skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You wouldn’t do it as a “subclass”, as Rust doesn’t have classes or inheritance.

You’d use the “new type pattern”, which is like a named 1-tuple:

struct FirstName(String);
If you know that, then you might be a pretty good one...
I don’t know, if I write open source software, the only definition of success I use is whether or not I had any fun writing it.

Anything else is gravy.
I thought I might have been wrong, but didn't bother looking it up. Thanks.
http://forums.parallax.com/discussion/141061/tachyon-o-s-v3-...

That guy knows how to make Forth perform real time. He has a bit different take on how to build such a Forth.

Multicore too.
This, I think, is a sucker's argument. Responsibility is not putting trust in a dependency they themselves have no control over. Responsibility is not letting yourself get into an obviously bad situation. It's not even the first time this has happened to NPM. Remember left pad?

No, this thread didn't happen because a bunch of developed chose to make this a conversation about responsibility more than fault. They're mad they got suckered and Dominic is the best scapegoat.
It says right underneath it "Mirror code from GitHub" There's nothing wrong with using imagery to draw your attention to related features.
Then why are you writing it?
Not sure what you are implying. Should companies only work on scaling problems they've already solved?
Perhaps you should suggest these guidelines:

https://npm.community/
Doesn’t Google captcha leverage free labor to train ai? Every time I get one of their picture puzzles (click on all the pictures with cars, stores, mountains,etc...)I get about 2 wrong every time on purpose. Even government services like business searches in the state of Delaware, I constantly conclude, I’m being forced to train Google’s self driving cars, so I figure I’ll do the only thing in my power as a protest (unfortunately I can’t boycott the government systems).

I purposely leave one or two unclicked and click a false. I have often wondered how my behavior is classified and if at scale it would have any impact. My reasoning may be misguided and I’m sure impact nil, but it serves as a reminder to think about these systems, the things I do and why I do them. I also do similar things with chatbots, and sometimes I’ll add “thanks yous” and really try to interact genuinely, as though I don’t know I’m talking to a bot. I like to think the chatbot devs are somewhere highfiving putting screenshots of my chat in their slide decks.
Instead of s3fs, what's wrong with using the aws s3 cli? That's what we do for our clients' SFTP servers
For some companies asking for fusion isn't too much. Fusion startups include (among others) Commonwealth, Tokamak Energy, General Fusion, Helion, and TAE (formerly Tri Alpha). The latter has over $500 million invested.

And for a company that's not a startup, Lockheed Martin has a fusion project.
npm [recently] now has a lockfile called package-lock.json, in addition to package.json, which defines the entire dependency tree (not just the direct dependencies as package.json does), contains package hashes, and will pin dependencies to specific versions for an application.
Doesn't make sense if the "owner" abandoned the project and N goes to infinity. Then we have the same problem. If you're producing open source software, you have ALL the right in the world to abandon a project for arbitrarily large N days. If you don't want vulnerabilities, don't run code from untrusted sources, simple as that. This whole discussion is a farce. The reason open source comes with a license attached to it is for situations like this.
I am a GCP user and we use Gitlab. I understand that CSR provides better integration with other services in GCP. However, I am achieving most of those using gitlab-ci.

Can someone explain (not sure, if I am missing anything) why should I move to CSR? If not, I will better stay with gitlab. TIA.
Those facebook improvements made there way back into the core.

Google might be able to move quicker if they allowed php. Facebook killed them in social. The type of products google can offer is limited by this decision.
Fyi... his post today seems to be related to a previous reddit post that HN also discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15425632

(Downvoters: Did I read his essay incorrectly? The reddit post from 1 year ago and the github post today seem be the same theme of managing the community expectations of Cognitec.)
I don't believe, that Dominic (the former maintainer, who gave the control of package to complete stranger) is the sole party to blame here. The biggest responsibility lies with so-called "administration" of NPM, who have systematically failed to promote security and robustness in their package system.

The practice of handing control of open-source packages to new maintainers is old and well-established. You can go to Sourceforge and request to take control of any old, low-impact, unmaintained repository and Sourceforge administration will likely grant it to you after a considerable delay and some investigation (at least they used to do so in the past, not sure if they will continue to after all this mess). The responsibility to ensure, that new versions of packages haven't been subverted by malicious actors, have always lied with people, who brought those packages into distribution — the package maintainers. Unfortunately, NPM does not have any "maintainers" in the traditional sense — package authors can't be trusted to remain impartial, and "administrators" just sit on their backs, waiting for devs to fill their repository with quality software. There is zero oversight — you can do anything with your packages as long as it does not outright contradict local law, including openly selling them to hackers, openly incorporating backdoors, and even sabotaging entire package ecosystem by unilaterally deleting hundreds of popular packages.

Covert transfer of control should not even be possible in centralized repository like NPM. If you want to give your package to someone, that act should be registered with repository administration, and future users of package should be warned of it — just like users of services and goods are commonly informed when an existing company changes it's organizational structure. It is one thing to privately give access to Github repo to someone. It is entirely different thing to hand over a repository package — which is automatically distributed onto large number of computers around the world. In later case authors, who failed to announce the change of ownership to repository maintainers, should bear full monetary responsibility for their actions.
Code search might be the killer feature here.

I used to work at google many eons ago and I spend 90% of my day wading through billions LOCs with their internal code search tool.

I believe it's the same one used by chromium: https://cs.chromium.org/
You know you're a good programmer if the things you build "just work."

How do you quantify, "just works?" For a large enough project, perfection, or even just getting pretty close to it, ends up being pretty expensive.

It should be near impossible to find flaws in your solutions.

I had a boss who declared he could find a bug in any page of code, so long as you let him lawyer the specs in great enough detail. Granted, we were working in a pretty complex domain, but as far as I could see, he was always right about that.

As Matt Easton keeps saying: "Context!"

Maybe the company you're working for finds it much more valuable to do lots of iterations so they can tinker with the product and keep refining it. In that case, it might be even better than "perfection" if the things you build mostly work, but that you can respond to change and bugfix requests quickly. (Without introducing regressions.)
I get that was his claim, but saying that this is now accepted is just not true. Saying that it is 'smart talk' implies that smart people are talking about it?

Saying that the value in the Chinese Room argument is in showing how we have difficulty overcoming our biases is a clever inversion, but more a funny debate tactic than serious defense of Searle. Unless you are claiming that Searle doesn't actually believe it and invented it as some sort of long con?

I don't think using brain biology and logic over intuition needs to be defended.
I have observed an ongoing pattern. People who create a thing (that becomes somewhat popular) in some sense get credit for it. They are mentioned as the creator of it, forever. It becomes part of their resume, their online reputation. Perhaps they go on to create another thing.

This happens to a far lesser extent for people who adopt a project later to become an ongoing maintainer.

A project might have an originator who works hard for six months, and rewarded forever, and some maintainers who work hard for six years and gets very little reward.

Out of respect for many people who do great work, I will not name names. :-)
I'd tend to agree if it weren't listed right next to the feature "Unlimited private Git repositories for free", which is a feature GitHub charges for, but seeing as this is a somewhat competitive product, it feels a little suspect.
What makes that an interesting question? That’s like saying “how would someone have an idea to tests their code unless they were trained to think about testing?” It feels like a tautology, and not particularly relevant.

(I love both dynamic and static typing. I think dynamic type systems are more useful than basic static type systems, but also really enjoy more expressive static type systems.)
> This, I think, is a sucker's argument. Responsibility is not putting trust in a dependency they themselves have no control over.

Responsibility can fall on multiple people. I don't understand why everyone looks at things in such a binary way. Responsibility, fault, etc. are not binary things. Two or more people responsible for one problem can be both upset at each other perfectly justifiably.
"Because of the MIT license" is a little misleading. Any FLOSS license out there would disclaim the same sort of warranties.
Curious about the details here. What games were the recruiters playing?
No maintainer is malicious...until they are. Be honest with yourself: how many dependencies have you vetted the maintainer before including? If n > 0 then you're just as susceptible.
Thanks for the rec. Not sure the information density of books has yet reached its nadir like news articles, such that I would pay for this.
Ah, nice!

Is this also available via the CLI?
What's the context here?
Although I appreaciate almost all opinion articles and videos posted by Rich, what I read here is that Rich seems to see his project about himself which fits his previous behave as Clojure's Dictator For Life. In other words, he could never remove himself from the equation or make clojure an independent long standing self directed project.

In general terms of OS project, I think the first premise is already flawed. What if there were open source projects meant to satisfy their users or public? Or just iwth very different goals than yours? Do you even think that software is just finished when it is released? that fanbase should be allowed? What if Rich itself is the main bottle neck for his own masterpiece?

The only people entitled to say how open source 'ought' to
work are people who run projects, and the scope of their
entitlement extends only to their own projects.

Now, he should answer this own questions and make his own logic for his own project. I personally always saw open source as complex as a society is; as complex as an MMO game game can be. (including actors such fanbase, devs, sponsors, investors), etc.
Yes, a Google Scholar search provided some experimental results:

* "The impact of color combinations on the legibility of text presented on LCDs" ("Dark text generally leads to greater legibility when contrast ratio is greatest."): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000368701...

* "Night Mode, Dark Thoughts: Background Color Influences the Perceived Sentiment of Chat Messages" (not directly applicable, but interesting: "Those who rated the messages against a black background perceived them more negatively than those who worked against a white background"): https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-67684-5_...

There's probably more, but I'd guess it's highly dependent on personal preference, vision, and ambient lighting, among other things.
When I was learning, I implemented arrays as a Java class (of course, I didn't know the word "array"). I had an Excel spreadsheet that I used to auto generate code that declared ~100 variables along with getters and setters for them (I clicked and dragged to get it to be the size I needed).
I like this reddit post by rhickey regarding entitlement: https://old.reddit.com/r/Clojure/comments/73yznc/on_whose_au...

It gets pretty tiring on HN/reddit to watch people demand so much shit for free, namely other people's time. If you've ever run a project with users (most people haven't), you've experienced these demands first-hand.

It's nice to read these sorts of posts when it's getting you down.

For me it was the recent outrage at Elm's creator. Random people on HN/reddit basically acting like they were some disgruntled paying customer. You can see a common thread with Rich's defense of Clojure.
This incurs per-hour charges to run the VM that runs sshd, same as running a micro instance with FUSE S3 would, although with slightly less admin attention required.
I didnt' realize that mathematics was esoteric.
They have all that money because they make good investments. In the pursuit of fusion, a quarter trillion spent by Elon Musk goes a lot farther than a quarter trillion spent by a lottery winner. It's not just about how much money you have, but who you give it to and for what that determines its value. Just because we are used to indistinguishable standardized consumer products that cost X doesn't mean investing works that way, especially when the certainty of the venture is not assured and is partially the responsibility of the investor to make sure that the money is being directed properly.
OP here, and I agree. I will keep that in mind for next time. :)
I thought it was common sense
If people are explaining stuff to you all the time, you're the dumbest guy in the room.

If you're explaining stuff to people, you're the smartest guy in the room, and you should find a place to work where you're the dumbest guy in the room.
These are all integral part of the dev skills. So your point is?

I worked in all kinds of companies. The lamest and slowest ones were these outdated thinking ones. The most productive and highest quality products were delivered in those companies where the team was responsible for their apps networking, load balancing, monitoring, autoscaling, DB sharding.

You think these are somehow special skills. But you didn't provide any arguments.
If you are "Deeply aware of the powerful and superior features of your favorite languages", then you probably are too deeply caught up in language fanboy-ism to actually understand the merits and disadvantages of your favorite languages compared to the alternatives. (You're probably also being a jerk to people who aren't fans of your languages.)

They're tools. They're not rock bands. Don't get caught up in fanboy-ism.
Scuttlebutt already works, people use it and are building on it.
Context, I think: https://gist.github.com/halgari/c17f378718cbd2fd82324002133e...

Associated Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Clojure/comments/a0lalh/timothy_and...
While the message is partially kind of correct, the delivery lacks everything that's humane.

> The only people entitled to say how open source 'ought' to work are people who run projects, and the scope of their entitlement extends only to their own projects.

If this is the case, why open source or publish it in the first place? If you want people to read the code, but not interact with you, why not write that into the license? Why not use something like CC-SA?

> As a user of something open source you are not thereby entitled to anything at all. You are not entitled to contribute. You are not entitled to features. You are not entitled to the attention of others. You are not entitled to having value attached to your complaints. You are not entitled to this explanation.

Looking at that last sentence, then, why not STFU, Mr. Hickey? Assuming the "users" are Clojure programmers, if they're entitled merely to nil, why bother with this angsty rant?

> Open source is a licensing and delivery mechanism, period. It means you get the source for software and the right to use and modify it. All social impositions associated with it, including the idea of 'community-driven-development' are part of a recently-invented mythology with little basis in how things actually work, a mythology that embodies, cult-like, both a lack of support for diversity in the ways things can work and a pervasive sense of communal entitlement.

This is completely wrong. The reason we have open source in the first place is years long, decades long, determined community effort. Mr. Hickey is not entitled to change the definition of F/OSS.
Try leetcode the hard ones
My favorite definition of a “good” programmer is someone who ships! Done is better than perfect. Knowing what compromises to make in order to ship without creating a future nightmare.
I'm guessing that this is a response to the current trend towards Codes of Conduct, which are best understood as part of the Long March through the Institutions, a politicization of things that aren't inherently political.
Not trying to be too snarky, just my best guess of what the charges will be. I think "national security" is the nose in the camel's tent that's being used to shift the government in a more authoritarian direction.
I really enjoy intermittent fasting, over the past 265 days I've spent 4655 hours (193 days) fasted. 235 of those days >15h, 190 >16h, and 60 >20h.

I now eat a single meal per day, and aim for some notion of nutrient density. I'm almost never hungry, and my body composition has never been better.
You might consider asking why so many of the greatest cyberpunk authors abandoned the genre. Many science fiction authors idealistically try to produce stories they feel society needs to hear at a given point rather than just retreading genres that have been well-mined and which they feel aren't contributing to progress.

Google Neal Stephenson and "getting big stuff done". Stephenson wrote some of the best books late in Cyperpunk's sci-fi reign, but later came to feel that portraying technological advance as leading to decay, inequality, and corruption was contributing to the stifling of technological ambition in the U.S.. When huge technological leaps are necessary to get past pressing problems like clean energy, space exploration, etc., does it make sense for pop culture to portray technological progress as a negative force that will lead to dystopias?

William Gibson gradually moved away from Cyberpunk for a long period of time, writing novels that were set closer and closer to the present day. "The Peripheral", released in 2014, was the first book by Gibson set in what could be considered "Cyberpunk" for quite a while, but it's not really cyberpunk. (Note: Mild spoilers ahead) Technology does indeed create a calamity that negatively impacts world society in this book, but "cleptocrats" are just as much to blame for creating a dystopia. However, the book also shows some "big stuff" being done, even in the dystopia, and some pretty far-out tech ultimately prevents the calamity it created in the book's prime timeline. A fairly idealistic group of heroes actually change the world for the better using technology in this book, which is rather more optimistic view of both people and technology than is consistent with standard cyberpunk.

While Ernest Cline was not an established author before writing "Ready Player One", it's interesting to note that this book doesn't really represent a return to cyberpunk for serious science fiction. The plot can certainly be considered cyberpunk. (Note: I have read the book, but not seen the movie yet). However, it's basically one long dose of 80's nostalgia, so the cyberpunk setting makes perfect sense for that book. Thus, it's not really science fiction in this respect. It's not trying to predict or shape the future. It's an exercise in wallowing in the past, and the form of this novel matches that function.

I'm still a fan of cyberpunk, but I recognize that science fiction has moved on. It responds to the needs of society, and nightmarish technocratic dystopias are not what is needed today.
I think this also fits nicely with the backdoor thread posted earlier today. There is an immense amount of pressure and expectations put on folks who open-source things.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18534392
Would you mind giving a bit more context/link to the HN discussion(s) about Elm's creator? I've seen the JS event-stream kerfuffle stuff posted all over the internet today, but I havn't heard about the Elm thing.
I find as I get more experience I realize my limitations as a programmer so I can predict much further out where I'll run into trouble. It usually ends up being avoiding bad architectural choices, avoiding bad abstractions, avoiding introducing bugs into code that works. It's easy to spot a bad programmer, I find that a lot of the time a good programmer will be known for their faults in other areas (ie. Bad communicator) but people take their skill for granted. And then there's the rare programmer who can solve things that others can't understand. There's way more bad programmers than star ones, but my guess is a lot of people here fall into the good not great category unless their track record is exceptional. A lot of people try and fail early, much like companies, so if you've been in the game for a while it's a good indication.
The article you link comes to a different conclusion:

> With the Gradle daemon running and incremental compilation turned on, Kotlin compiles as fast or slightly faster than Java.
While this can be argued to be true of git in a technical sense, virtually all git projects in practice have a central source of truth repository. GitHub’s entire business model is largely predicated on the fact projects will use it as their primary repository.

If we are talking about accepting PRs for drafting legislation in git, where it is hosted and who hosts it becomes extremely important. Sure anyone can clone/fork, but only the appointed central repo could become law. A clone that you or I make will likely never have this ability.
Yeah buddy. https://servo.org/

Also there is already amazing work for Rust and WASM https://rustwasm.github.io/book/
Peanuts. (Wait, that's for EDL, not for launch.)
I guess what you are saying is that while forth is capable, it doesn't really give you anything over using assembler for low-level programming. And if you want high-level abstraction, you can always use C anyway.
It makes a lot of sense if you realize many people who don't actively spend time maintaining something might still have a desire to spend 10 seconds glancing at others' changes to make sure their own rears don't get burned.