skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I enjoyed reading this article. But at the beginning the author has this to say about objections to the MWI that are based on feeling:

> "This objection is rightly dismissed by saying that an affront to one’s sense of propriety is no grounds for rejecting a theory. Who are we to say how the world should behave?"

But really at the end of the article the conclusion about the problems with MWI feel similar:

> "But an idea that, when we pursue it seriously, makes that view inchoate and unspeakable doesn’t fulfill the function of science."
I was wondering how much time it took you to build the content?

Also is missing the most important thing. A video of the plane flying.
> What's the problem with roundabouts for pedestrians?

Experience as a pedestrian and a cyclist, I don't drive:

1. Obscured sightlines over the roundabout make timing my crossing more difficult

2. Exit speeds are usually higher

3. Drivers on the roundabout seem to be more distracted than at junctions, since they're also watching the static traffic at each entrance they pass. They seem less focused on what's in the exit path than at muttering 'stay there' to the drivers trying to get on

4. Difficulty of integrating traffic lights for pedestrian crossings

5. Some drivers are just poor or lazy at navigating roundabouts and I can't trust their indicators, I have to wait to see their actual physical actions before I commit to crossing
OK, yeah, reading more[1] so I think the author is indeed considering things like computation on real numbers where, for example, the value of square root of two can only be approximated by a Turing machine but where ruler-and-compass construction hypothetically can construct this exactly.

So if you toss out the idea of computation involving digital computers, you can exhibit something not (exactly) Turing computable. If you have a chaotically behaving dynamic system and call it a computer, then you have something where computation becomes something in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not sure what questions this answers but there you are.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221512843_What_Is_a...
Ask HN: What's It Like as a Software Engineer at a Hedge Fund or Prop Shop?
I'm aware that at large banks and similar financial institutions software developers are often considered second class citizens as cost centers.

But I've also heard that at Hedge Funds and Prop Trading firms, there are "front office" software engineering roles available that offer very competitive pay and consideration as a profit center.

Is this impression correct? I'd like to hear more about these sorts of roles.
Im more partial to DNS over TLS myself.
> Does the orthographic X become [x] or is it [ʃ]? eg. How would they say Quixote, with a "sh" sound?

Interesting, I once came across the original spelling of Mexico: Mejico. In Brazil today they call it "Meshy-ko."

Similarly in English, many of features that the British like to look down their noses as "Americanisms" were invented in Britain.
What hacking simulation game to play that is to real hacking techniques?
Cool. Cox/Comcast/Viacom/Charter/Showtime/Disney/Fox (https://www.ncta.com/about-ncta) vs GM/Toyota/VW/wi-fi geeks. Grabbing popcorn for this one.
Friends don’t let friends use MongoDB, reason 13847728.
i might be missing your point but i can host a local instance of mastodon via docker with minimal effort.
https://hub.docker.com/r/gargron/mastodon/

Running a service "without a server" misunderstands the client-server model.

Perhaps you are referring to delay tolerant messaging.
> a large part of the CL community treats the spec a bit like a sacred text

Amen!
Mobile Application Development: Global Market Overview 2018-2019
It rapidly declined when Google pulled all the content into Google Groups. I'm pretty sure that's what killed it. Until that point it was great. It was an interesting kind of discussion forum that was worth paying for.
I majored in physics with a minor in statistics. Both fields massively opened my eyes to the way the world actually works.
They use optical flow to handle moving images just fine
So what happens if you make a monitory investment in a startup in an Opportunity Zone that then moves? This may not be in your control.
RAII is a very powerful technique. However, it has actually very little to do with object-orientation. To my knowledge, the only other langages having it are D (multi-paradigm) and Rust (explicitly non-object oriented).
Sounds like their would be mutual filtering.
Ask HN: Federated alternatives to Meetup.com/Facebook Events?
Is anyone working on a self-hostable, federated Web application for organizing meetups and events? What I mean by "federated" is something that allows users registered on one instance to search for and join groups hosted on other instances, RSVP to their invitations, and talk with their users.
Yeah, this is a puzzling thing to me. The Spaniards came in and they wrote down a bunch of native Mexican place names with X being a sh sound, as it is today in other Iberian languages like Portuguese. Then that sound morphed in Spain into the kh sound, like in loch. In IPA-speak that is /ʃ/ to /x/. But they brought that sound change to the Americas too. So, both sides of the ocean see that change... But not Ladino elsewhere in Europe, much closer to Spain as the crow flies.

Another similar story I heard about English is non-rhotacism in the northeastern US. The British took north america pronouncing all the Rs. Then they dropped some. Then some northeastern cities did too. At least, this was the simplistic version I heard.
Is there an updated version? The style is great, but terms like “farthing” seem like they could be replaced to make for a few less speed bumps and keep people going longer.

I know it’s a quibble and no fault of the author’s that time has passed, but smooothing out litttle bumps get more people deeper into the content.
He raises an interesting point. Is building walls good as long as it advances international communism and/or neoliberal corporatism?
Very little of it came to the US; the money was spent to assure low world oil prices, not to assure that Middle East oil came to the US.
> in the sense that we have proved that in 3 dimensions a random walk will never return to it’s (sic.) starting point

We have? I believe the probability is ~34%.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PolyasRandomWalkConstants.html
"the value of square root of two can only be approximated by a Turing machine but where ruler-and-compass construction hypothetically can construct this exactly."

Ruler and compass are made of atoms though. Or, if not atoms, planck units or something.
Our tax agency offered a really good package to people who voluntarily left the organization, sometimes over €100.000 euro. the idea was to lose around 4500 people in 7 years this way, but the package was so attractive about 6500 people immediately took it.

The entire idea was really not implemented well and now the tax agency needs like 4000 new people to replace the ones they didn’t want to lose. Lots of senior knowledge is gone and the entire agency is struggling doing its main tasks, resulting in hundreds of millions of missed taxes.
I looked at that first one and didn't realize it wouldn't compile simply because I would never write something like that anyways. That function should just take an int&.

However, understanding that SearchQuery is broken is pretty important. Breaking the Rule-of-3 is probably the #1 mistake made by junior C++ developers trying to write object-oriented code, and the consequences are pretty nasty. You'll get corruption and crashes from use-after-free and double-free errors and nothing will make sense because the problem will move around as you create temporary copies while trying to debug.

That being said, I wasn't familiar with that sort of stuff when I was first hired as a C++ developer. I was very fortunate to start my career with a company that was willing to hire people and train them.
Interesting, on October 15 the USPS OIG release a redacted copy of report SAT-AR-18-002, "Use of Postal Service Network to Facilitate Illicit Drug Distribution"[1], which commented on the Universal Postal Union requiring the USPS to accept all international mail from UPU members[2] (basically everyone) that don't want to comply with the US requirement of Advance Electronic Data (basically Secure Flight for mail/packages, the idea is that CBP can identify suspected drug packages just as they do passenger flights, as mail can only be screened without a warrant by CBP at the mail port of entry). Footnote 25 notes that as recently as September 1 of this year, the US moved to require AED on packages sent through UPU's EMS program[3], the partially redacted next sentence appears to indicate that some countries pushed back or had plans not to comply.

Sent in a FOIA for the report, so we'll see what exceptions they were claiming, if they actually claim it as non-disclosable under FOIA law. Also interesting that the WHPSEC statement[3] notes that Trump is willing to abandon plans to leave if unspecified goals are met in negotiations.

Edit: A conservative think tank recently complained about the UPU and drugs as well: https://www.aei.org/multimedia/universal-postal-union-and-ma...

[1] https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Universal_Postal_Union_me...
[3] https://www.ems.post/en/about-us-contacts/about-us
[4] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-pr...
This is hilarious. Maybe make a portal for this that just includes a live counter for value lost based on average salaries x people in the room = $$ being spent. That would be a great passive aggressive thing to throw up on your laptop and aim toward the room.
Is it really all that intuitive, though? I mean, where does (dx)^2 = 0 come from?? Usually people say that, well, since dx is already small, then (dx)^2 is really really small, so for magical reasons it's okay to pretend that it's zero. I mean, if we're willy-nilly ignoring small things, why can't we ignore the already "infinitely small" dx?

Personally, I always found hand-waving such an infinitesimal explanation to be much more frustrating than simply building the darn things from pieces I already understand.
Analytics for the non-data expert
Here is the proposal.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EwhDJO_lBH1mGMMwheQUXGhh...
Wield analytics like you're a data expert (without being one)
A few tips: ”One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich” by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, ”Things fall apart” by Chinua Achebe, ”Wide Sargasso sea” by Jean Rhys, poetry by Anna Achmatova, ”My life in the bush of ghosts” by Amos Tutuola, ”A personal matter” by Kenzaburo Oe, ”Woman in the dunes” by Kobo Abe, ”The grass is singing" by Doris Lessing.
From what I hear it's turning fairly intelligent to asshole
neoliberalism and corporatism are incompatible; you probably mean something like neoliberal capitalism (which is redundant, but sensible.)
This is not so simple.
What about "NullLogSink" and "StdoutLogSink", both being implementations of "ILogSink"?

Classes are very well suited to statically formalize the communication points (aka "interfaces", "protocols") between the various parts of your program.

The fact that a concrete class might have a state is actually irrelevant (indeed, we generally make all of our data members "private").
How Dropbox Got Their First Users 🧐
Nueral Network Building Block
This is really amazing and deserves more attention. Audio codec work has been kind of neglected lately, with the increases in bandwidth and storage making near-transparent lame v0 mp3s the obvious choice for many applications, but almost unnoticed except to codec nerds like myself, Opus kept improving and was already head and shoulders above any other codec. That includes Vorbis and AAC.

We're now at the stage where 96 kb/s stereo audio is reliably transparent, with the occasional quirky sample that might require 128 kb/s or 140 kb/s for full transparency. That's a remarkable achievement. I applaud the Opus team for their hard work.
You talk about the mill as if it exists. There is no hardware, there are no benchmarks. Bloviating about the excellent performance of the mill is not valuable - showing SPEC CPU results is. VLIW performance was great too, until it wasn't. You can statically schedule everything in theory and the performance will be great, but experience suggests that giving hardware the capability to react dynamically cannot be replaced by static scheduling, except in code with limited branching and a known execution pattern. This is why VLIW works nicely for DSP, and fairly poorly for general purpose computing.

The mill has been in development for 15 years, and almost done for 5. Forgive me for not holding my breath.
> They also push out a lot of amazing projects ... although Netflix much less so.

Actually Netflix much more so, only their projects are not in software. Just sayin.
Meanwhile the annual deficit is greater than $1T, for which the government will cut services for the average person (except Military of course).

What a ponzi country!!
That std::unique_ptr has a deleted copy constructor is not minutia! The huge program of C++11 to deprecate auto_ptr, redefine value categories, introduce rvalue-references and move constructors, &c. had the creation of a move-only smart pointer as one of its most proximate goals.
Ceph Optimizations for NVMe [pdf]
China launching artificial moon to replace streetlights
Because people there are richer, and can afford dryer machines?
> Someone who can do that is ridiculous. Talk about 10x engineers. That's more like 1000x. And it's good, clean code too. Literally no number of median engineers can do that. You can give me a million median engineers and they would never be able to do that. They would just make a huge mess.

This is probably one of the most truest thing I've read about our profession.

Linus Torvalds, Steve Wozniak comes to mind, who else?
The square root of 2 can also be computed exactly by a Turing machine. The result is exactly √2.

What, that's cheating you say? You wanted an exact decimal expansion? Well, you're right, a Turing machine can't produce that. But neither can a ruler and compass.
This is the first time ever I hear about "max heap", or quite possibly I heard it and promptly forgot it. No, I don't accept your implication about my credentials and how I fared in practice since getting the degree in 1997 supports me (it's quite algorithm-heavy for the last few years). Some people take their own favorite subjects waaayyyyy too seriously.

I have no intention of becoming or finding good becoming a walking lexicon of obscure algorithms and minutiae. Thank god I'm really good at forgetting stuff I don't need - as well as learning stuff I do need but never did before, but only when I actually need it. Dynamic learning capability (let's just call it that) seems far superior to me than static learning. We have Google to outsource a lot of that to.

Anyway, looking up max heap it's trivial, no idea what my benefit would be if I knew every variation of a tree structure somebody came up with by heart. Often it's just a name for something that anyone who needs it would come up with by themselves anyway if they understand the greater concept because it's kind of obvious. I have used plenty of data structures for which I'm sure someone invented a name for without knowing that name.
Autonomy is harder and harder to get at larger corporations and play a big role in self identifying work as satisfying or valuable. Even if you manage to get it, it can be taken away by an outsider in a large corp at any point. Startups are safer bets from this perspective.
Apple using CBP to seize Rossmanns shipment of original Macbook batteries
I'm scared off by the voice chat part. I'm happy to take part in a short text chat with someone who wants to dive into a topic I'm an expert at and wants some guidance on where to begin or help on a specific sub-topic. Just... no voice chat please.
Angular 7.0.0 Released
I am so not a math person. From a math perspective perhaps this is important. From a computer perspective it completely misses the point.

This work from Alonzo Church gave us https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus which in turn provides recursive function abstraction and thus lexical scope. While this model of computation is older than OOP it currently seems to be having a modern renaissance in its influence of language design.
The real change will come when my handphone can repair itself. Screen cracked? no problem just throw some sand on it and the nanobots will do the rest.
I just doubt that those abstractions are easy and would say that they often break. Blaming the programmer for thread-unsafety in e.g. Java is like blaming programmers for memory unsafety in C.

I agree if you stay in purely functional programming languages you run into points that are solved better with mutability. However those parts of a program are small and most parts are expressed better by pure functions.
Also, Programming Notes for Professionals books

Link: https://books.goalkicker.com/
نظام حجز الوحدات السكنية
A Turing machine can compute the square root of two exactly. It can't represent it exactly as a fixed point number, but that's not the only way to compute something. There's a pretty standard definition of computable numbers [1] and it includes the square root of two.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_number
I might be misinterpreting this, but on IPV6 do CDNs keep separate addresses for different sites? I suppose it would move things up a protocol level - instead of specifying it in HTTP we can specify it in IP. However, the key issue is CDNs here. In almost no other circumstances do different websites keep the same IPV4 address.
I have a great new idea! DNS over TLS Co-location Open Mesh. That way, we can all be back in the DOTCOM era
The destructor deleting its /own/ data. But here we are moving a bunch of the fields (and so clearing them) but swapping one of them. That seems like bad coding, and doesn’t match any idiom I’ve seen :-/
Once upon a time, I actually live-coded this during the time it took for people to set up a video call. I think it took about 30 minutes to get everyone online.
IPv6 will never gain universal adoption.

Nobody wants their home or their datacenter machines exposed to the whole Internet all the time.

NAT is a feature, not a bug.
What is it limiting? What are you referring to as being existing beyond the systems?

It was probably not made clear but he seems to be talking about systems engineering in particular.
Sure! I meant this one: https://developer.download.nvidia.com/assets/cuda/files/redu...
Crypto/blockchain and decentralized companies in their various forms. People say it's garbage but they also said that about search engine advertising too.
Regardless of where a boiler is, here is what a boiler explosion looks like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWnL8SipXT8

Notable is the lack of any visible fire.
My main beef with treating the Common Lisp spec as a sacred text is simple:

1. There were things at the time that were not quite standardizable that are now. Examples: Some degree of concurrency, system definition, the CLOS meta-object protocol, networking.

2. There are things that were created or became important in the meantime that should be standardizable now: Unicode and localization, concurrency building blocks like threads and locks and queues and atomic operations, cryptography, compression, higher level networking (URLs, HTTP, etc.).

3. There are just bugs and holes and incompleteness in the standard due mostly to compromise from the then current vendors. For example, not everything fits the sequence protocols, the language isn’t CLOS all the way down, streams, etc.

All this argues that there’s room for continued progress. The only good argument I’ve heard for why it hasn’t been pursued is “Who’d fund it?”
I notice that I stumble over math over small but important details. I understand the big ideas, but then at chapter 4 in the book it says:

y+dy = (x+dx)^-2

is equal to

x^−2 * (1 + dx/x)^−2

[1]

To me (not that strong at math) this isn't apparent at all.

I have a couple of options here:

1. Spend a couple of hours fiddling around and trying to figure out the answer.

2. Hopefully find some app.

3. Ask a friend.

Regarding the options: I don't have a friend and I don't have an app. If you wouldn't know how to solve this, then what other strategies for understanding this are there?

[1] The LaTeX version:

y+dy &= (x+dx)^{-2} \\
&= x^{-2} \left(1 + \frac{dx}{x}\right)^{-2}
When you significantly edit your comments after the conversation has moved on, it's really helpful to include the edits below the original post so that others can view the actual conversation.

-- Edit: like this.
ESNI doesn't solve for a future where ipv6 takes over and suddenly every site has a huge block of dedicated IPv6s for just that site/fqdn.

ESNI as it has been developed to essentially require two other components to work properly:

1) a large scale cdn
2) a trusted dns infrastructure (i.e. DNS-over-HTTPs or DNS-over-TLS).

So people are absolutely right that in distant future when IPv4 fronted sites go extinct, it may be possible that site hostnames can be correlated to a set of IPv6 address(s). ESNI doesn't and can't solve for that. I imagine that as the internet continues to become more and more centralized, a few large CDNs will host most (or very close to all) internet traffic through a few sets stabilized anycast addresses (thus obfuscating any individual hostname among many hundreds or thousands of other sites as they would all correlate to the same ip blocks).

That being said, I still don't understand why it's so important to have the SNI on the "outside" of the tunnel. Seems like we should have another layer before the symmetric key exchange where the sni is exchanged on its own.
“If an interesting book exists but there is no one to read it, is it interesting at all?”
It's interesting how biographers and scholars have closeted, seemingly successfully, William James, even after the revelation of the closeting of his brother should've alerted writers to the queer content of both James' work, and the significance of the repression of said content after the Wilde trial.....
Huh this surprises me. For me, text chat is worse than voice in every way.

* Less engaging (eg other person can be browsing HN while we chat with zero risk of me realizing)

* Less expressive communication

* Greater anonymity, and thus more difficulty establishing trust

I guess you’re coming at it from the perspective of an expert and I the person seeking expertise. But the whole value of the platform isn’t in giving away your expertise for free, it’s giving it away in exchange for the expertise of someone who can really help you!

IMO it makes the most sense as a user to optimize for a better expert-seeker experience. The benefit you derive from a super helpful conversation with an expert is likely to far outweigh the slight annoyance of voice chat when you’re the expert.
I wonder if this justifies the US adherence to the imperial standard - meaning it acts as a basic barrier to entry for other countries who use the "world" standard.
This. I've got nothing against US aid to less privileged nations, I'm all for it. I can't stand a US adversary who is running re-education concentration camps for Uighurs and implanting remote access devices into US corporate infrastructure getting an unjust benefit form one cent of American tax money that operates the post office.
Pay me and I'll do it for you. If there is enough demand I'll look for ways to automate it.
THE WHEELBARROW USED AS AMBULANCE TO CARRY THE SICK IN RURAL AFRICA
Well part of the story seems to be that they weren't Google "Execs", it was Larry removing (firing?) all of management and having engineers decide what other engineers to work on.