skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Food trucks are a very close approximate to this type of restaurant.

The quality is a world of difference though.

Those tiny restaurants in other countries have real chefs with full, if small, kitchens, cooking sit down meals.

Best bowl of ramen I had in Japan was a single chef establishment, he was in a U-shaped open kitchen and guests sat around him.

> I wonder if there are any differences on the retail market, business capital market, or legal regulations that encourage empty retail spots to be quickly filled in Kyoto and Suzhou.

I think the very existence of small retail spots helps!

> and to a lesser proportional degree Suzhou, have much more tourism than Seattle has.

In 2017 Seattle had 39.9 million tourists (https://www.visitseattle.org/press/press-releases/seattle-se...), in 2013 Suzhou had 1.7 million (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/m/jiangsu/suzhou/travel/2013-09...)

FWIW, if anyone reading this is wondering where to go next, I'd recommend Suzhou! (or visit Seattle in late spring, Suzhou in early autumn!)

Every year at PAX West I am saddened by the lack of good food around DT Seattle for people to eat. Granted downtown is largely a business district, but I bet Subway gets the majority of PAX West food sales!
That's very true, and I had the same thought.

With that in mind, what do you think is their end goal? Is it just out of desperation they create petitions and such? It seems clear that China doesn't care much about the West's disapproval.
For customers who want to see the edge of space, your solution provides zero value.

Being weightless can be accomplished on any rollercoaster, a fraction of a fraction of what you are proposing, with no view of space!

Funny to see this as the top comment when it’s so off base.
Παιχνίδια σε Μπουντεσλίγκα, Ισπανία και Γαλλία
That makes a lot of sense. I always wondered what they considered the point of it to be, given that China doesn't care much about the West's opinion of them anyway.
I'd love to understand what is going on mechanically when these requests are made. Like what's actually being done that takes my google data download request days to fulfill?

My uninformed guess is that it's a service which orchestrates internal API calls to all the other services and builds a tarball. And the reason it takes forever is probably mostly just low priority queuing of all these various requests.
The Givewell article makes a good case for it being a bad thing. This article goes further into it: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/a2gYyTnAP36TxqdQp/...

"Carl and Denise, who each have a fixed charity budget of $1. Carl and Denise are effective altruists, and want to maximize total utility with their charity budgets.

Charities A creates 3 utils per dollar, and charity B creates 2 utils per dollar. By default, Carl and Denise will each give to charity A, creating 6 utils.

Charity B approaches Carl with the idea that he make a match offer. Carl jumps at the opportunity to cause $2 to be given to charity B, creating 4 utils, one more than he'd have saved before. Denise finds out about the match offer, and switches her donation to charity B, on the same basis. But the total amount of money moved to charity B is not the "doubled" $2+$2=$4, but just $2, resulting in 4 utils. This is less than before!"

Yes, the donors ultimately make the decision in both cases, but the matching complicates it somewhat. The donors aren't being forced, but are only being subtly tricked into making their decision based on illusory matching rather than making it based on which charity they think is best.
Can someone provide some examples where you would lose money in an SIPC insured account(like in Robinhood, presumably backed by low risk securities) that would otherwise be safe in a FDIC insured account?
It doesn’t disprove it. It could disprove it, or Japan could just have an incredibly polite service oriented culture.
I'd be concerned for these students about the transition to post-secondary education, where homework is still largely required for success.
A free and open internet is vital and is under siege
> There’s neither methods nor properties in Hooks code. I think you might be doing the same thing you think we are doing — you’re projecting the API you see onto the metaphors that feel more familiar to you. But these metaphors don’t really match what the API is doing or what it represents.

I mean that Hooks implementation re-implements key elements of a typical implementation of methods and properties, and end up mimicking them in important ways, differing mainly in the parts of that it doesn't include. Not that it actually uses methods and properties (though it does, of course—the "current component" that React tracks is an object, and the Hooks code leans on that to determine its calling context).

> you’re projecting the API you see onto the metaphors that feel more familiar to you.

Place a typical OO implementation next to what Hooks are doing, and you don't even have to squint to see that they're quite close. The porcelain's super-weird, yes—magical in all the "wrong" places, explicit in all the "wrong" places, missing a ton of mostly-inheritance-related stuff—but even with all that a Render function using Hooks manages to look an awful lot like a class declaration, as if someone had implemented classes in a language but forgotten to add any of the syntax to support it.

EDIT: I mean, seriously. The source is public. It's a really fun read.

https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/packages/react...
But the zeroes that the HFTs are taking is from the old-line manual market makers, not sellers or buyers.
The implication I assume is that we’ve all been down this road before.

“We’ll investigate.”
“Here’s the report. We recommend minimal/no action.”
"Do you have a citation for this?"

This is Newtonian physics.

Obviously, air, other things, friction mess it up.

But essentially that's it.

Horizontal motion of a body won't affect gravitations vertical pull.
No, the government could not force Bitcoin to adopt a new hashing function. It would be nearly impossible for any government to enforce a hardfork like that.

Why do you think doing this in the open would be more beneficial?
Aren't there any unions for the these kind of jobs?
tl;dr when in Rome...

I'm a NYC native, and I tip because I realize that the system is rigged to enable food and entertainment employers to take advantage of there employees. Yea, I don't like it either. But it's here so I just roll with it.
There are many things which are simply factually incorrect. However as 'not being able to mean "nevertheless" when at the beginning of a main clause' is utter fabricated balderdash.

It has been able to be used like this for at least a few hundred years in English, and you can find examples of this use from Shakespeare and Burke and so on. And it's not as if Strunk & White couldn't have checked on this in 1918, such examples are given in the OED's 1899 edition.

And this is not an explanation: "Many of the words and expressions here listed are not so much bad English as bad style, the commonplaces of careless writing. As illustrated under Feature, the proper correction is likely to be not the replacement of one word or set of words by another, but the replacement of vague generality by definite statement."

What justification do they give for what they consider 'bad style' or 'careless writing'?

I do wish they could have followed their own recommendations, especially as concerns the last clause, for this is nothing but vague generality, and a mistaken one at that.
There is another way to look at this.

These are people who are already subject to execution. They get to stay alive a bit longer in order to preserve the organs. So rather than causing death, the possibility of organ transplants is what keeps these people alive.
Agreed. This proposal seems very sloppy, and I'm disappointed to see that it managed to get to Stage 3.

There is good reason to talk about adding some kind of private or controlled access in Javascript beyond closures. I've often wanted exactly that kind of feature. However, it shouldn't be done through the lens of classes. Classes are largely just syntactic sugar over Javascript's real inheritance model, the prototype chain.

Whatever solution is come up with should be something that can described in terms of the prototype chain (or ideally, described in terms of pure objects). That's not to say it shouldn't work with classes, obviously it should. But it should be designed from the bottom up, not the top down.

The fact that this proposal is only applied to classes, and the fact that it does not mention the underlying mechanics about how this would work in the core language underneath classes makes it feel poorly designed. Classes in Javascript aren't magic, we can't just apply an entirely new concept on top of them with no explanation of how it fits into the broader language.
> Ah yes, because as 2000, 2008, and 2019 have shown us

Were you trying to sneak in a comment about an impending explosion? :)
I've tried running the numbers, but actually finding numbers is hard here.

If I'm understanding the sources correctly, the coal seam on fire in Centralia is about 3700 acres in total size, and coal seams seem to be only a few feet thick generally. Plugging in 8 feet for a thickness (which I think includes a large amount of non-coal rock, but I don't know the recoverable fraction so I'll estimate 100% of it to be coal), I get that the total CO2 production of burning all of it would be about 7 million metric tonnes of CO2. That would be for the entire lifetime of the fire.

So one coal seam fire would produce about 0.2% of the US's yearly CO2 emissions. Keeping in mind that these fires last for decades, that would suggest that coal seem fires account for less than 1% and probably less than 0.1% of CO2 emissions.
This is kind of what I have been doing with this testing framework: https://github.com/hitchdev/hitchstory

It's designed so that you can write tests that are the basis of the "how to" documentation - with a small script and some jinja2 you can generate readable documentation in the form of markdown from the test:

Original test (behavioral example) : https://github.com/crdoconnor/strictyaml/blob/master/hitch/s...

Example docs generated from that test : https://hitchdev.com/strictyaml/using/alpha/scalar/email-and...

It's also designed so that the testing framework can be programmed to rewrite the test automatically for simple code changes (e.g. changing the wording of that exception).

This makes building tests much quicker and much, much less tedious and perfectly in sync docs almost becomes a side effect.

Essentially "how to" documentation and example driven behavioral tests are the same thing for all projects. It's just that most people don't realize and don't treat them as such.
Most folks aren’t experts, defaults matter.
Build Laravel 5.7 Email Authentication with Mailgun and Digital Ocean
Cool!

One of the big picture value propositions of technical writers IMO is that we're shepherds of organizational knowledge. For example, if someone sends an email to me asking how to get a particular task done in Chrome DevTools (which I write the docs for), I will ask their question on Stack Overflow, provide an answer for it, and then send the link back to the asker. It's a similar amount of work, but I'm making the knowledge public, rather than one-off.

What's really innovative about Etsy's idea IMO is that they have found a way to make tribal knowledge shared on an ephemeral platform like Slack more permanent. My big issue with real-time chat up to this point has been that all the beautiful knowledge that you share on the platform isn't recorded in a permanent way. I acknowledge that a lot of people prefer the real-time messaging format, so it's really cool that Etsy has figured out a way to get the best of both worlds.
Oh hey, Apes ape, what a concept!
I think I see what you mean, though maybe I'm misunderstanding still.

The answer (from my experience at Etsy, anyway) to questions like:

> how to modify the schema of the events going into B to add a specific piece of data,

was "Run schema_modifier", the docs for which were frequently obsolete. Figuring out how to "run schema_modifier" was usually a very frustrating experience in that particular instance, whereas unwrapping the actual problem was usually less frustrating.
This is known as Moravec's Paradox[0]. Fine motor skills and basic visual cognition require far more computational effort than high-level reasoning.

[0]https://medium.com/@froger_mcs/moravecs-paradox-c79bf638103f
You are equating a fetus with a fully developed human being. That is not medically verifiable.
AI Job Openings Surge 35X Since 2015
There was an episode of "Adam Ruins Everything" about this. Basically, during prohibition, restaurants couldn't sell alcohol (which was their biggest profit center), so in order to stay afloat, they cut staff wages and introduced the concept of tipping to cover the gap. It kind of stuck since then.
In the specific example given here of "dbconnect", I'd consider a different approach: incorporating the "how" knowledge into the CLI itself. For example, running the command without any arguments could trigger an interactive guide that asks the user questions.

"What do you want to do?"

o Get a list of databases

o Connect to a database

"Do you want to connect to dev or prod?"

o dev

o prod

o I don't know (this option could link the user to documentation on the different environments; maybe the user is a student on his or her first internship and has never even heard of the concept)

"What's the shard number?"

"Which side?"

The CLI could output the equivalent, non-interactive command before performing the requested action, making it a teaching opportunity as well. Maybe the "I don't know" option or this approach in general is overkill, but I generally think tools should be smarter. You don't need as much documentation if your tools are inherently capable of guiding you to the right answer.
Nice try on moving the goal posts!

Here's Clinton's stance in March 2016: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/257569-clinton-touts-n...

Here's what I wrote above:

Will you have issues with the person you're voting for? Probably. Should you vote for them anyway? Yes.
>the Amazon self shipping is horrendous

This was a key factor for us getting rid of Prime as well. Kept waiting for their service to improve or at least let me only have packages shipped via major carriers. Unfortunately, neither option was available.
Sending objects vs humans is a completely different ballgame, so this comparison doesn't look valid. And Karman's line is not very well defined - see https://www.livescience.com/63166-outer-space-border-karman-....
There are no fully automated train networks even close to the size and complexity of the MTA. Afaik they're mostly really simple point to point trains. Upgrading the 7 line to CBTC costs billions, and that line was expressly chosen because of its limited interactions with other trains.

Making the entire NYC subway "driverless" would probably cost on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars, if it could be done at all. There are more cost effective ways to reduce dwell times, to use your example.
For those where no FDIC insurance is a dealbreaker, I recently signed up for SoFi Money https://www.sofi.com/money/fees/ which is FDIC insured up to 1.5m, offers 2% APY checking, and unlimited ATM fee rebates from any ATM in the world.
Yes, that's a big part of it. Also, if you want to do something like (for example) keyword spotting in audio on a small device, like a Cortex-M class processor, the constraints are really really difficult to satisfy: most of them have significantly less than 1MB of main memory, for a start! Like this guy, for example: https://openmv.io/products/openmv-cam-m7 -- 512KB of RAM, and it runs at 216MHz. You just can't run tensorflow on something like that; it takes real effort to produce something that can do inference in that context.

With that said, the techniques we've developed here are totally applicable to GPUs as well, and you might even expect that something like algorithmic choice would have an even bigger effect there, if we're just talking about delta-execution-time, but that's future work for us!
Some of us still do, it's easy to call people from groups unfamiliar to us useless or worse.
At least in the future we won't have to suffer the indignity of being gunned down by military robots doing a silly walk.
I think it's because the vikings were also prolific explorers and traders, with great curiosity for the cultures they visited and traded with.
Why not just add a comment system to the doc page?
As a stylistic claim, their statement about however is also incorrect. They could have easily turned up examples of this exact use from well-regarded writers over the last few centuries. On what basis is using however at the beginning of a main clause with the sense of 'nevertheless' unclear or careless?

A worse example of 'careless writing' is writing about things you don't actually have much idea about, but with an air of authority.
I don't know, I just can't see this as a meaningful representation.
Maybe I'm biased because I don't check my phone all the time - but you could get a snapshot of me in most of these situations. It would just not be an accurate depiction of how I live my life. It's like "hey I have a picture of you washing your hands, how many minutes per day do you spend in front of a sink?".

Sure, everyone who goes to concerts knows those people who film every minute. But if you time it right you'll also see me taking a quick picture, that's a few seconds once or twice on a 3h concert.
Who are you talking to here?
What a hilarious story. Talking about email ethics. I remember myself doing a similar mistake, new at work. This old timer came barging into my cubicle and commanding me to “stop emailing all!”.
> the use of slack significantly lowers the transaction cost of adding the documentation. In a wiki, where there is a certain level of quality expected ...

The wikis I've used also have slow editing interfaces because they have separate read and edit modes. Does anyone know of a modeless wiki, which probably means one that allows you to edit-in-place?

The problem with modes is that to edit something on a sizeable page you must,

1. Load the page in read mode

2. Read/search to locate the spot on the page where your edit goes, read the context around it, and plan the edit.

3. Load the page in edit mode

4. Read/search to locate the spot on the page where your edit goes

5. Type your edit

6. Reload the page in preview mode (a form of read mode)

7. Read/search to locate your edit and verify it

8-?. Repeat steps 5-7 until your edit is correct.

N. Reload the page in read mode.

Compare to a modeless wiki:

1. Load the page in read mode

2. Read/search to locate the spot on the page where your edit goes, read the context around it, and plan the edit.

3. Edit until satisfied
Had this experience while growing in NYC, near chinatown and the flushing area. It's not that I didn't believe them, I simply found their information to be ridiculous and theres no way the chinese government actually engages in that kind of behavior. Oh boy, was I wrong.
Alright, we've updated the title from “Photographer Removes Phones from Photos”.
It's actually already taken care of. Basically, most of them are beyond what the current technology can achieve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire

This is a good read. So the one mentioned in OP may work for some but it may be only useful for very limited set of these fires. We know too little about things under the surface. I'd say we have zero chance to conquer them until we can have a deep earth CT (just like CT of your brain).

60M for a technology which would be the future, yes. 60M for something only works for a few limited cases, probably not.
> Or vote for someone you actually believe in even if they are not likely to win. Maybe I'm crazy but I believe voting for the lesser of two evils

No you are not crazy, you just haven't studied the game theory of voting. In our old, outdated first-past-the-post voting system voting, according to game theory you should vote for the less or 2 evils. A vote for a 3rd party that has no chance of winning is no different than not voting at all. Most people intuitively get this, which is why we are stuck with a 2 party system.

There are better more democratic system like Maine's rank choice voting. There you can safely vote for your favorite candidate without worrying about the spoiler effect. If you want to learn more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Well, Trey Harris at least claims that it really happened ( but he may have taken liberty with some details): https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail-faq.html
Cashier was shocked when I used my contactless card in middle of SF. She nearly screamed "WHAT DID YOU JUST DO???". Meanwhile even in smallest villages of Europe no one bats an eye anymore. America is bizarre!
I feel like, if you never use Prime Video, you never use Prime Now, and you don't mind some extra clicking (and/or aren't price sensitive about shipping), I see how Prime might not be the best deal.

But Prime Now in particular has been extremely useful, especially for multi-day trips to different cities, where I can save myself a trip to a grocery store or drug store to get supplies.

Also: Prime Video is pretty solid! It's how you get to watch Patriot!
Also, if you've read any of the stories about digitization in financial firms, they are totally incapable of hiring their own geeks because it would displace very, very rich people who would have to do the hiring.
On the one hand, I hear what you are saying, but on the other hand, I share the original poster’s frustration with what seems to be a culture that wants to force Simula 67 / C++ / Java as the last word on how everything MUST be done.

He’s venting, not evangelizing.

And his solution is a lot shorter and easier to follow than the drawn out OOP style version, even if I would have put the 2 functions in the returned object literal on their own lines.
First, the definition of JS has nothing to do with W3C. (Also for HTML, nobody really cares what W3C thinks anyway)

Second, the rules of how JS is standardised is that changes are actually not allowed to go into the final spec until at least two major players implement support. So this is _exactly_ how it's meant to be done.

A substantial amount of discussion and consideration has already happened prior to this point, as well as implementations into transpilers (eg Babel) which people have been using for some time.

This comment explains a bit further: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18676717
Developer experience on GCP is vastly superior to AWS.

- Pricing on GCP is much easier, no need to purchase reserved instances, figure out all the details and buried AWS billing rules. Run your GCP instances and automatically get discounts. AWS reserved instances requires knowing your instance types, knowing that you can purchase the smallest type of an instance class and combine, knowing that you can only purchase 20 reserved instances per zone/per region in an account. So many gotchas.

- GCP projects by default span all regions. It is much easier if you run multiple regions, all services can communicate with all regions. Multi-region in AWS is sort of a nightmare, setting up VPC peering, can't reference security groups across regions, etc..

- Custom machine types. With GCE, you simply select the number of cores you need and memory. No trying to decipher the crazy amount of AWS instance types T2, T3, M5, M5a, R5, R5a, C5, C5n, I3...

- Instance attached block storage is easier to grok and in my experience is much faster than EBS. The bigger the disk on GCE, the more IOPS. No provisioned IOPS madness.
How do you know they can make $2 on $5 organic blueberries in the winter that they have to ship in from Peru or Mexico? $5 is a typical price I see for organic at other stores as well.
An adolescent isn't a fully developed human being, aka an adult. That's medically verifiable.