skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It doesn’t matter. Literally nobody can afford climate failure.

That is a sweeping overgeneralisation and literally false. There are going to be large communities of people who will suffer more from giving up cars than from climate change.

Maybe you don't have an poor people living in your part of the world, but wishing a peasant lifestyle on the poor because you don't want to engage with their problems is neither constructive nor pleasant.

What people can afford does matter, and it is worth considering how much the poor are being asked to give up versus how much we expect their sacrifice to help.
I don't want a warranty. I want a quality product that won't fail for some predictable use life rather than a piece of junk that I can get a "free" replacement for. Of course it's only free if I don't value my time or the lack of use of the product for the duration of the warranty process. Inevitably the manufacturer erects bureaucratic barriers to minimize the real cost of the warranty on their crap.

The only time a warranty is worth anything to me is when it's so costly to the manufacturer to honor it that they have a compelling incentive to make a quality product that won't break. Warranties in this class are usually for a good long period, 10 years or more.
Even on a not so warm day, the moving air really helps dry it out a lot faster. Not as fast as a dryer maybe but still. Plus, outdoor air freshness. If you don't live near a major road anyway.
Ladino comes from the word Latin and according to Wikipedia used to be the term for literary Spanish
SolarWinds kicks off second IPO, lowers share prices
How about weekends though?
Yeah I think this might be the way to go in the future -- do the web app manifest thing to make it load like a native app.

Given what you went through I'm glad I didn't try the hackintosh approach. I suspect that >90% of the people who even try the Hackintosh approach are developers who don't want to buy another computer just to target one platform.

Personally I think eventually it will be possible to develop iOS apps from non iOS computers, but maybe not anytime soon. Once Apple thinks the moat is degraded enough, I guess.
Can't you have both in a way? A monolith that's glued together by an "interface language" (e.g. GraphQL), that can be broken up by "ejecting", removing the glue code?
There's a pretty hard limit to the volume and style of content that can be produced by amateurs and hobbyists.

For a start, it's limited to people who are already rich enough to have the time to spare.

But certain types of content - deep investigative journalism for example - should always cost significant amounts of money. You want the best people in the world at that craft to be able to spend as long as takes, and travel to wherever they need to go, to uncover the truth in a story. This kind of work plays a crucial role in society, by keeping a watch on the political, legal and corporate worlds and helping to expose corruption and abuses of power.

It's likely already the case that too little good investigative journalism is being done these days. We should be looking for ways to have more of it, not less.
I turn them inside out when washing too, it really makes a huge difference.
Ah but you see, it isn't, here's what happened in the ticket system:

Feature: Display most profitable ads to users without offending anyone.

Bug: User was offended.

Resolution: Add user to block list for offending advert.

Status: resolved.
I don't know how this differs with installing Hackintosh on real hardware, but then you provide a kernel extension (kext) called FakeSMC, which emulates the SMC chip present on real Apple computers.

So in a sense, he is not using an actual SMC key, but very probably replaced it by FakeSMC. You can see that it is actually included in the repo he clones: https://github.com/SRH1605/Hackintosh-KVM/tree/master/kexts/...
Euclidea – Geometric construction game with straightedge and compass
Pretty sure I’ve seen a system like this in action. People sign up for our service; we send them a receipt (and for many of them, the cost is tax deductible); and it bounces with a message that we have to click on a link to enable it to go through. (For a number of reasons, we don’t. And most companies send stuff like that from a black hole no-reply address anyway.)

Good luck when your bank tries to contact you about something important but the email bounces.
We don't, but getting there on the web at scale is a long battle.

The W3C has been working on WebPayments [1] for several years. Once it lands on most browsers, it should enable websites to offer a choice between ads and micropayments.

But there are lots of problems to solve first, ranging from finding the right APIs and UXs to make sure that users won't end up paying by accident, or that children won't pay with their parent's browser without their agreement, to the fact that people don't use the same mechanisms for paying al over the world, to security issues, etc.

[1] https://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/
https://www.toodledo.com/info/jobs.php

looks like they are hiring.
Probably something awful like the Alexa toolbar.
These optimisations (whole-string operations, compression, etc.) apply equally to CRDTs. See for instance DOI 10.1145/2957276.2957300. See also the blanket optimisations studied by Carlos Baquero's group (which I doubt could carry over to OT because of the complexity of OT theory).
> With any luck he’ll still be around to explain how the soon-to-be-released Mill 1.0 cpu would have avoided the year 2038 problem.

What? Software working with a 64-bit time_t is not the CPU's problem.
Last year, on my pretty kick-ass laptop, Chromium used to take ~12 hours to build, so don't hold your breath :)
Sketchbook – Graphic Review: An Illustrated Homage to the Oceans Atlas
Not in a exciting place although probably better than rest of the big 5. The main issue is focus moving off from engineering to quarterly results and lot more non-technical people telling engineers what they need to do. Projects gets cut or severely underfunded until they die. No new ambition moonshots (they are all supposed to happen in other Alphabet company). People have learned to game the interviews so real quality is downhill. Also CEO-of-CEO is basically all but checked out and other “CEOs” are not as visionaries, bold, risk takers and obviously not as empowered.
I am reminded of restorative justice advocate Bryan Stevenson's quote from his memoir describing his life's work of defending death row inmates: "Each of us is more than the worst thing we've ever done." Certainly this might apply to someone who is credited with world-changing outcomes like Mohandas Gandhi?

To me, the fact that these kinds of questions about Gandhi's legacy is even a conversation being held in public discourse -- this says little about Gandhi, and a lot about our collective inability to handle the cognitive dissonance of good people making mistakes or having dark sides. More relevant to this conversation than an appraisal of Gandhi is James Gunn getting kicked off of his movie, or any of the other random people who get fired or lives ruined for some random crap they posted on Twitter. When can we start collectively adopting some understanding of restorative principles and put the days of outrage culture behind us?

Sure, Gandhi had real flaws -- MLK as well with his womanizing, Churchill with his drinking and many other men and women with great accomplishments in their lifetime. Nassir Ghaemi wrote an interesting book on how he believes there is even a link between great leaders and certain kinds of mental illness. It is sobering and reasonable to have a conversation about the consequences and harms perpetuated by the flaws and mistakes of our past icons, made throughout a lifetime. But to borrow from the article:

> ...even Gandhi’s harshest detractors do not deny that he steadfastly defended, and eventually sacrificed his life for, many values under assault today—fellow-feeling for the weak, and solidarity and sympathy between people of different nations, religions, and races.

The guy was a man of tremendous courage and tenacity, who paved a path for other great men of courage and tenacity to win significant moral victories for our collective conscience. (Though this path may have become obsolete as "having a conscience" goes out of fashion among modern overlords.) Having read Zinn's A People's History of the United States, I can confidently say there's plenty of worthwhile things to be conflicted or outraged about when it comes to historical revisionism. But Gandhi? Not high on my list. Attacking the guy because he lacked the full modern conception of intersectionality is like knocking over an Amelia Earhart statue because she didn't fly across the Atlantic in an F-22. How are you going to try to diminish someone's historic accomplishments by comparing them to a modern contextualization of the task?

But despite my position on the absurdity of the premise, I think this article does draw some interesting parallels between Gandhi's thought and life's work and some of the challenges we face in political economy today. I'm grateful to the author for mentioning that Tim Rogan book on the moral economists, as I have only recently become of Karl Polanyi and his ideas and have not heard of Tawney or Thompson.
Correct. This is what I mean when I say original meaning.
> I was a huge Firefox fan, but having 50+ tabs open made the browser unusable - even the latest versions. I then switched reluctantly to Chrome, but always hated the UI.

Really? I haven't had any such problem with Firefox in years, and I tend to browser with a few hundred tabs open. What platform are you using?

> Oh, and Mozilla? You need to reboot your company/non-profit. I don't know what goes wrong there, but all the projects I found interesting got stopped (Persona), and the browser is no longer really great.

The process is actually very simple: if nobody uses it, it gets stopped :)

> It just /feels/ clunky.

Are you talking about versions more recent than 57? Because the performance boost during the last year has been huge.
So how are they better of by banning cars in 10 or 20 years?

Communities can also take loans to build out infrastructure now and pay with the transition tax levied a bit later.

As too political suicide, there are three types of voters:

a) those that believe petrol cars should be banned

b) those that do not want to give up their cars ever

c) those that think cars should be banned but not for them now.

Therefore:

a) should be happy with an immediate tax ladder as it creates incentive to move now

b) will never be happy.

c) if that is the majority of your voters it’s still better to have a a gradual change now then a sudden change in the future. They could just overturn your decision in the future just before the planned sudden change.

If MPs urge for a change that is more than one election away they are hypocrites and shouldn’t be MPs.

Obviously some changes take a long time to bear fruits, but the change has to be immediate and gradual.
Thing is, it does bargain, and trusts third-party privacy policy, but I, for example, do not trust Cloudflare.

"We’ve chosen Cloudflare because they agreed to a very strong privacy agreement" [0]. Like, legally agreed? With regular audits and full access for Mozilla people?

Where does that leave me, if it gets baked into my browser?

[0] https://blog.nightly.mozilla.org/2018/06/01/improving-dns-pr...
Entering a "protected space" in the digital domain is not illegal whether or not the owner wants you there, unless there is a specific law that is broken in the process. Similarly, breaking terms and conditions is also not inherently unlawful, again unless there is a specific law that is broken in the process of breaking those terms. They are not inherently protected.

And this conversation about ethics. The law, let alone terms and services, do not define ethical behavior or the lack thereof. For that matter laws, and especially terms of service, can themselves be unethical - one might argue that in the latter they are quite often unethical.
Most, if not all, functional languages support pattern matching: Haskell, OCaml, Clojure, Erlang/Elixir, Purescript, Idris, Elm, etc.
> The difference now is that the variables that determine art’s monetary value are no longer seen as dicey. Instead, they’re understood as art itself.

"The new job of art is to sit on the wall and get more expensive." - Robert Hughes (1982, The Shock of The New)
I have some experimental ideas of a not so serious underground zine format. Please contact me if you are interested.
> I would think core developers use the loose dependencies, with the aim of testing the latest and fixing the bugs. Someone has to move dependencies forward at some point, and doing this locally for knowledgeable people seems reasonable.

Agreed that developers should be moving the dependencies forward, but you want to do that as a deliberate action rather than by accident. E.g. if you want to consult another developer about a bug you're experiencing, you want them to be on the same versions of dependencies as you.

> This is why I would not worry about pip freeze being non-reproducible. It is a manual step: upgrade our dependencies. Testing should happen all the time.

It's a manual step, but you still want to be able to reproduce it. E.g. if a project is in maintenance mode, you want to be able to do an upgrade of one specific dependency without having to move onto new versions of everything else.

I don't work in Python any more so I don't know what the new tools do or don't do, I was just starting from your "I don't know why I would not have loose dependencies in setup.py and concrete, pinned dependencies in requirements.txt." and I know that workflow gave me a number of problems that I simply don't have when working in other languages. So I'm hoping that Python has caught up with the things that are known-working elsewhere, but maybe not.
function are in the gray area in Python.

I argue that you should start simple with functions and IF you see a use case for classes use them.

To be able to make a reasonable choice, you must learn OOP at least the OOP machinery of your language.

A few hints:

a) Python's abc or Java Interfaces serves as template to implement multiple times the same behavior in different contexts

b) If you don't inhirit the class, the class is useless, except if you use the class as an interface (see a)

c) A class is more complex than a function ie. more guns to shot yourself in the foot.

d) think function pointer / first-class function. Many times, you can avoid a class by passing a function as parameter e.g. filter.

e) think function factory ie. a function that returns a function.

f) think pure function / side effect free functions. This is a BIG life savior. A function without side effects is much simpler to test that a function with side effects. Of course, you can not avoid all side effects (io et al.) or mutations, so build your abstraction so that the side-effects / mutation to happen in a well known place.

g) keep functions small
People probably don't mention it because it's so good it's invisible. In my experiance people in the 'real world' only mention (read: bitch about) services they struggle with.
Both representations have the feature that it's impossible to check whether two real numbers are equal.
Robert Buderi's book on radar is a good read on that. Alas, not electronically available (it should be) but worth seeking in print.
I remember a time where mastering Stroustrup and the two Scoot Meyer was enough to be considered an expert. Even as a Perl lover, the level of intricacy of modern C++ makes me very reluctant to choose it on a new project.
Hastings is somewhat partisan on this. I recommend reading him but read others too. Like Solly Zuckerman 'from apes to warlords' or the recent books on P.M.S. Blackett and the birth of Operations Research
My description there was pretty crude, apologies. The measurement problem is often loosely expressed in terms of metaphors like "live cat vs dead cat". But if you actually look at the quantum state of such a complicated system, it's this huge tangled mess of Hilbert dimensions lumped together into one big global wave function. The "alive vs dead" separation is just one possible perspective (technically it's a slicing of the Hilbert space into mutually orthogonal sub-spaces). There are infinitely many possible such ways of splitting the space up, i.e. infinitely many possible basis sets. It's not directly clear why, when we physically interact with the system, one specific basis is chosen for us to "collapse" into one branch of.

Perhaps it could be better explained as "there's nothing to suggest which branching the agent will experience splitting into".

I should note that the process of decoherence goes some way towards removing this obstacle (although not the following question of explanation of probabilities).
Whomever flagged or downvoted this comment should state the reason why they did so.
> Currently all BEVs charge at their maximum rate the moment they are connected to the charger. Which almost always happens in late afternoon or early evening. I.e. the exact time when the energy usage is at a peak already.

Citation needed.

What is actually true is that all BEV apart from (I think) the Renault Twizzy have charge timers built into the car.

There are already financial incentives to charge overnight with specific EV tariffs and some electricity suppliers will do the charger installation that talks directly to the provider via smart meter tech to charge at the best rate cost wise and grid wise.

Equally, people don't just come home every single day and recharge thair car. I know this directly as my last neighbour has a Nissan Leaf and charged it every 4 or 5 days and did so overnight.
And let's not forget the pressure from the SO to get it done fast!

What is left? Pleasure to learn new things, do something with own hands and see the accomplished quickly, same day or week. Not like those Agile coding periods...

I don't mind trading dollars for someone else's experience -- unless that "experience" consists in knowing a parts supplier, ordering, and adding 30% margin when billing me.
Guess what, more and more of these parts suppliers sell to end users just as well, and some even give a very good advise on compatibility etc.
That's the easy case, if they are preloaded in the OS, they are well-known by definition and can be blocked statically.

The dynamically discovered ones are the next step in the game, but you still have to start somewhere, either with well-known IP or at least legacy DNS.
Show HN: Introduction into FP and Scala – workshop materials
I guess the silence is an answer too :(.
More powerful in what sense? The computable functions are the same for either type of machine.
(only including people who wrote massive amounts of important and complex code themselves and quite possibly dozen median engineers wouldn’t have cut it)

John Carmack

Dennis Ritchie

Ken Thompson

Bill Gates

Donald Knuth

Jeff Dean

Brian Kernighan
Compatibility usually gains you more than you lose. If you can't make US planes with parts from the rest of the world then that does mean other countries can't make US planes, but that also means that the US manufacturers can't import parts from elsewhere.
Indeed - so focusing on large companies selling devices causing massive destruction makes perfect sense.
There is a difference between a useful story and a true story. If some distant ancestors sat around making up a story of how women were created from men, then this story was certainly useful to them in some way and reflected their truth (social structure etc.), but it wasn't a true story.
The more layers you are testing, the slower and harder it is to write tests and the feedback loop is way longer also.
For just one of endless examples, do you believe the ancient Greek gods were real? Some stories may indeed have persisted for millenia. But how does one separate those from the fanciful ones? With corroboration.

Because some are true does not mean all ancient stories and myths are true, and one must be careful to not impute meaning that isn't there, i.e. finding pictures in clouds.
I subscribe to https://talk.objc.io/. Highly recommend it.
I do not believe that you can do that, but I've largely stopped using apps that contain adverts so to me this is not an angle I worry about so much (plus I use NetGuard so in app tracking I was already limiting).
EULAs are only illegal in most European countries if you aren't given the opportunity to read it before buying the product.

Hence why a couple of products now have an EULA subset, or the indication where to read it from on their boxes.
I remember Norvig course on udacity. Every problem I solved, after that there was a video with his solution.

It was so much simpler.
Reusable, testable, extensible and configurable classes are the reason for bad enterprisey OOP code.

Testability with the poverty of tools available in languages like Java is the single biggest driver, and the alleged induced "improvements" in extensibility and factoring makes people feel happy about making all their objects fully configurable, all their dependencies pluggable and replaceable so they can be mocked or stubbed, with scarcely a thought for the costs of all this extra abstraction.

Extensible and configurable code is not an unalloyed virtue. For every configuration, there is a choice; for every extension, there is a design challenge. These things have costs. When your extension and dependency injection points only ever have a single concrete implementation outside of tests, they bake in assumptions on the other side of the wall and are not actually as extensible and configurable as you think. And your tests, especially if you use mocking, in all probability over-specify your code's behaviour making your tests more brittle and decreasing maintainability.

And parameterization that makes control flow dependent on data flow in a stateful way (i.e. not mere function composition) makes your code much harder for new people to understand. Instead of being able to use a code browser or simple search to navigate the code, they must mentally model the object graph at runtime to chase through virtual and interface method calls.

I think there are better ways to solve almost every problem OOP solves. OOP is reasonably OK at GUI components, that's probably its optimal fit. Outside of that, it's not too bad when modelling immutable data structures (emulating algebraic data types) or even mutable data structures with a coherent external API. It's much weaker - clumsy - at representing functional composition, with most OO programming languages slowly gaining lambdas with variable capture to overcome the syntactic overhead of using objects to represent closures. And it's pretty dreadful at procedural code, spawning all too common Verber objects that call into other Verber objects, usually through testable allegedly extensible indirections - the best rant I've read on this is https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdo... .
Sorry, haven't seen this question :-O We will not sell data and we will create a business model without it. Also, we firmly believe that the GDPR is a great step forward for humanity and that privacy should be a fundamental human right. We will build a business model that accounts for that.
There's trade-off's. They are using a fairly complex CI while with micro-services you release each service individually. It's hard to turn a monolith architecture into a architecture with micro-services. So it all depends on what works best for you. The idea with micro-services is that with a much smaller service - development is faster and cheaper, you can for example rewrite the entire service, use different software stacks (the best tool for the job), etc. Where as a total rewrite is not feasible in a monolith.