skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You seem to know a bit about the subject, I'll take the opportunity to ask a few questions if you don't mind (well, anyone else can answer too).

I am scouring the internet in the search of any snippets of information that actually links those youtubers / podcasters together.

Other than being at the center of controversies and having a lot of public notoriety, I'm not seeing anything. Even their ideologies and philosophies are not the same.

From my point of view, it almost seems like a huge misunderstanding... or perhaps a smearing campaign but I'm not one to cry wolf.

The situation is somewhat similar to that time mainstream media was implying relationship between youtubers based on 3rd degrees connections that occurred after collaborations. "X worked with Y. Y also worked with Z who is evil. X must be evil".
Noone said anything about sympathy. And lack of sympathy is irrelevant to legal liability.
While gold has a much later stage "shared illusion of value" that comes from its brand and emotional associations, I'd argue that Bitcoin is extremely similar, just much earlier stage.

The purported uses of gold have no relevance, they're just part of the illusion of gold having value. We value 3 swimming pools of an arbitrary substance at 7 trillion dollars. There is no utility that even justifies 1% of this valuation. It does not produce dividends.

Would you rather speculate on a "shared illusion of value" that has massive room to grow into the digital age, or one that is potentially reaching peak levels of absurdity?

Both assets are illusory bullshit - but you can make a lot of money trading bullshit.
Any established prior convention can factor into such a discussion, even if it doesn't concern javascript (and since it didn't have private properties before, all established prior conventions will be from other languages and/or domains).
Electron and Falcon 9 have have entirely different capabilities. Electron may be more flexible but it's unable to launch geosynchronous satellites, which are by far the most profitable in the launch industry.
There's nothing wrong with extremely likely if defined. Even without a strict definition people have some understanding of what it means. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/what-likely-and-e...
I’ve entirely given up when I encounter a Google captcha. It thinks I’m a robot 90+% of the time and takes so long it’s just not worth it.
> Signal is great and all but does it scale? If half a billion people sign up tomorrow can they cope? How deep are their coffers?

At least $50 million, courtesy of a WhatsApp founder: https://www.wired.com/story/signal-foundation-whatsapp-brian...
Boss: “Ed, what are you doing?”

Me (proud): “I am reading a book about building modern Java apps with GWT.”

Boss: "What the hell are you doing wasting time reading on company time? Bob knows GWT, ask him if you have any questions, we have a deadline to meet! I don't pay you to learn, I pay you to know! If you don't know, I'll replace you with somebody else who does, there are a million people in India who will do your job for 10 cents a day, so you'd better get in line right now and start already knowing everything, you worthless lazy programmer!"
Exercise hormone tied to bone-strengthening benefits
I don't write C# but I also dislike this notation in C++. If I want to make it obvious that I'm accessing a member then I write "this->member".

IMO it was a mistake for C++ to allow the "this" to be implied for members, it makes it a lot harder to figure out what C++ code is doing and what's dealing with member variables and methods vs. globals. At the same time "m_" prefix only solves half of the problem because it doesn't help with method calls. That's why I prefer to drop the 'm_' and just put the "this->" everywhere, even when it's not mandatory.
the older i get, the less insightful these types of posts sound. It's advice that sounds good because it takes the burden of "keeping up" off, and makes those that do seem like they're chasing their own tail. On the flip side, I've worked with old timers that stopped looking at new shiny things and wrote their code the way they did 10-20 years ago. and guess what it was pure shit (2000+ line long stored procedures with business code that makes sense only to creator) and i am sure they're still coding that way.

the truth?

learning to code is like pulling on a yarn. whatever makes you continue to be curious and go deeper will ultimately make you better. sometimes that means learning new frameworks just to point out good/bad parts about them. sometimes it means learning the "bare metal" technologies that are more boring (they're not, it's all how you look at it). simply saying "don't learn frameworks" is lazy, not insightful or helpful. Frameworks an abstraction that are there for a reason. Those who truly understand those reasons will be best positioned to get most value out of using said frameworks. at the very least you'll learn about another "opinion" on how code should look/work, and be free to agree or disagree with it
Padovan: A dream come true
A great "simple beginner language" would be Lua, if only it had a decent standard library.
make no mistake, the rest of the world's leaders don't see China as a dystopian hellhole, they see it as a proof of concept. The only way to stop this is now, to strike hard and reject it entirely. Because once it's fully implemented any future rebellions will be able to be snuffed out in their infancy.

IE:
Government sees a group of people visiting suspicious websites, they use phone location tracking to see that a small group is meeting up in person, government then uses facial recognition to track them 24/7 and eventually finds an excuse to arrest them before the movement can grow

Although I doubt people will do anything, we're too comfortable and they'll simply boil us like frogs, pushing privacy rights back inch by inch until people finally realize they are against the edge of a cliff
>By the same means, Python has distinct silos of code for each version. And the community keeps dragging along the old versions. So you end up with a lot of old, dead Python code that keeps getting dragged along because nobody wants to spend the time porting it to the latest version. As far as I can tell, nobody creates new code for Python2, but we drag it along because nobody's ported the needed code to Python3.x. At the official Python web site, their documentation is actively maintained and available for Python 2.7, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 -- because they can't decide to give up on the old code. Python is like the zombie of programming languages -- the dead just keep walking on.

I think I could make a comment on every one of this authors 'gripes' but I'll just do one for now.

Does this author think a minor version update should immediately EOL the previous version (3.5,3.6)? And obviously this author never heard that Python 2.7 is EOL 2020 [1]. But you know just reading this author's problems that if Python 2.7 had been EOL right after 3 released, or if a minor version upgrade immediately EOLs the previous minor versions (seriously, how is this a complaint?) he'd be posting about that instead of these 'which version do I choose' issues.

I just honestly can't believe a developer would complain about maintaining code for 'too long'.

[1] https://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/
Fart spray and glitter are temporary and relatively harmless. Permanent dye in someone's home are car is just being a jerk.
Show HN: Polar 1.5 /w Cloud Sync. Manage your reading /w annotations and tagging
I still don't see why this is an issue in Javascript. PHP, the canonical hate-it dynamically-typed language, does not have this issue.

Sure, you say, that's because in PHP a public property and a private property cannot have the same name. Correct. Why is this a requirement? What problem is this trying to solve? In e.g. older Python we would use the convention of a leading underscore to indicate that a property is private, even if technically one _could_ access it publicly it was understood that is a bad idea to do in practice. It's not a security issue - in every language one could read the "private" properties by some method or another. Reflection, for instance. Or, back to PHP, by casting the object to an array (I did mention that PHP is the canonical hate-it dynamically-typed language).
I know, I just don't think it being common makes it right.

There are also untold numbers of fascinating patents which never see commercial success, duplication of effort, and arguing about who gets the biggest slice of a cake that doesn't exist yet.

It's ineffective, and therefore I don't like it.
My suggestions would be Programming Pearls 2nd Ed and The Practice of Programming. Classics, for sure, but so much good in them it'll make any programmer better for having read them.
Frameworks are most valuable in 2 situations:

1. You are going to be using this framework in multiple different projects, so the time investment will yield time savings returns over the course of multiple projects as well as ease of maintenance of each project over time. This accelerates further with popular frameworks that have common bolt-on functionality.

2. You need multiple people to work on the same code base under a specific set of standards. Your options there are to either, select a framework for which those rules already exist OR to create your own framework of rules and then teach them to other people. People generally want to invest in portable knowledge and are much less likely to want to invest in your framework than they are in a framework they can use either at home or in other jobs.

Neither of these apply in situations where the code surface is very small or isolated, so be wary of increasing the size of the code base with a framework where it isn't necessary or valuable.
If they were object properties, then they wouldn't really be private.

You can't throw an error on `this["#foo"]` because then you'd be publicly exposing the fact that a private field `this.#foo` exists.
> Which would you rather have? A 1.5m tunnel, or an energy source that would change the future of human civilization?

Well obviously fusion. But just because we throw money at it doesn't mean it will come to pass. Throwing money at it just means there's a chance it will come to pass. I'm sure historically there were lots of up and coming technologies that looked promising, we threw a bunch of money at it, and then it turned out something else was more viable.
I agree that learning algorithms is underrated & helps you out with many aspects in life. I can't tell you how often I'm sorting something with someone (like Christmas ornaments) and want to explain the fastest route to sorting them.

I don't believe those books are all common sense though. They capture excellent ideas on working with your team, managing projects & writing your code in a way that is easy for people to understand months & years later. Those skills make up the majority of a lot of developers days. They're also not that common.

-Edit - I can't recall any of those books discussing patterns, which the post author mentions a few times are worth learning. I would highly agree in the value of learning patterns. One of the many patterns books for sure should be mentioned.
> But it simply wasn’t launching that much big stuff.

Just most parts of the ISS
That's it exactly.

I live in an inexpensive area, and purchased my five(-ish) bedroom home for ~$125k. It would cost about $240k to rebuild, exclusive of the cost of the land.

When buying homeowner's insurance, my interest is that I would not lose value in the event of my home's destruction; I want to be able to buy another home of similar value and not owe more money than I already did. However, my mortgage requires that I insure the home's replacement value, and no insurer that I could find would cover me for only $125k.

This results in what I believe to be a negative incentive: assuming no equity, I currently owe $125k and have a home. If my home were to burn to the ground tomorrow, I would have a check for $240k. I'd then use that check to pay off my existing mortgage and buy a home of similar value outright - leaving me a profit of ~$115k in the process.
It is usually the "first language" of choice these days, when teaching programming.
i dont know if its hype. its seems like a very deliberate form of technical marketing. when I was being programmed to be a Googler, they stood up in front of us and listed all the foundational contributions the Google made out of whole cloth, and could only keep repeating 'but, but, but..' to myself. (which isn't to say there isn't alot of new technical meat behind them, but collectively they sure do rush to claim exclusive credit)

thanks for the thesis pointer, i went down the distributed dataflow path later (but also before Google), and I'd love to read it.
They're the best, absolutely tremendous work, amazing people. Make privacy great again!
I must ask; which industry could be worse than software for this?
They'll simply pass a law making disguises/obfuscation illegal in public.

Because why would anybody who's not a criminal or up to no good have any issue with the tracking, right?
State of the art virtual assistants offer little intelligence over a command line interface, except instead of typing the command line in, you say it. Besides that, not much difference; the syntax is rigid and the computer doesn't understand your utterance more intelligently than GCC understands "gcc -o my_prog my_prog.c".
Are you implying that developers sit around reading books at their job? Usually books are reserved for their free time.
Multiple radio stations exist in parallel and you dont have to listen to any of them. Once you put up one speaker system at a location, like a central park that is the focus of a protest, you drown out everyone else. You are in control of the communication infrastructure and bought yourself an authority position.

The question of who is providing and controlling infrastructure is a real threat to protest movements, as it is easily possible to co-opt a political movement through funds this way.

We have clear limits on what lobbying is allowed to do and what kind of interference in a democratic system through funds is prohibited. Take vote buying as an extreme example or simply the ordinary regulations over campaign financing. We dont have that clear cut rules for what is acceptable in the case of non parliamentary political movements. Calling the targeted funding and co-opting of political movements problematic is appropriate in my opinion.
>This is because a private field, as defined in the spec, must not interfere with object properties.

Why couldn't it? E.g why not let it interfere...
I know I'm going to get downvoted for this, but glitter is a microplastic – I hope we'll see it being used less in the future.
Do you think that anyone could run SQL queries on that database? Only government people will have access to it, the politicians can add a new law to exclude themselves from the database searches.
Inside Shenzhen’s Race to Outdo Silicon Valley
No.

Manned space flight is known to be way more expensive than cheap, rocket satellite launches. There never was a comparison.

The Shuttle was going to be cheaper than manned rockets, and frankly, probably was. I can't imagine who much it would cost to put up a manned rocket to do some of the retrofitting of Hubble, for example. I don't even think their is proper vehicles for that in existence! So it would be out of the question in terms of cost.

The shuttle did mostly what it was supposed to, it just got old. And there is the space station to do science.
For scripting, there's nothing better than Python (that I know of).
Since spaceX’s first commercial launch was in 2013, I’d say GP was not entirely wrong
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-loui...

Wasn't a homeless person, but in St. Louis Missouri a house isn't out of the question.
Most of the points in this article fall on a continuum between irrelevant to dead wrong.

1 (versions) and 2 (installation) have to do with the ecosystem, not the language. Unsigned packages are a real problem, but hating on community-maintained software is just weird. Most software in your local Linux distro's repository is maintained by a "community" that might just be one person working in their spare time.

3 (syntax) seems to be about not supporting the author's own highly idiosyncratic habits, which include deep nesting and putting debug code in the first column (ugh). The result actually seems better for maintainability than the author's own unconstrained code would be.

4 (includes) is in the "exactly wrong" category. Includes as in C/C++ are a horrible way to handle module interfaces. Really, just about the worst option available. Modules are far better, and if the author hates the fact that importing a module might run initialization code wait until s/he finds out about constructors (including __init__ and __attribute__((constructor)) even in C).

5 (nomenclature) is also a bit insane. Lists aren't called arrays in Python because they're not arrays. Next!

6 (quirks) criticizes quote handling in Python, but mentions bash's quote handling without a word of comment about how that's even worse. Different languages have different quoting conventions. Python's might not be perfect, but many are far worse. Get over it.

7 (pass by reference) is another totally-wrong one. Passing by value is not the universal norm in other languages, and it's not even clear what it means sometimes because of deep vs. shallow copies. Passing by reference is almost certainly better for efficiency, and often for correctness as well when copies becoming inconsistent with each other is a concern. I'd rather have pass-by-reference as the default, and have to work to make copies, than the other way around.

8 (local names) barely even make sense. Shadowing names, whether of variables or of modules/libraries, is a bad idea anyway. If you want the library and the program not to have the same name, use a prefix for each role. Expecting the language to handle this for you is just asking for trouble.
> If I could invest in SpaceX, I would.

I wouldn't because I don't trust Elon Musk's honesty with investors.

Also, I don't understand the argument "I would invest because positive thing X" - how does it imply that buying the company at market price is more profitable than buying a stock index?
Dvorak (for example) is an attempt to optimise for english text, so it is worth it at some level. I have no idea how applicable it is to other languages.
Would you mind sharing how?
> If the media type returns items and actions, a well coded client should be able to handle it (whether it is to show it as GUI and provide controls or do some automated response etc).

In a web service context, is there a HATEOAS web client library that I can use to make service calls without having to specify endpoints and request formats ahead of time?

> Instead of following HATEOAS guidelines, people hardcode routes...and then they also have to be versioned etc. (`api/v2/posts`).

In the web service use case, it's considerably simpler to define and specify a set number of endpoints ahead of time, define request and response formats, document that specification in OpenAPI, and use versioning if the API itself changes. This isn't RESTful. It's just RPC over HTTP. But it works and it's not "silly".
Europe Is Dying?
Negative reviews can generally be tracked easily by registered user. It seems like a good enough idea that the force of negative reviews should fall off exponentially with respect to frequency per user that I'm surprised its either not done more, or more apparent.

If someone complains all the time about everything, the people around them quickly learn to ignore it. Our systems should too.
TBH the efficiency thing is irrelevant. I once compared std::sort and qsort on large integer arrays (which is where you can expect the greatest speedup) and the speedup was less than 2x on my machine. Furthermore the cases where sorting could ever become a noticeable bottleneck are pretty rare.

Meanwhile each std::sort instantiation costs a few hundred bytes of machine code and increases the project's compilation times.

When performance ever matters, you tune your sort algorithm and implementation to the data - you use a bucket sort for example. Much larger speedups than 2x to be had this way. std::sort cannot do that.

I like the type safety of std::sort vs qsort, though, even though I don't find pursuing "type safety" a good idea in general.
Not what I expected but pretty cool.
reminds me on Mark Twains love for the german language
https://www.cs.utah.edu/~gback/awfgrmlg.html
For civilians not much over the block IIR Modernized satellites but the more LxC CNAV capable satellites out there the more cm accurate civilian GNSS coverage we get.

Hopefully if all BIII launches are on schedule will get full L1C and L2C coverage by 2023 which would allow cm and sub cm accuracy with dual channel receivers to be used everywhere.

Especially since GPS and Galileo decided to play nice and the compatibility was agreed upon we will be getting better and better GNSS for general purpose use.
How to install Linux software from source
Those languages use references rather than pointers (that is, their referring-things do not support arithmetic), so any name for what they do that involves "pointer" is a poor one.

The distinction between passing the value of a reference being used by the caller and passing a reference to the caller's stack is so rarely important or useful that there's no consensus terminology for it. The distinction that's actually relevant and useful is whether, when we write f(a), f receives the (thing we would call the) value of a or a reference to the value of a (and in particular whether f can change the value of a). In Python, f can change the value of a (that is to say, the thing Python programmers understand to be the value of a); therefore Python is pass by reference as the term is usually understood (and certainly any term for its call style that uses "value" is more misleading than calling it "pass by reference").
'Bambi' as punishment? Sentence in SW Missouri poaching case
I can't tell if this is serious or not. That's how sad some situations really are, I guess.
THE MAD SCRAMBLE TO CLAIM THE WORLD'S MOST COVETED METEORITE
There are many more conventional ways to steal and embezzle. Not sure what your point is.
Not accurate. The private fields described in the spec are not properties on the object's map. Thats why they need to differentiate intention at the call site.

The current idea is that private fields are kinda like this:

export class Bar {
#foo = 100;

setFoo(value) {
this.#foo = value;
}

getFoo() {
return this.#foo;
}

getFooFromOtherBar(otherBar) {
return otherBar.#foo;
}
}

// similar to (but implemented differently I'm sure)

const barPrivate = new WeakMap(); // properties are only private if this is never exported

export class BarWithoutPrivateFields {
constructor() {
barPrivate.set(this, {});
barPrivate.get(this).foo = 100;
}

setFoo(value) {
barPrivate.get(this).foo = value;
}

getFoo() {
return barPrivate.get(this).foo;
}

getFooFromOtherBar(otherBar) {
return barPrivate.get(otherBar).foo;
}
}

It is NOT a property key!
The space shuttle was to be America's "pickup truck to space". It was designed to haul everything from polar-orbiting spy satellites to interplanetary scientific missions, as well as being an on-orbit research platform. In fact, naively for the first few years it even looked like it hit those goals. At first.
The root of the problem is centralized platforms. The future consists of platforms which are:

1) End to end encrypted, with clients sharing keys as needed

2) Distributed hash tables route every activity to a few servers (per activity) which run consensus

3) Automatic rebalancing when some server is taken out

Simple? Well, this is the future. Not blockchains, but this.

MaidSAFE, Holochain, Intercoin and others are building it.

You can even make realtime push via sockets in this model, though anything realtime compromises anonymity.