skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> is done by bureaucrats that have no long-term financial stake in the result

This is true in many cases (and not in others, such as sports team funding which are often voted on). If we want to have a more nuanced discussion about transparency and direct representation on financial decisions of a certain size (a hot button issue concerning being able to vote on property taxes in my state), that would be reasonable. But it's hard to have these kinds of discussions with pro-tax/anti-company-concession advocates shouting so loudly.

In the meantime, on the scale of politicians with less representation to their constituency, using a federal level mallet is the exact opposite of representative. The city I live in gave large tax breaks and land to companies moving in, seemingly unfairly so compared to existing local companies, but if most of us didn't like the outcome (which most of us do and applaud their appetite for growth/prosperity) we'd have no problem running the mayor and councilmen out of town.
Almost anything that does one thing and does it well.
How can we price in the wasted time/effort of the dozens of other cities who put in bids?

Be reasonable. That's an absolutely ridiculous counterpoint, and a perfectly reasonable answer is "assign it zero" since no city was compelled to apply. Should we dispense with competitive processes completely? Why have the Olympics, for instance, because it's such a waste of time for everyone that doesn't medal?

Further, the Scott Walker/Foxxcon debacle is a completely different category than the HQ2 situation. However, it is not going to be productive discussing the reasons that an ostensibly large manufacturing site was situated in an electoral battleground state with substantial involvement at a federal/executive level.
Except that global warming/climate change has now been distorted beyond recognition.

What most believe is no-longer aligned with reality:

- Read Google’s research report for the jaw-dropping reality they uncovered without intent

- Study ice core data

- Understand the concept of planetary scale rate of change

- Understand the fact —FACT— that if we had Captain Kirk erase the entire United States from this planet by trasporting everyone and everything into space CO2 accumulation would continue

- Understand that if we erased all of humanity next monday it would take somewhere in the order if 25,000 to 50,000 years for CO2 levels to drop 100ppm

- Now explain how much in resources and energy would be required to bend the planetary-scale rate-of-change of atmospheric CO2 from about 100 ppm per 50,000 years to 100 ppm in 50 year (a 1,000 x improvement over the natural process)

- Now explain how this massive amount of energy and resources will not produce massively more CO2 (and more)

- If you said “renewable energy” go back to the top and read the Google paper

This global warming thing has been turned into a political football by both sides. What’s sad is the truth isn’t at either end of the scale. Most people who now believe “the scientific truth” are believing sonething as false as those who deny it.

The Google paper is the starting point of something that should have shifted the dialog on the subject years ago. However, their conclusion doesn’t lead to easy money and raises more questions than it answers; a real invonvenient truth.
"We made a deal with the devil when we collectively decided to write and use apps and not the web."

No - apps are fine.

Even app stores are fine.

It's the fact that you can't distribute an app outside an app store ... this is a problem.

So basically Apple is the problem, everyone else is fine.
I work two blocks away from where they're constructing the Nashville Yards complex that will house Amazon, and this is a huge disappointment.

That location was already in high demand, but according to the Tennesseean (our paper of record) the state and city promised Amazon $102 million to move in anyway.

We should let companies who want to invest in our city do so without competing for space against subsidized giants like this.
The next paragraph outlined a federal tax of 100 percent on subsidies that don't lead to taxpayer benefit (like infrastructure improvements to accommodate 50k+ new residents).

The two also don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can look at what Amazon did and say "That's not a business practice that should be followed," while still saying "State and Local governments shouldn't be allowed to offer funds in this manner."
Netcup
You and I must have very different definitions of paradise.

No matter how much energy you capture, you can't replicate the multi-billion year process of evolution and growth in biodiversity that has led to the incredible present state of Earth.

It is pure madness to invest in colonizing other planets before we figure out how to sustain the ideal place we already inhabit.
Joseph in Egypt – A Model for Temporal and Spiritual Success
So why all the dishonesty? Let's just write that (or nothing at all). That could be respected.
The installed base is so huge that it will be a significant number of people affected no matter how weird the edge case. Also, if they’re going to implement a feature they should expect it to be used and know when they broke it (especially for a company with the absurd resources of Microsoft).
Why is there a need for a "Hacker News client"? It's a web site.
Joke around a bit and tell some stories for the first while. You create opportunities for them to comment, or to share a story of their own, but you take the pressure off them 'needing' to respond by having another story or whatever ready to talk about. Its really important to make them feel like there is almost no pressure on them - its the best way to get anyone to loosen up I find.

They eventually open up a lot and start talking freely, it ends up being a fun night, but if you want to hear a good story its just harder to get out of a recent student. I think they were just too busy to go out and do wacky things they could talk about later.
Thank you for your reply.

It breaks CSS, because having styles on the page couples presentation with content. The selling point of CSS is to change a style in one place, and have it affect multiple pages. If you break it up, you end up having to maintain multiple versions of your CSS. To do this in the name of performance strikes me as one of the very last things to do, given it's unfavorable maintenance cost.

> I think we're up against 2 less-than-optimal situations. Suppose you have 50KB of CSS.

> Ship it the traditional way. User waits on all 50KB before first paint.

Best practice for CSS is to link it in the first kilobyte or so of HTML[2][3]. Browsers have optimized for it: it makes the CSS request happen immediately, before the browser parses the rest of the HTML. Unless the user has a slow connection (<10 Mbps), bad round trip time (>200 ms), or the server is slow to serve a 50K static file (average CSS size[0]), that CSS will load within half a second, with first paint soon after. If you need to cut down that down, you should consider a CDN before deferred CSS.

> Ship it the code splitting way. User gets 10KB upfront, and leaves before the rest loads. But if they interact with the site extensively, then they trigger the redundant bytes that you're mentioning, so that the total download size comes out to be 75KB.

If CSS was split, and the user leaves[1] before the CSS completely loads, CSS isn't the source of slow page loads.

Google's tools need check if styles load within a second or two. If it's any more than 3 or 4 seconds, deferred CSS starts to make sense. If styles (or the entire page) load in less than that, don't bother.

[0] https://httparchive.org/reports/page-weight

[1] https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-long-do-users-stay-on-w...

[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/HTML/Introduc...

[3] https://www.w3.org/Style/Examples/011/firstcss#external
>A couple of things jump out to me. The first is that "hours" is a terrible measure of productivity. I find that I work best when I actually sit down and write code about four hours per day.

I totally agree. However, the issue is being "engaged to work" as labor lawyers put it. If I am waiting for you to give me the information nessecary to perform those two hours, it can be a block on my day.

For example, my ideal day would involve waking up, doing some head down work for 2 hours, and then using the rest of the day to do more rote tasks - having meetings, reading up on technical developments, working less brain intensive stuff like tweaking some automation scripts, or anything else that can be done knowing someone might pop in with a question or concern.

But if instead I wake up, find no responses on 3 separate issues, sit through a long meeting skype meeting, then am frequently "pinged" for questions throughout the day as I attempt to do productive tasks so I can't take some "me time" and 8 hours later, someone responds on the core issue I need to work in... I think this illustratates the issue I and other remote workers often face.

>The second is that you have to set expectations early, and stick with them. If you want to work set hours, then state that. Don't be easily accessible outside those hours.

This is a good suggestion, maybe my issue was that the specific employer I'm thinking of did not have a good culture. I tried to set that expectation but got strong pushback from my manager that as a salaried employee I do not have set hours.

>It's rare that I want time completely separate from work, but when I do I just let my team know in Slack that I'll be incommunicado and it's not an issue.

You don't have any set times/days?

For example, I don't want to be inflexible - if I don't have evening plans I don't mind answering a slack query while I Netflix, but what I fear is if I do that sometimes, it sets a precedent I must do it at all times.

For me, having set times where I am "not at work" is very important, and I actively am thinking about how to set those boundaries without being a burden. I'm not a religious person, but maybe I should try saying Sundays are a day of rest for me...
This begs the question of why the fair use doctrine is required at all. It isn't needed for a web browser; why would it be needed for a pared-down web browser? Is it needed for a text-only web browser?

None of these is addressed by your original comment or the link, which all presuppose that the fair use doctrine is the only way to escape copyright problems associated with loading a webview with someone else's content.
> Why use the law to stop me from bidding?

Because the data shows it won't be wild for your town. It won't reverse economic decline, and everyone's lives will not improve. You are being prevented from locking your local governing body into a poor deal (whether because you don't know better as a politician, or because you do know better but don't care, as you'll be out of office by the time it matters [which happens so often it's cliche at this point]). I might be more amiable if you're willing to personally guarantee the financial benefits out of your own wealth, so you have skin in the game (alternatively, the law could require a supermajority of voters support the measure, with a minimum voter turnout requirement).

These measures to protect against tragedy of the commons are not new, nor the arguments such as yours against such protections.
My issues with POSIX stem from the fact that writing completely correct code which handles signals, interruptable operating system calls, and threads is hard. There are plenty of little details that are easy to get wrong. And you won't know you've gotten something wrong until much later when some confluence of events occurs.

I don't know if deprecating parts of POSIX is going to work any better than deprecating parts of C++. If all the bad stuff is still there waiting to be misused...
Well, that's a major imstake -- now I need to know what service I'm talking to, which means that I can't transparently replace my /dev/net with a userspace proxy. Unix half screwed this up, and they took the mistake and perfected it.
I mostly like your design, a nice clean look, but I have a couple of comments and a suggestion that you are free to ignore completely.

Firstly, I hate sites that use such a narrow column on the screen. The wall of text from the previous post is obviously too much and is far too difficult to read and keep track of where you are, but using only a third of the screen seem far too little. I'm sure you could double the width of your text without affecting readability.

Secondly, I have really good distance vision but need reading glasses. I find the text on your site a bit small. From a distance it just a bit too small to read comfortably and from close with my reading glasses I feel like I need to get too close. Yes, I can increase the font size easily, but how about...

My suggestion: decrease the size of your borders by about 50% on each side and then increase the font size by 1 or 2 points. The increased column size will give more text on screen, but the increased font size will make sure it is not too much.
Two reason the US is different than China. One the US social political structure makes is very hard for religious zealots to gain control. Note how hard the Dominionist Christians have been trying for the last 100 years. Their political wins have failed to deliver completely on a societal basis.

Second reason Muslims in the US generally hate Salafism and Wahhabism.

China on the other hand isn't going to let Saudi Arabia engineer a Wahhabi led revolt in western China.
Because the sentiment expressed is the socialist mantra: there is no escape and we own you.

The socialists want the power to take from you what they think they are entitled to, not what you're willing to pay. To such ends, they want to take away the ability to choose your jurisdiction based on the performance or value of a particular government.

Don't kid yourself. They've tried this before: https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/28/...

Ask yourself who was more worried about that team walking away and taking the jobs and economic stimulus: The Colts or The City of Baltimore?
Coal has been growing in developing nations because it's "cheaper" than renewables because the externalities aren't priced in.

Nuclear isn't an option, it's simply too expensive compared to renewables.

Here in The Netherlands there's pressure to close the last coal power stations. The liberals (i.e. Republicans minus the religious and racist blocks) have been pushing for new nuclear power stations only for the energy suppliers themselves to turn around and call them lunatics because renewables are better.
Only really at colos. What scares me is businesses with key business partners, satellite offices, etc who just rely on the Internet working normally to communicate between them. If someone like L3 sold a premium network it would be worthwhile.
This seems wrong: an even exchange does not change absolute balance but magnifies relative balance, which you do not want if you're behind.

Let's say your "strength" is simply the sum of the value of your pieces. The losing side has a strength of l and the winning side has a strength of L.

The losing side loses by l-L in absolute terms, or (l-L)/(l+L) in relative terms.

An even exchange of value k makes it go to (l-k)-(L-k) = l-k in absolute terms (no change); and to (l-L)/(l+L-2k) in relative terms. (l-L)/(l+L-2k) < (l-L)/(l+L).

To take an example, if the situation is white : two pawns and black: one pawn, going to white: one pawn and black: nothing is a bad deal for black (the losing side)!
But paying a company $10,000 in benefits per employee for 1,000 jobs may not be as valuable to the community than paying $10,000 per employee for 20,000 jobs.
I'm probably closer to agreeing with Woz than not, despite all the apparent progress self-driving cars have made. Remember the old saw about how "getting to 90% is easy, it's the second 90% that gets you"? I expect this is going to be the case for self-driving cars, in spades.

Building a self-driving car that can drive on limited access highways, or low-speed city streets, mostly in daylight, in good weather conditions, on mostly flat terrain is clearly doable. Making that car drive on snow and ice, in mountains, at night, in a blizzard? My hunch is that this is going to take a lot longer.

We'll almost certainly get there eventually, but at least w/r/t a fully autonomous self-driving car, I'm not expecting one anytime soon.
After going back and forth between the article and the comments, I just realized that you're the author / Chief Evangelist at AWS.

So on a sort of meta-note, I think it's pretty cool that AWS is still interacting with developers at this level.
An aspect of this article that I find interesting is that parents encourage their children not to date while in school because it's a distraction. I personally find this idea to be misguided because, at least for myself, having a person there to support you during the emotional rollercoaster of college is critical for success. A team can do more than an individual.
I don't consider myself a good chess player at all, but I always thought the opposite way: When I'm ahead, I'm willing to whittle down both sides with even trades until they are left with no options and can be checkmated. When I'm behind, an even trade feels scary - I'm looking for a way to catch up.

Am I missing some reason why it would be the opposite?
It is pretty out of touch statement, if you read it carefully. There are probably 1000 people waiting in line to fill those 100 people's jobs. The good jobs you described, decent pay without labor or stress, I do believe they exist, but it is not common, and surely won't become the norm.
> The bad elements were not the main priority of the dog.

The dog has no concept of "the bad elements".
Cool story! How did it end up?
I don't think they are saying that we are predominantly logical with a few exceptions around controversial topics...

I think they are saying something much, much deeper and maybe this is just my confirmation bias kicking in here but it really supports my observations on a position I've held for a couple of years now.

I think what they are alluding to is that we are not logical and not rational in how we choose all of our beliefs as we do not try to seek out what is true (except for one edge case), instead we try to seek consensus within some political sphere (a group of any kind).

The so called controversial topics are where it's easiest to spot and easiest to study. But there is a stunningly deep implication that just because there is an uncontroversial consensus around something it doesn't mean the conclusion was arrived at by a sound process. So you actually really have to question everything.

For a while now I've been saying people don't argue for what is true, they argue for political affiliation.

It's close to impossible for humans to tell what's true. Often it would take trillions of dollars, millions of people or thousands of years to actually verify something as being the case. We take 99.99% of our existence on faith because it's simply not possible for us to fact check it. And if it's not possible for us to fact check what is true except for in the most basic of cases why would it ever be important to us as a social behavior? So that's why we see what this article points out. At least in my view.

We do do some degree of fact checking but it's usually the minimum viable fact checking to coordinate with our peers.

The interesting edge case they point out where some people do reason consistently is also signaling political affiliation. They are attempting to signal "I'm on team evidence-based". But the interesting thing about team "evidence-based" is they tend not to question or be skeptical so much of the fraud and other social phenomenon (replication crisis etc) present in science. They take it on faith that "this is the best answer I have whether it is true or not, but it's most likely true therefore it's true". Even team evidence-based isn't purely rational. And for good reason. They can't be. It's simply not viable to personally try to reproduce every study you read.

We are political animals that care about our survival and forming consensus. Not truth.
Thanks for sharing this. A quick suggestion though: you might want to limit the number of links you share in a single comment, as these 2+5 seem a bit too much for me, and they might look like you're trying to publicize your company a tad too much.

Or, from a slightly different perspective, they might look like you're trying to say as much as possible about the company you work for, instead of focusing on providing value to your readers.

To be clear, this just as a simple suggestion, based on the perception I had from your comment and from my personal experience (former tech evangelist at Amazon for 6 years, trying to give you my 0.02 to make you succeed in one of the hardest jobs in the world - I've been in these shoes :D)
Windows 10 does per-application volume control.

Chrome OS has a fixed app install location, as does Windows 10 in 'S' mode (since you can only install store apps).

I remember being intrigued by the database-as-filesystem idea when it was first touted - has any OS actually implemented this? I'd be interested to see how it works in practice.
There's that and the notion that as a distribution mechanism app stores are hopelessly ineffective unless you happen to have bribed your way into being featured or listed in their top whatever (at great expense).

(Mobile) web is where the action is these days. The conversion from there to app installs is typically beyond terrible. It just doesn't matter how good your app is. The vast majority of your web users will never see your app or care to see it.

A lot of the stuff that currently requires native, you might be able to pull off via wasm instead. In any case, most users simply don't bother with installing apps for anything except a handful of things they really need. You are simply not the center of their universe. So, focus on mobile web.

Make it a progressive mobile web app and you have Android covered as well. And whatever else people might use these days (Ipads, Amazon kindles, chrome books, windows ARM, etc.). Add a bit of responsive design and it works on desktops as well. If successful, you can still package your web app as a native app. Lots of other web developers do this. If Apple ever crippled their embedded browser, it would break most of the apps in their store.
> The first loyalty of a company is to the owners of the company.

Of course it is. That falls right in line with the 'two loyalties' framework. Everybody is out for themselves and their immediate families first, for the rest of the company second. This includes the owners. Expecting it to work any other way is just foolish.

> No, a privately held investor backed company’s primary goal...

You mean the leadership's. Each IC has their own priorities. But yes, this is part of its first loyalty. It's the second loyalty aspect that you have to be wary of. If the company seems to have no regard at all for the well-being of the workers, then that's an unhealthy company and you should steer clear if you can.

> It is my responsibility to keep my family fed and not my employer. My employer is just a means to that end. If I can find another employer that can do that better, and the other trade offs are worth it, I will leave.

Of course. Your first loyalty is to your family.
Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 DNS for Mobile – faster internet for all
Gitlab is absolutely not higher than GitHub, unless you ignore all of the people who are running self-hosted Gitlab for free.

GitHub makes most of its revenue from the self-hosted market. GitLab is burning this market to the ground.
So sweeeeet