skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> but I personally have never seen it.

I have.

That said, I think we are on the same position on the issue. When I've seen such comments, it's when someone that didn't understand the value if comments is responding to a request to ask them.

Thus is not necessarily because they are being deliberately obtuse, but because they never really experienced helpful comments. To me, 90% of the time a good comment wont say what's happening, instead it will say WHY it is happening. If good coding practised makes the code itself clear, good coding practice makes the context the code is written in clear.

But for those new, and/or those too use to a particular codebase or just never exposed to good comments, they wont get it, and when asked to do one (either as a general request or in a code review) the strawman is what you get (usually not as ridiculous as this example, but equally useless).

I see it as a cycle when learn to code: first we find comments useless so we skip them where we can. Then thus becomes normal, so we are used to seeing no or only useless comments. Then one day we look at code that we know we were confused on before but have forgotten why. On the N-th time of this, we leave the one line comment that says the secret. On the N plus one-th time, we read that comment and are enlightened. We then spend years trying to figure out the magic behind a useful and a useless comment, and arguing with those who think only useless comments exist.
App-based hailing increases efficiency for SOME people in SOME domains, but studies show that App-based hailing unequivocally REDUCES efficiency in terms of traffic and pollution on a city-wide scale because it incentivizes people to take car trips they wouldn't have otherwise taken and because Uber/Lyft drivers wind up clogging the streets with single-rider cars as they drive to their next fare.

TL;DR: App-based hailing does increase efficiency of transportation for consumers in the very short term, but it definitely DECREASES the efficiency of transportation for cities as a whole in the longer term.

Allowing Ride-sharing to exist is a Faustian bargain that cities have made with VC-Funded tech "bullies" like Trav Kalanick. The cities win in the short term on an individual basis for each of its residents, but the cities lose as a collective in the long term. It's a version of the Faustian bargain America made by replacing trains with cars -- yes, cars bring greater transportation efficiency ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL but they massively reduce it on a collective level. Ride-sharing apps do the same thing.

Individualism and collectivism are both Faustian bargains in different ways. We need a balance between the two ideologies that allows will-to-power Nietzchean entrepreneurial folks to generate value without shitting on the less-energetic people who create less value through no fault of their own. We need Minimum Viable Individualism.

Uber, Lyft, and -- depending who you ask, cars themselves -- are examples of Individualism Run Amok because they empower the Nietzchean folks (Trav Kalanick, Henry Ford & Co) at the direct expense of the Lower-Energy folks (Uber Drivers and the pedestrians they annoy) instead of creating a win-win situation like the Hyperloop, or other more innovative transportation-tech plans that are admittedly idealistic but at least aren't transparently exploitative of "the little guys" as a collective (of both drivers and pedestrians) like ride-sharing apps so obviously are.
The thing this article highlights is that in order to HAVE a voice that also allows one to write a book with perceived value is that it better conform to a "sex club" mentality or else you better write under a pseudonym. And really, this is all just a coded way of expressing a dimension of the same problem--unless you are directly supporting the "Whore of Babylon" your voice and ideas don't matter.
they're a bit dated but you should check out phil agee's books. his first one in particular was very scandalous.
Question: what if any criticisms of the modern Democratic party would you hear and think are warranted and deserved, would you be willing to articulate those criticisms or are they spotless blameless and perfect as a party?

This is my problem with the people who think it's not a "both sides" issue or that both sides dont have serious issues that makes people want to have nothing to do with their affiliations. Not that they disagree with my personal critiques of the left; but that they are typically so married to their party it is functionally impossible for them to find any fault or willingess to critique their side for the better when it's absolutey called for and necessary. Instead it's a matter of"YOU tell ME what wrong with the party and I'll tell you why you're wrong".

They will turn right around and blame "the other" or explain every failing of their opponents with vigor, with a straight face and not a single hint of irony or self-awareness for things like straight ticket voting or blind partisan loyalty

If you ignore the baggage in your ranks, you be signaled to everyone else it's fine for them to do the same.
They explicitly focused on teens in rich countries with high end phones and high speed mobile connections. They wanted to target that “rich” niche.
> I wondered why there’s a reduce in clojure.core but no fold? (It’s just a different arity of reduce that’s missing the initial state.)

There is literally an arity of reduce which skips the initial state. Check out `(doc reduce)`.

> No tuple type? Vectors are tuples. “What if one of the vectors is of a different length?” I gasped as I clutched my pearl monads.

`s/tuple` is the answer to that question.

> This ties into another concept that was new to me: applying a sequence of arguments to a function.

You're not applying the sequence to the fn. This is "function application", so you're applying the fn to the sequence. In Clojure, you have some data, you apply a fn to it, then you have some transformed data. Rinse and repeat. Also, check out `(doc apply)`.

> I’ve read/heard the Clojure designers encourage the use of namespaced keywords, but I rarely encounter them outside clojure.spec definitions.

As other people have done in the comments here, I make a case for namespace keywords here [1].

> I can’t talk about data in Clojure without talking about clojure.spec!

Please be sure to check out Clojure spec's instrumentation, along with Orchestra [2] to further improve the experience. My team uses `defn-spec` for basically every fn in both our front-end and back-end code; all of the data is spec'd, with shared specs between front-end and back-end, and we get full instrumentation during development and testing. Thanks to macros, that can disappear completely in production.

1: https://blog.jeaye.com/2017/10/31/clojure-keywords/
2: https://github.com/jeaye/orchestra
Yeah, Thanks Google for killing proxies....
> She read a statement during her press conference in Lyon, but would not allow reporters to show her face, saying she feared for her own safety and the safety of her two children.

While this is tragic and I feel for her (despite not being able to comprehend what she is going through), I cannot help but think that's a bit pointless. Wouldn't a state like China who can presumably make an Interpol leader disappear have access to a photo of her face?

What's the threat she's hiding from?
I also have a wrapper that I also wrote in Bash that is also called pkg and also does short commands (pkg i <name>). And here I thought I was being clever...
Can you reference success stories where this is the case, especially in regards to surviving without needing to be part of their system of censorship?
One very interesting niche that I recently learned about was providing a VPN with a "residential" IP block that could be used to geo-shift netflix viewing:

https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/138668/vps-for-us-netf...

Apparently there are a lot of people who would like to watch "US Netflix" but cannot do so from their location.
Finding a wife (or husband) is far easier than finding a co-founder (at least when comparing for the same level of quality).

And on many occasions, a business divorce is far more financially painful than a marital one.
Who is this person? I searched her name and didn't find anything that indicated that she is someone to listen to about mental health.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/bloodletting-blisters-solv...
This all sounds like some horrible joke instead of serious business dilemmas.
There are a few steps but you're on the right path. Read the documentation on Github and then once you run `./streisand`, you just need to follow instructions on CLI.

It will ask you to get an API key from Digital Ocean in my case, location of the droplet, etc. It will create a new droplet automatically and get it up and running in about 20-30 mins. Once you're done, you'll get a link to login in your server and download configuration/clients.
This is really interesting. I spent last night calculating a small solar setup for my property. I have 4x220w panels, 4x100amp deep cycles, and a few inverters: one 1000w, and another 600w. And a 20 amp solar charge controller. Basically the most minimal setup.

I was trying to figure out how to design a system that, given 4 hours of full sunlight at the maximum output of the solar charger (300w) or 4 * 300 w = 1200w total daily charging of my deep cycles. If the system is 100% efficient (it isn't), this gives me 50w a hour over a 24 hour period. 1200w / 24 hr = 50w. But my solar panels exceed the ability of the charge controller. How can I use that to my advantage? I have a well and a holding tank. I was trying to figure out a circuit, perhaps an Arduino program/circuit, with voltage/amp sensors and relays to do this: If there is enough sun, charge the battery. If the batteries are full, turn on the well pump into the holding tank (there's a pressure switch to turn it off when the tank is full). And put the holding tank up on the hill -- which should give me 25-30psi (up 45-50ft). Then I was trying to figure out how to optimize my well pump, or use a DC motor. I might look into salvaging a 2hp DC motor from a treadmill and retrofit it onto a pump housing. Anyway I am trying to optimize for extreme budget. 50w an hour isn't a lot, but it is enough to run a few light bulbs and my tiny refrigerator. I might be able to run a RPi and charge some 18650 batteries for flashlights.
I think of it differently. The economy really doesn’t need to employ everyone who needs work and money. Government could diminish this discrepancy any number ways. For one, they could establish stipends to help people achieve their basic needs. Or they could create public works projects or just government projects to ensure full employment with suitable accommodations for people’s varied needs. I look at defense spending as essentially this. Yes, the US has a huge defense department. Yes that means the US has the most might of any country. That even leads it to things like excesses. But it’s fundamentally the only version of my previous statement the political climate digests. If you want otherwise and are a US citizen then get involved in your civil duties.
No, it would be unethical to do the things you mentioned. Do you honestly believe that we have a hundreds of elected officials who genuinely don't care at all about the welfare of non-Americans, who are all total monsters?

Really think about it. Is it ethical to start a war that is otherwise meritorious but that you cannot win? If you would be unable to create a good result, going to war would only add more misery to the process of getting to the inevitable bad result. This is not so 2 dimensional. You cannot say, these sets of values are parts of ethical decision making, and these other sets of values, that also impact people's lives, have no part in ethical considerations. The chances of success in a military action are a crucial component of whether it is ethical to even try it.

It is simpler to look at the results. Perhaps if the people in Iraq or Afghanistan are not better off than they would have been otherwise, and the rest of the people of the world are not safer and more prosperous than they would have been otherwise, then there was probably something unethical about the prosecution of the recent wars there.

We are just really bad at predicting the future, and even understanding the present or past. That is another ethical consideration. We should be very careful about using "ends to justify means", meaning that we do something that we know is bad for a good result of greater magnitude. The result will likely be something we did not predict, and therefore we have done a bad thing and gotten possibly a bad result as well.

The challenge would be to find a way to actually do things in the best way possible, while attaining good results. So we should avoid killing people. But if we must kill people, or even if we should kill certain very bad people (who makes those decisions?), you want to only kill the "bad" ones, therefore you should use the most discriminate weapons possible. Is it possible to do so? To achieve your aim can you use a sniper's bullet, a drone which can surveil it's target for days, or would you need to use nuclear weapons?

How would you approach North Korea, which is evil by almost any standard, when any war that lasts longer than 5 minutes results in the death of every inhabitant of Seoul?

I write all this because these are both very important and very difficult decisions. And it feels like we are not even trying. People cling to silly shallow principles and sling them around at each other, preventing the deeper discourse that should be taking place so that we can do better at dealing with horrible situations that remain in the world.
I also did a double-take on the title of that section. I resolved my conflicy by mentally renaming it "What's more another role's responsibility." So yes, a senior engineer does these things, but it's not primarily on them.

With that renaming, the two lists in the post more accurately describe my recent positions as senior/staff engineer than anything else I've read, so I have to say I very much agree.
Johann Hari covers a lot of the history of antidepressants in "Lost Connections." Per the studies he covers in the book, most of the benefits are placebo effect. The remainder is somewhat of a mystery. Whether you give someone a medication that increases the level of serotonin in their system (i.e. an SSRI), or that decreases the level of serotonin, the effect will the be same. Replace the drugs targeting serotonin with drugs that target dopamine and you can expect the same effect.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/17/lost-connectio...
Between the emergence of resistant bacterial strains and growing understanding of internal microbiomes, the future will not look kindly on our use of antibiotics. And of course, you don't need to go into the future to find people who look dimly on the state of the art in nutrition.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. There were reports that came out from several sources that Evan ignored all feedback from product and design including hard numbers from early tests. There were apparently several groups internally that tried to stop the massive changes from dropping without adequate testing and iteration. Those groups were overridden by Evan in favor of "vision" and that apparent lack of discipline led to the situation they're in today.

If Evan can't show that he has the discipline to lead a company at this stage of it's life in the public market then the board should absolutely give him the boot in the next 24 months.

I think the narrative of "product visionary" has been spun a bit too hard by the tech media and it likely has gotten to his head.

He also took a $500mm bonus for successfully executing the IPO at a time when the company lost over $700mm in 2017. That's not a great look - but I digress.
Yeah it is on my list to check for a while. If it has the same interop with Java as CLojure than I will give it a try.
But this does the opposite. If you want people not to blindly trust whatever they see on Twitter, you can't solve that problem by putting a Twitter badge on articles that say, "this is/isn't trustworthy".

That just encourages people to be even less thoughtful: "I don't have to check the source, Twitter would tell me if it was bad."

Media literacy is a serious problem, and it has to be solved through education and evolving cultural norms. Proposals like this reinforce the toxic norm that all you need to do to fact-check is make a list of good and bad web sites.

Sometimes making someone's life easier in the short-term can have the side-effect of making their life harder in the long-term.
The self evident primary purpose of the various news platforms is not to inform, but rather to persuade. Persuading persons to buy things is their primary source of revenue. They also routinely work with public relations firms. Finally the editors and other staff all have their own views and like most persons most of them must like the idea of persuading others to agree with them. The on-air behavior of news anchors on election night in 2016 completely destroyed the fiction of their impartiality. Had the election gone the other way we would have seen an equally crass display of triumphalism. I don’t see how any intellectually honest person can fail to believe, regardless of views, that the various news sources are all biased, because it’s observably true.
You believe access to special financial instruments (such as..?) is the reason rich people can get richer? Can you expand on that
I too looked at the comment and thought, yes it’s about time to get my SQL act together. I can write sql queries, and can also understand looking at them what they supposedly do, but my day job doesn’t really demand more than a simple select on two tables. Where can I go learn/explore more competitive SQL?
> It is not the point of philosophy to end philosophy, to ‘solve’ the deep questions so that people can stop thinking about them.

And yet, many people who ask questions like "what is good?" or "how can we know things?" or "is there free will, and if so, how does it work?" do so because they actually want to know the answers. If the purpose of philosophy isn't to find the answers, is philosophy the wrong place to be looking?

If you're claiming that there aren't any answers, well... that sounds like a strong philosophical position!
I can't read the WP article, but I assume it reports on the Deep Gaydar paper,
from Stanford (https://osf.io/zn79k/).

That paper is severely flawed, first of all in the way they trained their
classifier to recognise peoples' sexuality from images of their faces.

What they did is they collected ~35k pictures of gay and straight men and
women, all users of a dating site in the US. Half of them were gay and half
were straight.

Right off the bat, that breaks the fundamental assumption in machine learning,
that of distributional consistency. In short, machine learning works under the
assumption that the distribution from which a training sample is drawn is the
same as that of unseen data- i.e., of the real world. If the sample
distribution is not the same as that of the unseen data, a model cannot be
guaranteed to predict anything about unseen data.

But, in the Deep Gaydar paper's sample, the distribution of gay and straight
men and women was uniform: 50% straight and 50% gay people, while in the real world the prevalence of homosexual preference is estimated to be around
10%- the Deep Gaydar paper itself cites a 7% prevalence.

So the classifier trained to identify peoples' sexuality from images of their
faces, in the paper, is completely incapable of identifying anything about the
sexualities of people outside its training sample- which is the majority of
people on earth. Which invalidates their claim that it's possible to tell
someones' sexuality from an image of their face. At best, what they can claim
is that they trained a classifier to identify the sexuality of people in their
training sample from images of their faces. But nothing more.

And no, that does not suggest that "physiognomy is not pseudoscience". Quite
the contrary- sneaky data manipulation like that is the hallmark of crackpots
and charlatans.
Lost in all this is an important distinction that Snapchat wanted to make: they wanted to separate friends from influencers / celebrities / media. It was a good change. Another important thing Snapchat does is it doesn't show likes / followers publicly - when the whole world is chasing these numbers Snapchat has taken stance against it. The general philosophy they follow makes me think this is short term pain and the company will do fine in the long run.
I am the author.
I did not created TermGet, I'm just a developer of it.
TermGet works different then sysget.
TermGet is an console based interface where sysget only works with system arguments which is way more efficent.
Yes, and the general recommendations I've seen are:

- I'm sorry, what did you say? I didn't hear that?
...

- Oh, I thought you said that. What made you say it?
...

- You know that people reserve the worst criticism for themselves?
...

Did my original question implied polygraph tests in any way?
Top board for WDC live updated at https://www.backstabbr.com/sandbox/5978906570522624
GOTV in apps was fairly common during the Obama years as well.

In a democracy there is only one correct side in the “get more people to vote” and “get less people to vote” argument.

The fact that some think getting more people to vote is a partisan endeavor says more about the anti democratic leanings of one side of the partisan divide than anything else.

(Edited)
I have this game but I've never been able to play, because I've never been able to find willing players. One day...
I really enjoyed "The Sense of Style" by Steven Pinker. It's meant to be an accessible guide for the common writer.

(I have an English degree, so I can at least say his advice rings true and hits a lot of important points.)
I go to China many times a year and I sort of agree with you. Chinese govt has more important things to do than to go after you. But the problem is that China is a huge country with 1.4 billion people. Just the sheer scale of things lend itself to the impossibility of managing and scrutinizing everyone. China simply doesn't have enough police and authorities.

However, conceptually the government wants to get in everyone's business and if you are middle class - not so much. If you're someone with influence and power, you will need to be in bed with the government. Also, the middle class is literally living to get by, they are being controlled through borderline dystopian schemes. Obviously, westerners have a deep philosophical problem with this and rightfully so.

I wish China was an open democracy, I really wish it was. The people are incredibly talented, smart and motivated.
So how many years has it been for the US?
What makes it arrogant? It's a starkly different perspective...but arrogant?
People usually not just chose languages. The VM, libraries and dependency management all together are chose. Btw. this is why Rich started Clojure on the JVM. If you stay on JVM land I quite often hear that the developers do not want to try Clojure because of the lack of types (which refers to static typing in this context). Good luck implementing a Hadoop project in OCaml or Haskell.
Not in the GUI world. I believe both KDE Discover and GNOME Software use it, but I haven't seen it used on the command line. I wonder why...
200 years? How about in 50 years? Heart attacks and cancers will be detected early and easily treatable. The idea of chemotherapy will seem barbaric.
So you are working with experienced people. It looks I don't have such luck, I have to look at lots of junior code.

Juniors think that they should write comments and then they waste time writing epic descriptions of trivial things. They waste time writing whole story of creating simple piece of code in one commit message. They waste time deliberating if tabs are better than spaces.