED talk by Allan Savory about holistic pasture management?

YouTube seems to be very positive about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZfaMEsTMcg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4b8SFSIGK0

however most papers seem very negative about the results:

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/artic...
Assuming the article is correctly summarising his argument, this is the same critique that Hegel put forward of the distinction of Force and Expression:

> It is often said that the nature of Force itself is unknown and only its manifestation apprehended. But, in the first place, it may be replied, every article in the import of Force is the same as what is specified in the Expression: and the explanation of a phenomenon by a Force is a mere tautology. What is supposed to remain unknown, therefore, is really nothing but the empty form of reflection-into-self, by which alone the Force is distinguished from the Expression — and that form too is something familiar. It is a form that does not make the slightest addition to the content and to the law, which have to be discovered from the phenomenon alone. Another assurance always given is that to speak of forces implies no theory as to their nature: and that being so, it is impossible to see why the form of Force has been introduced into the sciences at all. In the second place the nature of Force is undoubtedly unknown: we are still without any necessity binding and connecting its content together in itself, as we are without necessity in the content, in so far as it is expressly limited and hence has its character by means of another thing outside it.

- G.W.F. Hegel, Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences, § 136
All the Google reporting is stripped out. The Brave engineering team (I'm on the business team) is very serious about making sure that's all gone. Brave is open source so everyone can check their work.
Top Software Development Metrics That Will Take Your Business to the Next Level
> In other words: we dug a hole for ourselves with technology, but the only way we can dig ourselves out of it is with more technology

I used to be a technofile, at least an internet-ofile, that's for sure, but I kept reading the same and same discourses about how this time things will be different while in reality things were becoming worse and as such I've started changing my mind.

> This is pretty much obvious.

Honestly, I don't see the obvious in that, quite the contrary, what you're basically saying is that we have used thing A (technology) to dig ourselves into a very big hole but we will dig ourselves out if only we would keep using the same thing A (albeit in a changed, improved form?). I can't really understand this type of reasoning.
It seems weird for me to give that kind of details to anyone, first time I see this kind of payment option.
Black Sailcloth Zulu Straps Silver-Ring 18 20 22 24mm
If you care about security, don't use a browser.
So do I. Specifically, I want to block the consent popovers and refuse consent for all but the necessary cookies and tracking.

I think the EU missed a trick by not making Do Not Track legally enforceable.
Trump does exactly the same. What's the difference.
Is there a benefit of using Vulkan over WebGL?

I would think you can achieve similar speed using WebGL in the browser and then have all the comfortable functionality of the browser for free.
Various ESLint rules to make Vue(x) code a bit stricter
I've been doing more and more Elixir work, and one of the most important lessons I keep learning is to keep my 'actors' as simple as possible and put the complicated stuff in my 'bags of functions'. I generally try to treat my code as two completely separate layers: the code that does stuff, and the code that orchestrates/isolates all of it.

What I find fascinating is that, at least for me, using GenServers/Agents/Tasks has made this distinction much more obvious than it has been in other languages.

I've built horrifying systems that muddled things together, only to realize quite far in how much of a mess I made, but with my Elixir projects I usually realize what I've done pretty quickly, and I end up course-correcting earlier on.
> To me it seems fairly obvious that the problems our society faces stem from continuous exponential growth (primarily of energy use)

This may be. But then, you have two choices: let humans hit the growth ceiling, which will result in mass starvation and death, or lift the ceiling. Technology is the very thing that allows us to continuously lift the ceiling, so it's obvious that any solution not involving mass murder will have to come from technology.
Yes, but the only reason for that is because banks have convinced enough people to accept it.

In the end we have a deeply unethical and immoral system for the benefit of banks and to the cost of society. I don't subscribe to that.

There is no reason to be careless with your cc even if there is little risk to you personally. Subscribing to a free service that requires a cc is definitely being careless.
IRL Glasses – Glasses That Block Screens
TLDR : "These are the hurdles of what it will take to be #1."

The TLDR is supposed to give you a summary of the article, not to be a catchphrase to make me read it
Trump doesn't control the media.
Thank god nobody listened to his advice, otherwise we all be doing Basic and Java ( such rebel’s)
> mass inequality — which is getting worse

How can presumably smart people still keep saying this? Inequality is decreasing by all measures! And then I'm supposed to believe any other argument this person makes...
This is a consequence, not a cause. With a few exceptions (ex: Java), successful languages are designed with a use case. C is for writing UNIX, Rust for Firefox, PHP for generating personal home pages and JS was Netscape's solution for dynamic webpages, Go is well suited to what Google is doing.

Authors of these languages want them to be successful because the more popular a language is, the more people will help them on their project. They may even give out free tooling and support for that reason. Consulting firms usually come later, when the language is already popular.
You can, sometimes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooting_(Android)

The Wikipedia article explains it quite well in the introduction. The fundamental difference lies in the economical model of smartphone sales, where you may be limited (legally or technologically) in what you are allowed to do with the hardware by the carrier or manufacturer.
Oh man - didn't know that mattt was back to blogging at nshipster. This is great!
I used to believe that, but there was a recent article on here a few days ago about cartels diversifying their sources of profit by dealing stolen fuel, so although I support legalising drugs, I no longer think this will put an end to the cartels.
What does the chart show?
Sure, in the west there are constant attempts at gaming the system, and propaganda is as rife as in authoritarian regimes, and this often results in the masses (us) being misinformed. However, I still don't think it's the same as direct censorship, where it's pretty much game over, nor as damaging.

I mean, do you really believe that it's irrelevant that the conversation we are having now, without any fears, I assume, would be extremely risky in China?
I guarantee that Trump has zero influence on how the NYT reports on the economy.
Developers Who Can Build Things from Scratch
What information do you normally give when paying for stuff by card online? It looks like literally every payment form I've ever seen/used in Europe.
The example is inaccurate, or rather false and misleading.
The ENORMOUS difference is that, in China, you only have sources with one bias - the one the government wants.

In the West, for all our defects, you can get all the points of view you want.
AI-powered FinTech
What AI can do is to assist, advise and create a better customer experience. At the moment, AI complements human work and makes it more efficient, but it can’t replace a human. Yet. Let’s wait and see how big FinTech players will leverage technology to improve the financial sphere. https://skelia.com/articles/ai-in-fintech-on-the-verge-of-revolution/
Complicated Simplicity – The curse of modern architecture
Fragmentation yields a distribution of effort which yields theoretically inferior products, compared to the theoretical output of all the individual parts working towards the same goal. (Debatable, but we'll assume it.)

Centralization yields a lack of competition yields a lack of a drive to improve inferior products yields stagnation and disenfranchisement. (Also debatable, but probably safe to assume here as well.)

Startup costs in this area (basic compiler stuff, usually handled by llvm and other varied metacompiler frameworks nowadays) become vanishingly small with time, while the long tail becomes ever larger (libraries, tooling, ecosystem goodness, all are expected now).

Given these two observations, when a language becomes popular despite starting in a fragmented ecosystem, it slowly grows, starts to take advantage of network effects, and gains the benefits of growing centralization as it becomes "the defacto choice" in some area (usually at the cost of other players in the space, be they large or small). Eventually, it stagnates, parts of the community become disenfranchised and go and spawn their own languages and variants (taking ideas from their origin, along with their grievances and ideas from other areas with them), and the process begins anew. However because of the growing long tail, each time this cycle takes place, the time between expansion and explosion takes longer and longer.

At least, that's how I've been led to believe systems like these tend to work.

It seems like the call to be _mindful_ of what you're doing when you make a language is sensible; if you contribute to the cycle, you're contributing to what will eventually be 2 years of long-tail work for what will be the de-facto norm for developer tooling 40 years from now; but that's a terrible way to look at it. Wouldn't you rather get in closer to the ground floor and be part of the first iterations that set the standards for the iterations which come after? Isn't thinking of it any other way just being defeatist? (Since it amounts to concluding that future generations of developers must be better at this than you, and so are worth more early-cycle-iteration time?) So what if it's indulging the ego some; if that's the cost of improvement, then so be it. The languages we have today wouldn't have been made without their predecessors, and the languages of tomorrow won't exist without the ones we have today. Is it also equally possible that deciding _not_ to make some new language potentially delaying the progress of the programming language field as a whole? Is making that value judgement in the purview of anything other than hindsight? I can't begin to imagine in what ways future languages may improve life as a developer, but if they're anything like the stark contrasts we've seen recently in certain PL areas (ie, systems languages), it's sure to be exciting.
Dogs are no smarter than goats
it's still an exponential distribution isn't it ?
>If we looked at human mortality in a sample of a few thousand individuals over the first 30 years of life it would also appear rather flat.

it's not

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gompertz%E2%80%93Makeham_law_o...
Okay, so there are a lot of accusations of spyware on Chinese phones. Can someone link concrete evidence of this?

I ask this out of genuine curiosity.
I wish him more luck than he had with California Proposition 8.
You don't bypass it. Paying $5k means you also lose your phone:

> If people refused to comply, they could be fined up to $5000 and their device would be seized and forensically searched.
This is the correct answer.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/modern/1940-the-year-mex...

Decriminalizing drugs also had a similar effect in Portugal. To be honest, I think that if the government really wanted to they could stomp all these cartels out of existence. The problem is that there is a lot of incentive not to.

I believe that law should be modeled after reality, not the other way around. If there is demand for drugs, then there will also be ways to satisfy this demand, legal or not. On the other hand, there is also demand for murder so obviously this problem is not as easy as it seems.

Where does a lawmaker draw the line?
Anybody who’s ever met a goat, would realise this isn’t much of a criticism. Goats are very
Smart, evolutionarily smart enough to not become sheep. They call baby goats ”kids” for a reason!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_TG387

A short article, but in some ways more details. And some links
But can you be sure there is not something hidden?
Screen Printed Wedding Invitations – A2zWeddingCards
You forgot the part where we should be able to customize those solutions to our own unique needs and environments, otherwise we're sacrificing personal agency and responsibility to the whims of organizations who very clearly don't always have our best interests in mind.

Hoping technology will save us is as foolish as believing Jesus will, both extremes are bad and missing the larger point that humans are far more complicated than we like to admit.
Inequality is not decreasing by all measures, for example: "Income inequality in OECD countries is at its highest level for the past half century." [1]

While it is true that global inequality might be decreasing, localised levels are important, especially when existing in regions which might be considered "economic drivers"; because it has important implications for the stability of those regions, and this is highly likely to affect the continuation of the global trend for reduced inequality.

[1] http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm
This is a good answer to the question "why did Waymo have a patent that could be invalidated by one guy with $6000?"

But it's a terrible answer to the question "if one guy with $6000 could get this patent invalidated, why couldn't Uber?"
Chinese warplanes hold live-fire drills in SC Sea days after U.S. bomber flights
This is valuable, thanks: the list of decentralized exchanges:

https://distribuyed.github.io/index
https://github.com/distribuyed/index
I think you've committed oversimplification. If this relation was absolutely true then feed as much money as you can and get 20% profit. If it isn't then your point has no real basis.

This metric can be used only as the performance measurement not it's predictor.
So basically, the west is a brave new world, China is 1984.
I agree it's problematic, but there is one good reason to use alternative browsers on iOS — synchronization. Safari's sync with desktop is not really useful if someone uses Linux on their desktop/laptop.
So, if we follow the authors logic we should abandon all science because we don't know what they might cause.

Innovation is pure by nature. Judgment is done empirical evidence after innovation. You can't change the order.
Not to everyone, sadly. Could you tell us more?
Having done both, I would in fact argue that it is almost exactly as easy as using books and self-study to create software that appears to require a professional developer.
Unless your company is small, being a CEO is hard. Knowing about all projects and developments in the company (often several hundred projects and initiatives) and deciding on which opportunities to take is not an easy job.
Cookie "warnings" and forced "consent" popups (with no or difficult opt-out) are not GDPR compliant. GDPR mandates that all tracking and related bullshit should be opt-in. So the annoyance isn't the GDPR, it's the lack of enforcement of it that allow shit websites to get away with not being compliant.
While I understand your point, I don't think there's that much more money to be made from stolen fuel compared to the goldmine of drugs. A kilo of cocaine goes for around $26k in California. How much fuel would you need to sell in order to make that much? In Mexico a liter of fuel goes for about $1.
Without expressing any opinion on who should have been hired here, some relevant facts:

> number of citations

Note that they're in slightly different fields, so that in addition to reservations about simple counting, you might expect different numbers anyway.

> the number of first author papers

This means nothing -- both lists are alphabetical.
SEEKING WORK

Location: France/Italy

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: JavaScript, Python, Rust

Site: https://www.vincentprouillet.com/

Github: https://github.com/Keats

Email: hello at vincentprouillet.com

I am a full-stack web developer with an entrepreneurial mind and a good eye for UX. I've tried my hands at a couple of startups and have experience working with companies all around the world.
I believe that's bound to the people not to the practice.

If there's a need for a brand to lie then there's something wrong or missing - and that's not sustainable in the long run.

Plus, you shouldn't expose your brands to liability - for example that's why all big brands have their advertising communication evaluated by legal departments. It will not go live if legal doesn't approve it.
Signal is far more annoying to use and is less consistent about notifications. Accordingly, most people are hard to motivate into switching (or installing yet another messaging app).
That's why I thought similar tricks had not been done before, as 'really fast' and Spectrum are not terms normally seen together :-)

Perhaps it is not the raw speed but the extreme precision of the timings that were the limiting factor. I can see how the move to developing through emulators would help there, certainly. A truly amazing achievement!
>That’s one of the things I like most about the site, a complete lack of monetization

Other than it being run by, and on behalf of, a SV startup accelerator, and being part of the SEO strategy for any number of startups and wantrepreneurs, and many posts (particularly in Show HN) being thinly veiled attempts at advertising, building hype or just trying to get money-senpai to notice them.

Other than that, sure.
Able – Seamless crypto portfolio tracking
Being interested in understanding problems in detail and working on solutions can be disqualifying for a CTO position. As a CTO you must have an overview of everything that's going on and where the company is heading. That means, you won't have any time getting lost in the nitty-gritty of a project or problem. Understanding everything a bit but nothing in perfect detail is something many people dislike but which is unavoidable as a CTO.
I thought we were the optimized thermodynamics dual/dampener. Our system fight to slow entropy.
I think I disagree with this. To take a look at the first few points:

* I don't follow why the distribution of women in different fields "Does not look discrimination". Seems to me it could be adequately explained by either M, C, or a combination of both, theories

* I find the correlation between % of women in STEM/Theory and Gender Equality Index unconvincing for a few reasons. One is that there are regional + cultural correlations between countries that, unaccounted for, undermines the regression somewhat. The RHS plot also looks like it's influenced a lot by a few high leverage points on the right hand side.

* I have no idea how you get to "it’s merit, not sexism." from "M more cited than F, equally by M and F". To think that sexism operates only through the action of misogynist men is a naive and unhelpful view of the world. There are plenty of alternative, structural reasons that could cause a trend like this. To take one example, if women leave the field in greater numbers or earlier in their career than men, they could not present their findings at conferences or promote their papers in ways that would boost citations.

I know it's hard to fully engage with a talk when you just have the slides, but I think even with full generosity of interpretation, the points raised here are still lazy, weak points.

Furthermore, data is a tool. A very useful tool, but one among many. When we reach for data alone, while giving no weight at all to the lived experiences of our female friends and colleagues, we are throwing away real, useful information. This talk fails to really acknowledge any points beyond the bibliometric data. If you're really interested in getting to the truth, with no agenda, using only one limited source of information is a really poor way to do it.
They still will hunt down the informants or anyone who might be one in case of the assasination. It is not like informants will give out the info in return for nothing. They will probably want money, witness protection and one way ticket to the USA.

Also cartel knows who are the key witnesses. It is not like the El Chappo discussed his business with infinite number of people. I would say 10-20 max if not less. So they just make a list and see who is present/not present and where are their families.

Though I am not even sure prosecution needs star witnesses. I don’t think there is a juror left who has no opinion on El Chappo.

The bigger problem is that dealing with El Chappo, killing or otherwise, is not actually solving the problem of cartels having nearly infinite resources to pursue informants/witnesses.

In a way dealing with cartel is like dealing with a state actor, but without traditional tools because they are outside the international law.

The only way is legalize the whole thing to bring drug trade into legal framework.

In the end the only leverage USA has is its market. So if they give market to legal entities, cartels and violence associated with them will go away.