skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, I’d third getting started with Digital Ocean or Linode, but even AWS Lightsail isn’t a terrible option if you want to be able to say you’re dipping your feet into the turbulent Amazon waters.
Where is the article using a >, aside from examples of what it is advocating against?
`array.count < 1` still sounds reasonable though.
When I was a teenager, I had friends who were pretty much accidents of geography and school districting. This is not to say that they weren't real friends, but there was nothing really fundamentally holding us together other than being kids in the same place at the same time. I remember feeling lonely a lot.

After touring a dozen colleges, I picked my eventual alma mater because I met a bunch of computer science students who I recognized as my tribe. It was like an epiphany. I'm still close with many friends from this era (28 years ago), even as I've moved and expanded/changed my tribe. I haven't felt truly lonely since high school.

When you're young you're on fixed rails without a lot of control. The internet makes it possible to find people you really connect with, even if you don't see them in person all the time. Don't prejudge the level of connection.

The only friend from high school that I still keep in regular touch with is someone I met BBSing (ahh, the 80s).
Though durability is worse; everything is glass now.
Which means gut Bacteria may cause autism
Great status I saw on on leadership
This is incredibly poorly thought out. You don't only use conditionals while iterating. Even if you did, wanting to have a math like notation isn't necessarily reasonable. When reading a simple multi-part inequality like 5 < x < 10 I don't think "when 5 is less than x", I still think about it in terms of the variable. The benefit of arranging things in a simple inequality like above is the shorthand notation. You don't get that with:

5 < x && x < 10 vs.
x > 5 && x < 10
Nobody would ever purposefully write 2 <= x > 4 … it's a bug. Maybe if the bounds on the example were variable.

But the point of being able to collapse a < b and b < c into a < b < c is there to make ranges easier to notate/read. That's seems to be nemo's wish. (Though perhaps he wishes the range to be completely separate, e.g., in the psuedosyntax `b in [1, 3)`.)

I don't think I've ever seen it actually used for anything else, and I would in advocate against it, in code review.
Changing your password for a google account seems to involve going to myaccount.google.com (which is not the domain your login is associated with) - so clearly this needs to support redirects to different subdomains.
Cars driving bumper-to-bumper at 100km/h would be extraordinarily unsafe.
Also, when I got my first B in high school I completely stopped caring about my grades. My high school had ridiculous grade inflation and no weighted courses in GPA, so the first B meant no chance of being a valedictorian.
Remove data limits and speed caps, and 5g might just be worth it.

He’ll, it’d be worth it for 4g.

Won’t happen in the states though
This thread is great. Very insightful comments about a topic not discussed nearly enough.
is there really a naming distinction between ‘>’ and ‘<‘? Is only one really the ‘greater’ than sign? Interesting if so! I always assumed it was context dependent (i.e x < 10 could be said 10 is greater than x, so it’s still acting as a greater than sign - but I see why I’m probably wrong here). I was interested in seeing an arguement like another poster made, where notation be like x = [0,1] might be proposed.
>nearly one in six couples in the US have trouble conceiving a baby, and about half the time the man is at the root of the problem.

While true that a laptop isn't good for male reproductive systems, it's still 50/50 chance (random) which sex is to blame for reproductive difficulties...
The author, Gary Marcus, makes a cogent argument for why we need both deep learning and symbol manipulation to build "true" AI. what I found convincing was the argument that deep learning models currently can't even generalize to novel instances outside the training space in the field of object recognition, which is their strong suit. Why would any rational person believe that they have the capability to generalize to novel instances for other types of problems outside of perceptual classification?

Honestly as a native speaker of three symbolic languages (english, french, and chess) the need for symbolic manipuation aka approaches from classical AI seems fairly intuitive, if not downright obvious. I don't understand why Yann LeCun and other ML bigwigs find this controversial in the slightest.

Perhaps someone with more practical experience building AI could enlighten me on this subject.
> you could be at Google collecting a 1/2M paycheck

That's director-level compensation. Would somebody whose only experience is 4-5 years of running a startup be hired straight into a director role?
Show HN: Find the best times to commute
Yup, I have gone through this. If you aren't confident with your skills you can look up to softwares like VestaCP [1] to setup everything for you. You can also use more advanced solutions like FreedomBox [2].

The pain is worth it!

Another fun tip: Enable catch all for your emails and then provide different email for each purposes, like this website can have email ycombi@yourdomain.com and so on. I love to regularly see which website fucked up handling my email id and I just silently block that email in a click (and hence, much less spams).

[1] https://vestacp.com

[2] https://freedomboxfoundation.org
We could in theory draft them into the Army Corps of Engineers and make them push wheelbarrows full of sand and gravel around in the Sonoran Desert.

I like this idea.
A somewhat stupid way to solve this issue (of what is likely poorly-designed API, given what you're trying to do here; optional Arrays are generally a code smell) is to abuse the nil coalescing operator:

guard !(obj.someArray?.isEmpty ?? true)
Yes, yes, SJW, Code Of Conduct, etc.

However, as one might observe, Mother Nature runs much more sophisticated and unbiased "natural experiments", so to speak. The as old as humanity strategy of quietly observing of what is often yield closer to reality results (better approximations, better hypothesis) than commercialized modeling based on wild disconnected from reality guesswork.

Of course, gut bacteria could affect behavioral patterns, but it by no means the cause, may be an amplifier (a factor) but not even a partial cause.

Anyone with an ounce of brain (which is used to be a prerequisite for a scientist) could see it clearly, just because autism is a human universal phenomena, while gut bacteria varies enormously from region to region.
It's actually been fairly stable for almost a decade - there's a good graph for the UK on the 'grade inflation' Wikipedia article.
> If I'm the only one on the cap table and half my equity is not yet vested, who does it belong to if I "leave the company"?

So that's a moot question. The assumption here is that even if you're currently a solo bootstrapped founder, you still want the optionality to hire people and/or raise money in the future. (Because burning your ships aside, you generally shouldn't give up free options.)

So then you run into issues like figuring out how to compensate yourself for money you've invested in the business. And since most businesses fail, by definition most businesses aren't worth anything after four years. Which means that if some but not all of the team is still working on the business, then you need to figure out how many shares to re-up yourself in the situation that the business isn't worth anything or is worth very little. If there are other people on the cap table at that point who have put work or money into the business then you need to figure out what's the equitable amount of dilution they should take, which is already difficult enough as is and would be even harder to do without having some historical record of vesting over time. This isn't even that uncommon, I've talked with multiple YC companies that have gone through this and who are now on their way toward being successful.
But more value for yourself. "It is not to the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker..."
Beware the holiday ‘smart toys’ that spy on your kids
asians aren't mentioned anywhere in the article. maybe you're the one being biased here?
If you read

Pull the lever when x < 0

aloud, you must read it as "Pull the lever when x is less than zero." Thus, "<" is "less than", and ">" is "greater than", for that reason specifically.

Also, Unicode calls it U+003C LESS-THAN SIGN and U+003E GREATER-THAN SIGN.

At least, that's the terms that the article is using, and I think there's sufficient context to identify that, and go along w/ it.
> 5 < x && x < 10 is the attempt to replicate this in other languages but falls a bit short

On the contrary, it's Python that added the shorthand, mathematical-looking notation because the longer "desugared" form wasn't great.
> is there really a distinction between ‘>’ and ‘<‘? Is only one really the ‘greater’ than sign?

The convention I've always seen is that `>` is "greater than" and `<` is "less than". Reading from left to right `x > 2` is "x is greater than 2" and `2 < x` is "2 is less than x". Functionally the same, yes, but with a distinction in the way the comparison is done (reading left to right). So with a preferred/dominant reading direction I would consider them different. This would be important if reading/describing a line of code to someone where it might be read/written left to right.

I don't know if the names are reversed in languages that are read right to left?
Congress on Market Manipulation and Crypto Regulation
I really think this is just bikeshedding over style.

If we were optimizing for readability and predictability, we'd standardize on the most commonly used format.

``if (x > 5 && x < 10)``

Putting a rule that variables should always be on the left hand side of a comparison also gives you only 2 ways to write any conditional, so it's just as good as getting rid of ``>``. It also has the advantage of being by far the most widespread way that people already write conditionals, so you don't need to hold a team meeting where you explain to a bunch of grumpy senior programmers why even though they think their coding style is easier to read it actually isn't.

But by far the best option is to not have a meeting at all and to not care about things like this. In the absence of real, tangible data that conditional styles are causing bugs, these kinds of debates are very often a pre-optimization, and pre-optimization should be avoided.

When I put the effort into tracking and ordering the root causes of the majority of bugs in my software (both in personal projects and in large corporate environments) I am often surprised at the results. Very rarely are they consistent with the causes I would have predicted.

That's why I call things like this bikeshedding. In a large organization, it is probably more productive for you to hold another meeting about encapsulation and code reviews than it is for you to start up a Slack discussion about what style people use on their conditionals.
I think you'd have to reduce the problem set/space for that to be effective (which is a very similar concept to reducing how you define your state space in AI, if you're familiar with that). If the problem set has too many variables, I think it becomes too challenging to analyze.

My approach is to rely very heavily on heuristics in order to screen potential treatments. I wrote some steps describing how to do that elsewhere in this thread.
> at least 100 miles from any border I could see.

Most of the population of the US lives within 100 miles of a border because airports count as a border.
The Samsung A5 meets these criteria except that it's got Samsung's junkware stack.

Edit: oops, battery isn't removable either. Can't remember the last time I saw a phone with that:(
Same with me, although I feel that putting the variable last is a form of Yoda programming. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda_conditions
I personally prefer to stay in Apple's ecosystem, but features like that are certainly interesting and speak to the type of camera improvements I was talking about in my comment.
Why can that not be swapped to:

guard let array = obj.someArray,
0 < array.count else {
throw SomeError
}

?
Should I be worried that such a trivial thing has a name and a Wikipedia entry? What is the actual relevance here?
I’ve only met a couple people who say “fire”. That’s a little overwrought. The less dramatic version is “we are too big for heroes” which unpacks into something like this:

You don’t want an organization that relies on one or two or three people to swoop in and save the company every time there’s an emergency. A production issue should look like disaster preparedness. Document, train, drill, prevent.

More concretely, make the important parts as obvious as you can, as similar to production as you can, so anyone can set up a system and try to repro the problem. Config, build, and deploy should be push button (very robust scripts with every cheap sanity and safety check you can manage). No flakiness is okay. Nor obscurity. Everybody should understand how it works.

Document everywhere diagnostic data comes from and goes to. Don’t let your most senior people solve production issues; assign them to people one step down (and throw in some promising mid-level team members for
diversity and longevity). Five why’s every outage and be sure your resolutions always involve making the problem easier to detect next time, not just prevent.
Why is the sandboxing such a big issue in the case of a “Photoshop” app? The UWP api seem to cover most OS services that the devs would need, or am I missing something?
Some people have this weird idea that anthropogenic global warming is just a bunch of data simulation that will crumble like a house of cards if only we could find the right reason for why the temperatures are changing...

Every steps of how mankind's activity leads to increased CO2 level to increased infrared absorption to increased temperature is very well understood. If for some reason science discovers yet another source of global warming, that won't be what you fancy it would be. It won't disprove AGW or absolve us of our responsibility. Instead, it will be an "Oh shit, we are truly fucked" moment.

I have a hard time understanding why some people are attracted so much to this possibility.

...Heh, who am I kidding. I know perfectly well why.
I just learned that DevRel is a thing, I just thought it is a non-trivial part of a normal project but not that it was categorized separately (or I'd call it tech advocate). Not only that, I think that DevRel is the best indicator of success of any project! Basic design, documentation, etc are needed, but once those are covered it's DevRel what sets projects success apart.

Famous DevRel I know and what they've been promoting to great success:

- Dan Abramov, Redux and React.

- Evan You, Vue.js

- Lea Verou, Prism, Bliss and CSS in general.

- "@dhh", Ruby on Rails.

- Sindre Sorhus, npm and indie JS.

Note: I just say they have greatly helped to the success, no that these are their projects.

On the other hand, we all know some projects that succeed despite their founders being really bad at DevRel... but those are so rare and basically just put a lot of efforts in something related but not the same (marketing, first to the market, 10x better technically, etc).

My main focus right now is learning how to get better at this since I'd love to do OSS fulltime. Any tip on how to get there would be greatly appreciated. I'm trying to learn mainly from Dan and Evan since IMHO they are next-level in this specific area :)

PS, since you work for Chrome DevTools, I imagine you are in Google. I think, besides the issues of Angular 1->2, the real reason Angular stayed behind is that there were no highly visible DevRels.
Just to add to this, it is also a requirement to give consideration to the privacy expectations of the Australian community and the legitimate interests of the communications provider.

However, there is no guidelines on how these judgements should be made and what is / isn't acceptable. Effectively it will be left to the courts to decide through legal disputes.
I use this. I can read lines reading left to right with only </<= very quickly now, because of the visualization of a numberline in my head. Any other arrangement, and I have to slow down to my old, normal processing, and reason very carefully about the code, lest a subtle bug slip by.

For similar reasons, I find this notation helps me prevent errors, because they become visually detectable.
Cpanel still works fine assuming you are looking to run LAMP. Takes care of everything for you.
I had to write a scripting language for a personal project. Since I could create whatever syntax I wanted, I used this:

'if x==4' was written as 'x[4]'

'if x>2 && x<4' was written as 'x(2,4)'

'if x>=2 && x<4' was written as 'x[2,4)'

Etc.

It was very easy to read and write... at least for me.
Can/do any of these companies with excess cash invest in the housing market perhaps through funds like REIT (for better liquidity than direct purchases)?

It looks like a good diversification from bonds if chosen judiciously but there could be regulatory reasons not to do it.
> Why do a lot of the millionaires and billionaires buy overpriced housing in London, Vancouver and other places instead of investing in something else?

Having a big house is nice. Living in a major city is nice. The combination of the two is very nice, but expensive.
I think they were trying to say "how do I know the Australians submitting PRs aren't secretly working for the govt?" Of course this raises (but does not beg) the question, "how do I ever know anybody submitting PRs isn't trying to sabatoge me?"

You just have to judge people by their fruits and hope they do the right thing or stop associating with Australians at all.
Because it can be safer to park their money in countries with strong private land ownership laws than keep it in their own country, even if the home drops in price a bit i.e. Chinese buyers.
> Grades, and the exams written to obtain them, can be gamed.

Grades are generally not achieved (in the US) by taking exams. The whole point of grades is to produce a different set of results than standardized tests do; your grade is a composite of exam scores, homework completion, the amount you talk in class, and the amount you press the teacher for a better grade, all weighted at the teacher's discretion. The weighting applied to you may be different than that applied to your classmates. It is very much not the norm for low test scores to translate into a low grade as long as the student asks for more credit and is willing to complete makework assignments.
The Boss Phone is tiny enough for any use case:

https://hackaday.com/2017/05/11/tearing-down-the-boss-phone/
Using Facial Recognition to Identify Civil War Photos
My current favorite ircd is ngircd. Super easy to install with just an apt-get install away. I usually hide everyones IPs on it cause nobody should just randomly know everybody elses IP. My only issue is making an IP count exception for connection bouncers. I had a server wide bouncer setup for a good number of my users.
Build Scalable Web Services with Go and Docker
Does that work for floats?
This article is too basic.

> (x < 10 && 5 < x) which is a stupid option because it implies 10 < 5

What? no it doesn't!

> (5 < x && x < 10)

It's already very obvious that one can take 5 < x < 10 and split it into 5 < x && x < 10 right off the bat. Loads of examples of that out there.
Unix Folklore
Sure if you have

5 < x && x < 10

you can use the number line visualization very quickly, but it breaks down if the code is in fact

x < 10 && 5 < x

It means the same thing. But it's not obvious.

So the number line analogy is incomplete and even when there is only </<= you still need careful reasoning.
This looks absolutely perfect! Thank you
An AR15 is a semi-automatic rifle. An M-16 is an automatic rifle and can't be owned by a civilian. A semi-automatic firearm means to fire two rounds you must pull the trigger twice, to fire three you pull three times etc. An automatic rifle will fire as long as you hold the trigger back.

An M-16 will expend it's 30 round magazine in about 3 seconds in full auto. Full auto is rarely used and when it is it's mainly for suppressive fire, which generally means to keep the enemy's head down while your squad moves to better cover or firing position.

Oh, one more thing, at house distances shotguns most certainly have to be aimed.
Well, and I don’t mean to be strictly pebdabtic, but you could read it as “when 0 is greater than x”, but of course it takes more overhead and I see why I was wrong. Thanks, it’s getting late today so I’m glad I managed to learn something before the days up.
I was pretty alarmed by the culture described by This American Life:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/647/ladonna

Even if we were just erecting pure security theater, it'd be great if we could not build a refuge for pervasive sexual harassment or psychological abuse at the same time.
Yes, there absolutely is. Because we write so many languages left-to-right, '>' denotes 'greater than'. Perhaps right-to-left written languages have mathematical comparison operators with opposite names.
Tom Occhino and Jordan Walke: JavaScript Apps at Facebook (2013)
> Hitler was given the power to enact laws without a parliamentary vote

It's worth noting that no bill passed recently to create this new behavior. It's all done through executive orders and other bureaucratic measures.

Congress has been happy to delegate its authority to the executive branch, the executive obviously likes it, and the judiciary isn't going to contradict both other branches, so more detail oriented democratic measures (legislation, constitutional amendments) have basically fallen away.

Thankfully the U.S. still has peaceful transmission of presidential power between the major parties. For now at least. If there was one-party rule in the executive branch for too long, things would stop looking democratic pretty fast since neither the legislative nor judicial branches seem to be up for getting Congress to do its job again [1].

[1] Like actually declaring war, requiring legislation go through the legislature, balancing budgets, passing trade deals, overturning broken laws instead of rewriting them from the bench, and just about everything else besides approving judicial appointments (which is actually happening at a steady clip for the moment).
> recruiters actively selected against

That's good news. No need to waste time interviewing with such employers, and I certainly wouldn't want to get a job with them.
> I don't think I've ever seen it actually used for anything else, and I would in advocate against it, in code review.

Yes, this would be a terrible practice. But that's what Python offers. The desire to express that a variable's value lies within a range is very common, and is presumably the reason for Python's bad choice. But that doesn't make Python's syntax a good response to the desire. The syntax expresses a conceptual mess; you're relying on people only using a tiny subset of what's there.

Contrast lisp, where you actually can express the concept of a range, as (< lowBound variable highBound). Unfortunately, that won't allow you to mix soft bounds with strict bounds. But it's vastly better than Python's approach.

Contrast Ruby, which offers almost every convenience in ranges, including literal notations, that you could ask for.
If you think that this is a new thing, I recommend reading James Bamford's books about the NSA and its predecessors. It was not uncommon for technical staff to discreetly provide data to government intelligence agencies. Back in the telegraph days, that meant shlepping rolls of paper tape. Later, magnetic wire and tape. And this was often done without management knowledge. Because, you know, these were patriotic guys.
See LiveCode. Runs n all platforms has community edition