skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Go 1/2 Proposal: Immutable Types
Hey guys, I just published the Go 1.x / Go 2.x proposal to "Immutable Types" that I've been working on for the past month and it's now official:

https://github.com/golang/go/issues/27975

Please be sure to check it out and feel free to join the conversation! Even if this feature is never introduced to the language specification - reading the design document will make you a better Go developer, that I guarantee!

original design document: https://github.com/romshark/Go-1-2-Proposal---Immutability
> profound lack of drive

That assumes you want to be doing the thing you're doing, rather than some other thing (which potentially doesn't generate money.)

Professionally, I'm a programmer. I write code for money.

But vocationally, I'm an author. You know what the best job in the world would be, for me? One where I'm paid a living wage to do nothing at all. Then I would have the free time, the energy, and the resources to write books.

"Why not just become a professional author?" Well, because being a professional author is only a little bit about writing books. A lot of being a professional author is about selling books. Going on tour to signings, appearing on morning talk-shows, and just generally running the business of extracting royalties from your book.

But I am not, vocationally, a businessman who happens to be good at writing books, and so sees that as an appealing strategy toward an end-goal of "making money." No, I'm an author. I love writing, not money. I love seeing people's smiles when I reach them with my writing. Money is a means to that end—a way to keep me alive so I can keep doing the thing that makes me happy. If I could be kept alive and functioning and able-to-write without any income, I'd gladly have none.

I would say that I have plenty of drive. Just... not for doing the thing that I do for money.
Diligence is morally but not necessarily economically valued.
There's a large amount of people in other cities willing to move to San Francisco if the wage is higher than their current wage + moving and cost of living differences. That drives wages up in those cities by either paying more to keep employees or now needing to compete for a smaller pool of employees. The same pull on employees pulls people out of other industries into tech as well which should drive up wages.

The wages elsewhere aren't going to go up as high but it should have some upward drag
Again, I think the benefits of what you're describing only matter in larger apps. Separation of concerns come up in large projects where people of different disciplines get together...or you want to be disciplined about abstractions and re-use. However, when you get to that point, you're going to want specialized tools to manage each component. Code is code and it still needs to get audited.

To address this, I recommend thinking about decoupling the technology from the workflow.
I don't see any reason why Intel would support RISC-V because it would eat into their market too(in the distant future)
How much your food waste hurts the environment
> For the actual task it would be much easier to use a non-humanoid with a carriage and several axes.

True, but I think the idea is that you would be able to download the TileSetter update and use the same robot to finish the backsplash in the kitchen. Then, with the newly-released CoverWall module, you can put that robot to work gluing and applying wallpaper with perfect, no-seam precision.

A carriage and several axes probably wouldn't handle the manipulation of wall coverings that diverse.
What about the random pixel pattern that pops up when my MacBook Pro first comes out of sleep?
If it makes you feel any better 90% of those achievements are crap and the other 10% depend heavily on older mentors who've spent their lives studying the topic.
This strikes me as an incredibly boring and typical list. And the core of why is summed up nicely by the author himself, "My favorite pitches solve a problem I'm already concerned about."

We have already solved most of the rich-white-guy problems.

I am sure he is well-intentioned and strives to understand as much of the world as possible, but if you want to invest in capital-intensive, asset-rich startups with problems you already understand, you should probably just buy real estate.
Found another post from the creator's of Mayan regarding commercial forks.

"Commercial involvement with Mayan is not a problem at all, it is encouraged and the license was changed a while back from GPL to Apache 2.0 to be more commercial friendly."

"Forking and doing specialized versions is not bad and I encourage it, it is the way FLOSS projects grow. If a feature can then be added upstream, we do so, if not, it is made into a 3rd party app or sub project (http://www.mayan-edms.com/ecosystem/)."

"In this case Ranjith offers a customized version with features that we have not been able to included because they are very specific to him and his clients."

"On the other hand was Ranjith is doing is perfectly OK since there is no copyright violation and the terms of the license are being followed. The work he is putting into his fork of Mayan is helping the software get into other markets where the upstream version might not have been a choice. We've been talking and we are looking into backporting some of the more general work he's done in his fork."

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mayan-edms/D4GdfFG6khM/OhAf9...
The notability lawyers on Wikipedia are pernicious. Especially when you consider how much in depth coverage there is of random fictional series.
When I see templates, I run in the opposite direction at a dead sprint. C++ has added very little of value to the language and templates are one of their worst offerings. Metaprogramming is an antipattern in C.
I think of this article (https://medium.com/@sdboyer/so-you-want-to-write-a-package-m...) when it comes to package management.
This was regarding a specialized version done for the Indian market in 2016.
FWIW an example of behaviour I would consider irresponsible would be if a large company liked Rust but didn't like not controlling it, so decided to clone or fork Rust and use their resources to popularize that (instead of just putting those resources into Rust itself).
Think about the cottage industry of programmers who produce and maintain Wordpress websites for their clients. I think just like any other industry, there is need for products on many points of the [mass produced <--> bespoke] spectrum.
Well, Phobos is predicted to spiral in within 50 million years or so.
Rust does not have a spec, so all Rust behavior is undefined.
All of the above. Prove your team is credible and your idea is solid and the only thing holding you back is the money. Even if you don't have the capital to build the full-scale thing, you can still make a lot of progress on the cheap: conduct research, model your business, test components, do user testing, get LOIs from customers, line up your first few hires, and so on.
No, yours is the uncharitable explanation.

In reality it shows that Ford understood that all of us are in this together (“The owner, the employees, and the buying public are all one and the same”) – and we take it that Ford was not only referring to his own employees but to all employees. So if you want the public to be able to by your goods then we ought to recognise that the public must be able to afford those goods. By extension, even though a capitalist might want to increase profits by keeping wages low he must realise that he decreases the market for his own goods – if enough owners think this way – (“and unless an industry can so manage itself as to keep wages high and prices low it destroys itself, for otherwise it limits the number of its customers”). To sum it up, (“One’s own employees ought to be one’s own best customers.”) doesn't mean that every single one of your employees will buy your product – rather it's an aspirational statement encouraging all owners to pay their employees a living wage and not to myopically fixate on margins and the bottom line.

It would be showmanship if Ford said this and then turned around and paid his employees crap and worked them to the bone, but

“In 1914, Henry Ford made a big announcement that shocked the country. It caused the financial editor at The New York Times to stagger into the newsroom and ask his staff in a stunned whisper, “He’s crazy, isn’t he? Don’t you think he’s crazy?”

That morning, Ford would begin paying his employees $5.00 a day, over twice the average wage for automakers in 1914.

In addition, he was reducing the work day from 9 hours to 8 hours, a significant drop from the 60-hour work week that was the standard in American manufacturing.”

http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/01/03/blogs/post-per...

You're the uncharitable one. You're either a sink-or-swim type or dead cynical because I can't believe you're not intelligent enough to be able to take what Ford said at face value.

I watched a video today about a young American describing his visit (for a sprained foot) to a clinic in the Netherlands and an emergency room in Germany. He recounted his visits because he was so shocked that at how little he had to pay for an X-ray and meds and how little time he waited to get a referral and how little time he spent in the hospital. I honestly think that there's something deeply damaged at the heart of the American psyche. You've no sense that you are “are all one and the same” to use Ford's words. You can't see why collectively paying taxes for healthcare (everyone's family has an illness at some point in time) and collectively bargaining for cheaper medicines from manufacturers might be overall a good thing. You can't see why paying regular folks a living wage benefits all of society, even those who have to do the paying. No man is an island, we're all in the same boat. But hey, I'm all right Jack, I've got mine huh? There's only so much inequity and hardship people will take before something breaks – history shows us this time and time again.
The live version of the course, updated for fastai v1, is beginning later this month, with publicly available videos to follow in early 2019.
Actually, to be pedantic, the probability is one. Not "very close to one", but "exactly one".

P (X | X) = 1.
> I think what he was getting at is that the idea of languages integrating parallelism such that almost all code would be parallel all the time has proven to be a dead end.

But that's obviously not what I was talking about. I wasn't even talking about parallelism in the context of language design. If an old tool is written in C and uses shared global mutable state so extensively as to make a performance boost from parallelism so impractical as to require a rewrite, then that's exactly the thing stopping people from "just" redirecting their efforts to improving old software. Because sometimes small incremental improvements aren't enough, and getting the buy-in to do a full rethink of an old tool takes tremendous social capital. And this is just about improving the old tool using its existing language---this isn't about going and using a new language with better support for parallelism. (Which, by the way, comes in many flavors.)

At no point did I talk about fancy parallelism related language features. At no point did I say that we should just go and add parallelism to an old program because that's what all the cool kids are doing. I framed it as a specific solution to a specific problem: making the old program faster. People like faster programs and speed ain't a fad. If you want to bring in examples of adding parallelism that don't improve performance, then great, but leave me out of it, because at no point did I advocate that.

I think your interpretation of tabtab's comment is a real reach, but whatever. Particularly given their other comments denouncing the evils of lambdas. Really? Give me a break.
I for one never considered buying a Porsche. Not a fan of the style. Tesla is another story
> C# generics are an (arguably improved) Java generics clone

That depends on who you ask.

My opinion is Java doesn’t have proper generics. In Java they’re just language-level syntactic sugar.

Type system is broken i.e. type information is lost at compile time. This makes it hard to do functional-style programming in Java, that’s why other people made Scala.

Performance is broken too, generic containers box everything into objects causing huge performance penalty for containers with value types.
UEFI stands for “Unified Extensible Firmware Interface”, where “Firmware” is an ancient African word meaning “Why do something right when you can do it so wrong that children will weep and brave adults will cower before you”, and “UEI” is Celtic for “We missed DOS so we burned it into your ROMs”.

–Matthew Garrett (he wrote a lot of the Linux kernel UEFI implementation)
The farmer typically owns their business, which is different. As for the old farmers in Europe that were paying "rent" to a landlord to use their land, this was almost considered slavery according to modern standard.

As for the farm worker that is hired, you can be sure they don't bring the cows home with them.
"Bezos wouldn't do this unless he saw a benefit for the business or his hand was being forced somehow."

I don't like this type of knee-jerk suspicion towards people running corporations. Don't forget that they have conscience too, and can make decisions for the better or for the worse. In fact, by not giving credit where credit is due, you disincentivize them from trying to do good things.

Yes, business people need to make hard decisions to stay competitive, and yes, they have an obligation to their investors to make a profit. But these investors are people as well and might be proud of owning the stock if the company makes positive decisions. Further, if there's a certain amount of leeway that is afforded a very successful company to do something like this, but still stay competitive, then capitalism doesn't force that person's hand.

I'm sure the full fallout of such a policy has been considered and it wasn't made impulsively. But immediately dismissing altruism as a partial motive is unfair and sets a bad precedent.
This isn't true. Modern instruction sets have clearly been influenced by and designed to optimize the C ABI.
There's at least three locations - the Aobadai one is the one pictured in that spoon-tamago link, it's pretty ramshackle and basically converted apartment space, but the other two look a bit more standard working-space.

I'm pretty sure from the details in the story that she was at the Nagatacho GRID one.
> In a topic sentence that specifically mentions well armed militias, the subsequent statements were related to that.

> The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias.

So this is referring only to "well armed militias", and we're defining that in such a way as to exclude any police forces?

> We're talking about the state's police departments

Ok, so "well armed militias" includes police departments then?

> It was carefully worded to deal with ... overly semantical programmers

The problem isn't overly semantic programmers, the problem is that you are contradicting yourself. To respond unambiguously only to your original comment then:

> The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias.

This is quite debatable, and depends on the definition of "well armed militias" as well as how one goes about judging how humane the behavior of a given large institution is. I'm also not very clear on it's relevance to the larger topic of police militarization.

> The States are ... exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior.

This technically depends on the definition of "oversight", but I think that for any reasonable definition it is very obviously false. Historically the federal government has stepped in on numerous occasions, either when they felt they had explicit authority (ex interstate commerce clause, intellectual property, etc), or when they felt that states were violating the constitutional rights of their citizens (ex my previously linked DoJ investigation of the SPD). In any of these cases it did not generally matter what the state laws said, as the constitution very clearly preempts those.
I read r/financialindependence from time and time, and it's not uncommon for me to read about people who have nothing to do at their job. From their account, they ask for more work, but nothing comes, and they spend their days redditing and watching youtube. Thus, they want to retire ASAP as they find this mind-numbing.

This is completely bewildering for me. All managers I've had were always eager to pile on more work on my desk when I was starting to look like I was finishing something, sometimes to a fault.

Is it a US thing? Have you guys experienced something like that? What is it, something like having to keep people around to justify budgets?
The Complicated Financial Lives of Freelancers
One perspective I haven't seen here yet: these employers are willing to pay an entire person-salary to get this task done. Therefore, if there was a SaaS service that did the same task, the company should be willing to pay a person-salary worth of money for that SaaS product.

So why not build the automation in your free time, knock out a little website with a Stripe subscription form to sell it, convince your boss to pay for this SaaS service instead of paying you to do it, and then ask if they have any other work for you to do?

If they do, great: now you're making 100% of your salary from the SaaS (and you can grow it from there if you like), and then 100% of your salary again because they've retained you to do a new thing.

If not, great: now you can quit and do what you like and continue to receive 100% of your previous salary in passive SaaS-business income.
Its only a perpetual motion machine if you believe that economic growth is zero sum.
I don't disagree, people contextualize the conversation with relation to themselves, but it is a bit more nuanced than that.

This in particular is incomplete: It's very possible that a person can be heard, listened to, understood, and then the actions they want not be taken. Just because a person is heard is not the same as that person being agreed with.

Is half the answer but the important bits it leaves unstated. To hear someone, you should be able to paraphrase their argument such that they agree that you're phrasing, is just as accurate as their original phrasing. And then you have to be able to share your decision process with respect to their argument so that they can see how you reached your choice of directions.

If you do that, whether or not you choose make the change they suggest, they will feel heard by you. Conversely if you can't do that, they have no basis for believing you understood what they said and so they won't feel heard.
Income is not wealth
That moment when you realize there's actually a name for something you've seen over and over for years!
Those "operations" engineers can be moved to making sure Ops are running well at home (you apparently have an API) or into Technical Sales if they'd rather stay in the field. Informing the customer of all the configuration that is available to them, for example. Just because there's a nice graphical configuration tool, doesn't mean any clients are actually going to look at it when they have an issue. They'd much rather call you up and bitch about it. Operations guy's job is safe, but he might be able to address more customers than he could before.
Hydrogen is not economical for most use cases.

For example if you have solar/wind energy, you can transfer it very efficiently over existing power grid to provide energy for heating or lights. Transmission losses in power lines are 8-15% so the efficiency is 85%+ (https://blog.schneider-electric.com/energy-management-energy...)

If you do the same via hydrogen, you have to convert solar energy into hydrogen. That conversion is only 16% efficient i.e. you loose 84% of solar energy (https://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2017/1117-nrel-establishes-w...).

Then you have to transport the hydrogen from where it's made to where it's used. That's additional expense and efficiency loss.

Then you have to convert hydrogen back into energy. Additional loss of efficiency.

It just doesn't make sense economically (https://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html).

Hydrogen is not an electricity source. It doesn't compete with solar or wind.

It's electricity storage. It competes with batteries and it's not winning there either because of much greater efficiency losses and the fact that you would have to build (expensive) infrastructure (think network of gas stations, except for hydrogen).
I mean.. nobody smiles in the middle of exercise. I thoroughly enjoy working hard and pushing myself on my bike, but it definitely doesn't make me smile. I might smile 3 hours later when I see I broke a few personal records though.
Yes we plan on adding more password managers including LastPass and Dashlane which are the most requested ones on top of 1Password which we have already integrated.
Im optimistic about 10 years... even if they are slow and clunky theyd be able to work 24/7 whereas human works cant or at least be optimized for tasks that are more difficult or dangerous for a human to perform. They might only take up 1% of the work force but i think that number will grow quickly
> You do multiplication or addition and you get well-defined 2s-complement wrap-around.

You get that, if that's what your CPU implements. Of course that's what all commonly used processors nowadays like x86 do. But C was meant to run on weirder ISAs as well. The specs of C allow so much undefined behavior in order to let C just emit the instructions for the multiply or memory access, and C deliberately says "not my problem" for whatever this architecture happens to do with edge-cases like overflow.

Using assembly instead of C cuts past the abstraction of the architecture, for both good and bad. You get defined behavior but lose portability. Practically speaking, yes, x86 assembly probably is a better way to learn without getting distracted by forty-year-old hardware oddities.
YMMV but the reason I bike to work (and have been biking to work for the past 7 years) is because I enjoy the experience of going as hard as I can, heart pumping, asphalt rolling fast under my wheel while taking turns fast, feeling wind in my hair. You won't see me smiling (while passing you at 25mph) just like you won't see someone at the gym smiling when pushing heavy weights, but I prefer my commute to the alternative of driving stuck in traffic. Because for me the alternative isn't "bike relaxed, take in the nature", that's just too boring and slow and it doesn't hold any interest to me.

So you people need to stop being judgy. I won't judge someone because they ride a crappy looking bike in crappy clothes so don't judge someone for riding a fancy looking bike in lycra (which btw is very comfortable athletic wear, you should try it). Everyone is having fun in their own way, they have their own motivations for doing some of the same things. Just because I put a lot of effort (and money) into my biking it doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, it's my favorite part of going to work.
I've been delving into OpenCL to parallelize some algorithmic trading stuff I have been doing. One thing I did a few days ago was to thread the way I load data into a MySQL Server. What took over an hour normally is down to under 10 mins.

I'd be interested in knowing is what GPU's you were/are using. I'm using a Sonnet eGFX Breakaway Box 550 (with Radeon RX Vega 56 Card).
If you allow a populist sentiment freight train to build against you, you have already lost.
I spent a little bit of time Logitech's R&D department back in the late 90's, they were doing all they could to shave two pins off a chip. It cost them a terrible amount of money, including a custom package and the difference in price per mouse must have been on the order of a few pennies. But the enormous amount of devices shipped more than made up for the R&D investment.