skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For any Fortune 500 (Google, Apple, HP, etc.), have certain staff work covertly under shell subsidiaries but develop close rapport with key vendors (as said subsidiary), make straw purchases and do comprehensive (bordering on intrusive) supply-chain surveillance and auditing, because the targets on the side of the parent corp's "boat" paints them as easy marks for industrial/economic espionage/sabotage/monitoring. Not only does this help confuse/disinform competitors, but it can make attacks by state and other actors more difficult.

This might mean high-resolution X-raying of all hardware and cryptographic signature verification of all firmware in order to prove hardware received is what was designed, and nothing else.
Compilers are not the only tools worth considering. Language services are also important, and language services see most use when the code is half-written and malformed.

func foo() {
b

func bar() {
}

`foo` is still in the process of being written and the user has invoked auto-completion after typing `b`. It's good if the parser can recover and parse the `bar` function so that the language service can suggest `bar` there.
Finalists of 2018 Comedy Wildlife Photography Awards, and They’re Hilarious
Dear D,

I m very interested in Protocol Buffers. Could you explain the tradeoffs you made while designing protobuff and what would you change if you were to design it now?

Cheers!
I'm very much talking about face-to-face interaction with peers, with their best interests at heart.
We don't spend much :)
I'd be interested in seeing a causative model for this. My guess is that it's purely Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic distinction.

The Hispanic kids grow up in mostly uniformly Hispanic environments, so they have less need to learn English, while latter grow up in more diverse environments. If hardly any neighborhood kids and classmates speak your native language, you need to learn English to communicate with them, while if you're Hispanic, chances are you're growing up in a majority-Hispanic neighborhood and are going to majority-Hispanic school, so you can do mostly fine with only basic English skill.

The same thing is true about your parents, so poor English proficiency of kids is not caused by poor English proficiency of parents, but rather both are caused by the same factor.
Allow people to invest 50% of the amount they paid in taxes in a given year. It can only be done via online platform that does basic due diligence. They can only raise half of the money from a regular user, the rest has to come from a professional investor.
Actually what I wrote is bullshit. I have no idea what the average time is to come up with bullshit vs. average time spent refuting it.

So color me convinced.

On the other hand, it took me about 10 seconds to write the previous paragraph but about 100 seconds to decide how to word my initial bullshit.

So I my initial bullshit stands. :)
A plus sign is allowed in the user part of email addresses. Though it's most commonly used as a tag (and I've only seen it used that way) it could be used as an actual address and since the receiving mail server decides how to handle it you have no way of knowing.

If you choose to strip the tag I'd only do so when processing a new signup and make sure that the user can login with his user+tag@example.com and that all email goes to that address.
There's also all the FUD and scare tactics when you try to install another browser saying it might be "insecure, slow, etc".
What is "the narrative," specifically?
AmigaOS vs. ArcaOS: battle of the legacy projects of classic closed-source OS's propped up by lingering companies
> Except that they already are measuring achievement

They are measuring performance on standardized tests.

If by "achievement" you mean "does well on multiple choice exams", then sure.

I don't trust standarized tests as a metric of achievement. Even without metric gaming they are pretty awful. And we've been solidly in systematic metric gaming land for least the past two decades.

The entire K12 system is designed around increasing these test scores.

> If you count expenditure as a positive, you assume your conclusion that spending is good.

No, you assume there's a hidden function that you can't measure or explain but which is representative of reality and also positively correlates funding levels with performance.

I know it's a radical proposal in STEM communities, but sometimes measuring things causes a lot more problems than it solves.
Can you quantify anything? How does mongo add more risk? How is mysql a better product. It doesn't seem like you're saying anything.
Kitchen Fires and food poisoning are not imaginary.
In GSuite it's also possible to redirect all unmatched addresses to some email address, e.g., invalid1@a.com, invalid2@a.com all go to valid@a.com

You should consider asking phone verification, or keep a credit card of file.
Unfortunately at the cost of a lot of human suffering in countries where coltan[1] is mined.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan
Practice! (With video or a mirror)
Additionally, if you want to see some of the fundamentals there is a book called "what every body is saying"... pretty good read
OK, but what would you replace it with that was more reliable? If a company takes the time to, say, use GPG then email is probably the most reliable method available.
If we suppose that his conclusion is using boolean logic, then what you're saying is a strawman because of his last claim; namely, protobufs are bad if "[...] && !Google":

> They're clearly written by amateurs, unbelievably ad-hoc, mired in gotchas, tricky to compile, and solve a problem that nobody but Google really has.

This dovetails with other arguments that I've seen recently that are becoming more frequent:

Have we entered a new world where the lessons of companies working at massive scales are not only generally superfluous for smaller scales, but are actively harmful?
Automation has never been more prevalent, and total employment has never been higher.
> #4 highly depends on a project size. On big projects, some of these decisions might become effectively one way doors.

The transformations between T, Box<T>, Rc<T>, Arc<T>, etc. are mechanical, so I expect someone will write a refactoring tool that makes a giant PR for you automatically. (Subject to certain limits, like if you're actually cloning the ref-counted pointer, it's indeed harder to go back.) Would that satisfy your need?

> To be fair, though, we use Rust the way it wasn't specifically designed for (large "enterprise" software, think Java-like enterprise).

IMHO, this is a valid use case for Rust. I'm not saying everyone should stop using Java (in some cases I think it's significantly faster to write) but Rust has some strong performance advantages and no data races in safe code.
I keep my copy on my bookshelf - it is really an elegant book for an elegant language.
How exactly does preparing food in the truck lead to food poisoning? Why doesn't your backyard grill need a fire suppression system?
The worst case would be if it's true, but Blomberg journalists did a bad job and everyone will assume the hack didn't happened
Since both Chinas claim the entirety of China including Taiwan, no government can officially recognise both. But in practice that means governments recognise one China officially and deal with the other unofficially. Taiwan obviously is not under the PRC government's control and the US tariffs don't apply to it. The US is a close ally of Taiwan.
Nope. There are similar formats designed to be rapidly serializable and back that outperform protobufs on this front.

* cap'n proto https://capnproto.org/

* flatbuffers https://google.github.io/flatbuffers/

* hdf5 (for machine learning/numerical analysis/finance) https://support.hdfgroup.org/HDF5/

You're just not going to beat these formats in serialization speed with anything (just mmap the file, use. Good luck beating it, certainly not with protobuf). Seriously, use hdf5 for machine learning and you can restart experiments and ... well they start. They don't spend the first minute or 2-3 reading their data back in.

Protobufs focus on:

* standard (meaning it's perhaps a bad standard but it's standard) (also meaning of course you don't get to choose formats, or perhaps I should say your company will lose a lot if it lets developers choose alternatives to protobuf anywhere) (this is where the frustration comes from)

* streaming support (meaning you can write out and read in protobufs without having to keep the whole thing in memory)

* extendable (including sort-of kind-of backwards-forward-compatibility. Meaning old code can read in a new version protobuf, change something and write out a proto that still has the fields it didn't understand)

* language agnostic

* composability (meaning cat protobuf1 protobuf2 > resultbuf means resultbuf is deserializable)

* an attempt to efficiently store integers (meaning it's integer encoding format is bloody complex, but "space efficient", except not quite so efficient it doesn't need compression at which point, why bother ?)

And in this protobuf will beat the above formats (except cap'n proto).

None of the alternatives to protobuf existed when it was invented though. The only alternative in existence was ASN.1. And it beat that, by a LOT.
> Do you think those are good measurement of "achievement"?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But spending is never a good measurement of achievement.

> No. My assumption is that measuring achievement is inherently impossible in something as multi-faceted and large as universal education.

You think it is impossible to measure educational performance at all? Surely you don't believe something that silly. You think it is measured imperfectly. And I agree with you. But i'm not sure what your point is here. Certainly imperfect measurements don't mean we should just measure random, unrelated variables like spending. I also don't see how it means we shouldn't try to measure, and improve our measurement standards. And it certainly doesn't mean, that the conclusion of this article is in any way incorrect (which is not that the measurements are good, but that the way other people were using these measurements were even less good than using them correctly).
Eh Germany had the reputation of being into healthy natural lifestyle type stuff; vegetarianism/special diets, exercise and fresh air, homeopathic medicine and so forth. It was kind of the California of Europe in that regard. The Nazis did pick up the clean living aesthetic but it was more about being German than about being fascist
The fundamental problem with this is that the economy is made up of intelligent people who can actively find ways to exploit flaws in the model, and that - because the model's assumptions make it hard to become filthy rich - they have a direct financial incentive to do so. So, in practice, the interesting parts of the economic system all rely heavily on breaking those nice elegant assumptions.
From a practical standpoint the problem is that "required" handles a trivial subset of message validation.

I mean, I'm not going to claim that it never happens that your only constraint on a valid value of a message field is "present", but you quite often want to be able to require that one of three fields is set, or a number be between 0 and 1048576, or that a field be equal to an existing user ID, it that a string contain at least one printable non-punctuation, non-space letter.

So no matter your RPC message parsing code, you're going to need a custom bit of code in each of your handlers to say "This isn't a valid message, fuck off". Enforcing "this field should be of this primitive type" saves a lot of time, but it turns out that "this field should exist" doesn't save that much because you still have to write "... and have a sensible value" in your own code.

So you have a language feature which causes problems sometimes and doesn't really help much.
Is it just me or do the volumetric renditions not even come close to matching the source photos? It's like the photos were picked later to try and match the graphics.
>"The naming of process nodes by different major manufacturers (TSMC, Intel, Samsung, GlobalFoundries) are partially direct lies (aka “marketing”) and not directly related to any measurable distance on a chip"

Ha! Love Wikipedia so much.
The link only shows pinguis as an adjective or adverb. I don't see any reference to it being a noun on that page.
How about instead of giving them bullshit jobs, just give them money instead.
> There's so much evidence to suggest that there is far more at play here than simply "engineering is laborious and dry [so women must not want to do the work]" that I'm willing to state it falls under wikipedia's citing rules for globally known knowledge: I don't need to cite that the capital of France is Paris any more than I need to cite this.

What about citations proving that "software engineering when it was considered a low-class low-skill job" is the same profession as the programming in the past 30years. Or at least that it has the same difficulty / processes.

Btw usage of phrases like "clear history", "so much evidence" (especially when you cite one(!) arguable data point), "already-refuted" does not convince anyone about you being right. It is at best annoying.
You say all that like there's a better way of learning about how the world works that doesn't involve getting another university degree...
Dang, uhh well those anecdotes are pretty damning. I'd love to see a followup/update from Quartz addressing those issues. Unfortunately it seems the article is from September 2017, so I won't hold my breath on that...
Are the other 6 just not consumers (100% piracy)? :)
It's basically pre-calibration production. As wafers come off the line you learn that there are miscalibrations, parts that don't work perfectly, places where things are misaligned or maybe other minor issues that impact performance and yields.

You don't need to do anymore R&D or major NRE, but you may need to do a lot of tweaking and tuning. Risk production is generally low volume because stuff doesn't work so well yet.
It's not that easy. Verification is a big deal. And not just verification of disarmament, but verification and controls to prevent re-armament.

The world is awash in Plutonium, sadly.

There are a great many nuclear power stations producing Plutonium. Japan and SK can easily make nuclear weapons on short notice with barely anyone noticing, and they're not the only ones -- I'm sure Germany could too, and perhaps also Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, and others.

A wholesale switch to Thorium reactors and/or dismantling of all Uranium-/Plutonium-burning reactors would be needed too.

And even then, we'd need controls on the unavoidably huge stockpiles of Uranium and Plutonium. And the Uranium mines would have to be demonstrably shut down and controlled.

It would be fantastically easier to... have just a few nuclear-armed superpowers enforcing a no-new-membership rule for the world's nuclear club. This should be a LOT easier to agree to... and yet here we are with Russia and China (and the EU!) cheering Iran and NK on!!

So you see, we can't globally agree even to the easy measures that would reduce the risk of nuclear war. How will we even get to disarmament then?

To actually get global nuclear disarmament would be oh so much harder than that still. That makes unilateral nuclear disarmament a non-starter.

The best case scenario right now is that we get no new nuclear-armed states after NK (and Iran, which I presume has nukes now), and even that is in doubt. If the U.S. were to intervene in any other aspiring new nuclear club members... the lesson to draw would be: develop nukes really fast, fast enough to get inside the American political OODA loop and make one's nuclear status a fait accompli. If the U.S. does not intervene... then the lesson will be: every country can and should develop nuclear weapons. That all means that the worst-case scenario right now is a stampede to join the nuclear club. Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Brazil? Chile? Vietnam? SK? Japan? Philippines? All of them will find reasons to develop nukes very soon.

So you see, it really is impossible -- at least for a fairly long forseeable future -- to get nuclear disarmament. It's all going to get much worse before it gets better. In that context simply making sure MAD does not stop working (due to plausible deniability from having so many nuclear-armed countries) becomes the highest priority and the best possible outcome for a long, long time.

Hate to be a pessimist. But really, nuclear weapons policy requires realism.

If you want nuclear disarmament, then perhaps the only thing you can do right now is hope that the Trump administration and, if need be, its successors, make progress on disarming NK and Iran. Then and only then will the slide towards more and more nuclear-armed nations stop (at least for a while). Then and only then can we discuss measures to begin disarming existing nuclear club members.
You’re completely right! I’ve thought this myself: Zapier and the ecosystem that enables it is such a good example of how something that used to take a programmer days or weeks can now be done in minutes.

I wonder if the end result of things like Zapier will ultimately be unemployment for devs. Perhaps, but maybe it’ll just free them up for something else. I mean, is the demand for programming really fixed? Or will more and more powerful force multiplier tools like Zapier just free up devs for new demands that we can’t predict now? Hard to say and I’m concerned like you, but it’ll definitely be interesting to watch.

So yeah, I agree with you and I think Zapier is a great example. I think we all just have to wait and see if that ends up replacing devs in the long run or just shifting what they do.
Arent you doing exactly what you are accusing the author of? One could say - "People are not wrong, they simply have constraints, advantages, and disadvantages". Drawing a conclusion about whether all experienced engineers want to work with the author based on a single article or opinion appears just as myopic.
> But spending is never a good measurement of achievement.

Nobody said it was.

> You think it is impossible to measure educational performance at all? Surely you don't believe something that silly.

Obviously not. That's a ridiculous strawman and I think you know it.

> But i'm not sure what your point is here.

My point is that the availability of resources IS a useful metric.

> Certainly imperfect measurements don't mean we should just measure random, unrelated variables like spending.

How is availability of resources unrelated?

The idea that the level of resources available is irrelevant strikes me as fairly insane. You're really saying that you'd have the same quality teachers as $40k/yr as at $90k/yr or $500,000k/yr? CLEARLY resources effect outcomes.

It's not the whole story, but it is a useful feature. To claim it's completely irrelevant because "oh look multiple choice exams that everyone has been systematically gaming for 20+ years" seems absolutely insane to me.

> I also don't see how it means we shouldn't try to measure, and improve our measurement standards.

Sure.

> And it certainly doesn't mean, that the conclusion of this article is in any way incorrect (which is not that the measurements are good, but that the way other people were using these measurements were even less good than using them correctly).

I think the fundamental thesis of the article -- that we can scientifically manage a system of universal education -- is fundamentally and impossibly flawed. Especially given the current state of assessments and the incentive structures built around them.
>experienced engineers don’t want to work with people who think like the author of this article

- has opinions on interface design

- isn't afraid to be wrong publicly

- is brash on a personal blog

I dunno, this is mostly positive. I'd have to see how well they'd adapt to the much different context and goals of one of our design reviews, but this isn't an immediate red flag. There's a million ways to be bad at a job. I'll give them enough rope to hang themselves in a serious conversation rather than invent the idea that someone would be an unworkable perfectionist professionally just from being a type purist on the internet.
Perhaps a good tactic would be to ask them in writing what the bill is for.
EUV is truly amazing in that it works at all. The shot noise is simple to fix in theory - just get more photons. In practice, it's going to be really challenging to get more light out of the molten tin droplets.
Fantastic. Creative answers to education and job upward mobility.

I hope we see more of these kinds of things!
Time to buy ASML stock. ;-)
There's nothing inherently wrong with paying higher wages even if they generate no increase in performance. That's a wealth transfer, which could be either good or bad, depending on other factors.
Learning SIMD with Rust by Finding Planets (2018)
THE CRASH OF 2018
rambus touting benefits of open hardware ecosystem,
no irony here
While I agree with the early days female programmers history thing, I'd like to point one thing you've neglected, that programming work 60 yrs ago is not comparable or even relevant to that of today. They are of different nature.
What's farther from the reality is , back those days programming was not particularly losing paying or low status, I'd say it was elite. After all, most people then had no access to tertiary education, let alone computers.
Didn't rtfa, just scanned over it and looked at the maps.
BEST Bitcoin Investment Strategy
> Highlights:

> No C/C++ or Rust required, just typed JavaScript.

That's not a flaw...!
From my understanding classic Marxists are very pro-gun, as a necessity to protect the rights of workers from the ruling class.

"The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. [...] Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary." ~Karl Marx - Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-l...
It's touristy, but most travelers want to do the touristy stuff anyway. As far as touristy stuff goes, it's certainly far from the worst. I went there a few weeks ago because a Japanese friend had never been and wanted to go before it closed down, we had morning beers, a sushi lunch, and then went to hang in the nearby Hamarikyu gardens, it was a pleasant day.

We even got to see a full tuna being opened up/cleaned/cut/etc., which you don't get to see everywhere.

All that said, it remains to be seen whether the few streets of shops etc. will remain as active and bustling now that the market has moved.
Totally agree with you. But two things:

1) Wages weren't being measured, spending was. Not necessarily the same thing.

2) Teacher wages may be relevant as moral issue, but they are not the same thing as measuring the quality of a school, from an academic perspective, which is what the point of this article was.
Companies as a group should be aware that they are just a polite fiction that exists only because actual people allow them to exist. If they continue down the path of externalizing all costs while internalizing all revenues, people may one day decide that they're tired of humouring the fiction. If we somehow got to a point where 90% of workers were laid off due to automation, with no adjustments to the social safety net, then I think we would be long past that point already. In that sense, Uniqlo is effectively freeloading off the fact that other companies haven't similarly automated, because if they had, Uniqlo would not be able to exist. Nobody would be able to afford its clothing, and there would be massive societal unrest to the point that people would probably not even respect the "right" of a company to do things like hold private property.