skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I'll second this: Using a set of progressive problems is an excellent way to get used to actually writing code in a language.

IME AoC isn't really progressive though, the problems ramp up and down pretty dramatically.

> Scheme. Guile. The PEG parsing module. (There's no kill like overkill.)

Rust has several pretty good parsing libraries e.g. nom, lalrpop, pest, …
> Humans in general are pretty shitty, driven mostly by self-interest.

Maybe that's true. Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe it's projection. In any case, the real question is whether the people who say it are trying to make it at least a bit better or just using it as an excuse.
Is there any data available for those more likely to be depressed ouf of these or similar categories:

1) Atheists
2) Creationists (of all religions)
3) Non practicising creationists (of all religions)

I'm not promoting any of the above here but I would like to see if there is any correlation between those who believe in a higher purpose and whether they are less or more likely to feel existential depression as they feel there is a reason to be here vs just being here to procreate because of evolution.
Bug: true and false are not Posix (2016)
Convenience unfortunately seems to be higher valued than privacy by many. This held true for a web agency I worked for. Getting things done, even with proprietary tools, stood above all. The privacy policy was read later, or not at all.
Are your colleagues unwilling to share their reasoning at all, or just not with you? Your comments here come across as arrogant and condescending. If your co-workers are picking up the same attitude from you then they won't be inclined to spend time explaining every little thing to you.

As you gain more real world experience you'll also find that logic isn't necessarily helpful for making good decisions in most circumstances.
I don't agree with this at all. If you break up youtube from google, I think people will treat those very separately - they serve very different purposes. Same with facebook and instagram.
Back in the mid-00s there was a logo sweatshop called Arteis (later bought by HP) where people of widely disparate creative backgrounds pumped out logos for businesses, some as many as a few dozen a day. They, too, all looked pretty much cut from a template, because thinking requires time and the pay was about 1/10th you'd pay an equivalent Graphic Designer to do it over their lunch hour. It's just generating pretty cookie-cutter stuff whether by hand or by machine.

You definitely get what you pay for, either way.
"From 1980 through 2001, if you had bought the average IPO at its first public closing price and held on for three years, you would have underperformed the market by more than 23 percentage points annually."
I agree with his sentiment that technological improvements lead to further concentration of wealth and power which is bad for people in general. Considering that wealth and power control governments, how does he envision governments offseting this trend of power/wealth accumulation?

At least here in the US, we are following europe and china in less freedom, greater government control and stronger centralized power/data/etc. I doubt canada is any better in this regard.

So where does he see government stepping in when it's in the government's self-interest and it's in the self-interest of the elite s to centralize even further and continue to accumulate wealth/power?
if such things are meant to be monopolistic

I think there's a very important truth in this sentence!

then the state should manage it

Do states have such a good track record with Internet tech.? I'm thinking of Korea and their mandated shopping encryption ActiveX.

IoT security is another are where lots of bad things are happening and an argument for state management could be made. How about the control of all IoT things, like webcams and smart assistants, go through government infrastructure? That way, they can 1) enforce security practices and 2) actually implement Orwell's total surveillance state from 1984.
Thou idea is cool it product in itself. As you need a k8s person you would need istio person. It has lots of interconnected components, it own configuration primitives (lots of them) and if any of them misconfugured or wonky (looking at you mixer) you will have to spend days debugging it (mixer produce 10k of unreadable logs a second).

It’s great if you know it’s codebase. Not for general case.
And there's the way around public domain, open data, and free citizen access and usage requirements.

The contractors don't have to be.

It's the same reason why most people stay out of federal jobs - you can't make more than the president. But if you're a consultant working for the gov't, you can get paid $$$$$.
Or you can use sort_by_key and extract the relevant sorting key as a tuple (or any other Ord structure) e.g.

vec.sort_by_key(|d| (d.year, d.month, d.day))

sort_by is more flexible as it works fine with borrows, but when sorting on a series of integer values or references sort_by_key is great.

> Alternatively you can derive PartialCmp for your struct, which will produce a lexicographic ordering based on the top-to-bottom declaration order of the struct's members:

Do you mean PartialOrd? partial_cmp is the method. And `sort` requires absolute ordering (Ord) not just partial.
Here’s the CMU equivalent course, which interestingly was also designed by students:

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~15131/f17/
If the counterfeiter has a history of actually providing the money back, they may actually be quite trustworthy.

I don't know much about counterfeiters, but with ransomware, there's the danger that you pay the ransom and the criminal doesn't decrypt the data they were holding for ransom. If ransomware hackers don't decrypt the data regularly, they'll gain that reputation and people won't pay out the ransoms, which destroys their business model. So ransomware hackers almost always decrypt their victims' data.

I suspect something similar happens with counterfeiters and other DNM sellers: they actually have to provide good customer service, including refunds when promised, in order to keep a good reputation.

EDIT: I'll also add, that assuming people doing illegal things don't follow a system of ethics is a very "square" viewpoint. Sure, some criminals do behave completely amorally, but many simply have ethical systems which don't agree with the law.
Yes, but you may change your minde after writting it. Sometime you write something, and it's not what you think it would have been, and you don't want people to read it anymore.
Actually companies throw fits when the government contributes to open-source, especially when it comes to lucrative defense related stuff [0].

[0]: https://www.wired.com/2012/07/nsa-accumulo-google-bigtable/
These articles get old after...decades of the same b.s. Especially now in the era of clickbait.
I would not characterize the "hamburger menu" as an "additional page". I would call that a "flyout". An additional page means that you navigate away - so you'd then be navigating to a sub-page that displays more links, if you did it that way.
water and coffee only, from dinner to dinner
Ask HN: Data Scientist – Career Change to OS/Kernel or Embedded Developer
I have been a data scientist for the last 5 years working remotely full-time.

However, I've found I don't enjoy the analysis, prediction/forecasting, and visualization portion of the job. On the other hand, I truly enjoy the programming portion; working on optimizing the machine learning code, the ETL tasks etc...

Additionally, I have completed a few projects with the Raspberry Pi and Arduino. These projects I truly enjoy even though they are trivial in comparison to my paid work.

Three questions:

Given 3 - 5 years to learn the material necessary for low-level work, would I be able to find a comparable position that I have now - predominately working remotely?

What are the specific areas/topics I should focus on learning i.e., must know to advanced level, should have a general understanding of, should have seen at least once etc...?

Are there are other routes you all would recommend or just staying my current path?

Thank you in advance.
That is by far the easier avenue. You can try to come up with some sort of amorphous definition of harm to the consumer w.r.t. excessive tracking and stuff, but you come up against the problem that the government is actually pretty cool with all that stuff. It'll be wrapped up in a prettier bow for public consumption, but that's the fundamental problem.

If you don't look at the public face of the companies and look at their balance sheets and income statements instead, you get a very different view of things, and they certainly look monopolistic and/or monopsonistic in some key areas. (Monopsony is the buy-side equivalent of a monopoly, where a market has only one buyer.) Advertising is a pretty significant one. An example of monopsony is that right now, while there's a crapton of places you can host your own video streams, only YouTube is an effective mechanism for monetizing them, which is why they can get away with all their shenanigans.

Once you look at it from the balance sheet perspective of these companies, and potentially from a monopsony perspective, there's a lot of avenues for a highly-active government attack against these companies, even if they never claim "the general public" is a direct victim.
> The only practical solution is regulating ethical behavior of these incomprehensibly powerful corporations

Unfortunately, regulating ethics tends to lead us to exactly what is starting to happen... Even centrist and center-left commentators and journalists are starting to see some fallout from the gatekeepers of money/donations/subscriptions online. Most of it is far-right targeted, but there's some bleed and it may expand.

I'm not a fan of extremist points of view. I'm more opposed to censorship as I feel it's far more dangerous than letting idiots talk. When a handful of companies serve as the gatekeepers to the world, it's more important that censorship is minimized, even if they are "private" companies.
This doesn't sound like a liberatarian, at least not in the US. The one with the strongest competitive greed who wins the most money/power is viewed as the end-goal and the most successful under the ideology. Thus, a monopoly is really the end-goal of US libertarianism for they had the highest wealth and are assumed to have the highest drive to have the most wealth. Libertarianism opposes that the will of the people should constrain avarice or rich and powerful. Greed is always good under libertarianism. The philosophy is particular popular for the rich because it is a tool to prevent the will of the people from constraining their power through wealth.

So, Libertarianism blames regulation itself as the cause of monopolies because they look mainly at regulatory capture, which is done through greed-based corruption of government. Libertarian philosophy would view reducing the regulation, and thus any constraint on Facebook's avarice, as the solution to Facebook's monopoly.

So, you shouldn't, as a libertarian, propose trust-busting regulation for Facebook, as this is the opposite of libertarian.
تحميل لعبة سباق السيارات الاسفلت Asphalt 8 Airborne وتحدى الجاذبية
Google Hired Gig Economy Workers to Improve AI in Drone-Targeting Project
> Again it's nice if you know what it means but the only way to know is through observation of the gauge.

Or you could read the LEAF's fine owner's manual. Search for "Power Meter" and it's described perfectly clearly.
Citadel does this only for internal certa. It does not provision lets encrypt (at least didn’t several months ago)
With a public service we would have a system engineered poorly, like healthcare.gov. The government can't do that kind of thing well.
Congrats Cadran!
I think the analogy is: I want to see the menu and select what I want to eat. But the chef is forcing me to consume it, with the cheese that I don't want, the instant I open the menu.
This looks to be a really great resource. I'm curious to know what your business plan is; I'm very interested in how to make a community platform like this sustainable without compromising user privacy. This is especially important when the community is focused on disadvantaged or minority groups, and I'm always on the lookout for the Right Answer. Have you written on this topic before?
Mostly sortof true, but there are lots of complications.

I've delved into this. For lots of detail on the current situation, see my paper, "Publicly Releasing Open Source Software Developed for the U.S. Government" by David A. Wheeler, https://www.csiac.org/journal-article/publicly-releasing-ope...

In almost all cases, if a US Federal employee writes software as part of his/her official duties, then there is no copyright IN THE UNITED STATES. There are a few exceptions (e.g., US Post Service Employees). Also, copyright doesn't apply in the US - but outside is a different matter (though enforcing said copyright is more complicated, and I would argue the US shouldn't try). More importantly, there may not be a copyright, but that doesn't guarantee release to the public (and often there isn't). You can ask via a FOIA, but that's no guarantee you'll get it.

HOWEVER: Most software developed by government funds is developed, at least in part, by contractors. And that is a COMPLETELY different circumstance. The details, unsurprisingly, depend on the contract.

If you're interested in the DoD, I suggest going to the MIL-OSS mailing list:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/mil-oss

It's possible to release software to the public. One approach is to get pre-approval where "as long as the changes meet this scope, and follow these rules, it's okay to post the changes." But you have to get local buy-in.

In short: In a lot of places in the US federal government it's definitely difficult to do what in the rest of the world is normal.

In the US, state/local/tribal is completely different, and I definitely don't claim to know the laws of other countries. Others can explain that better.
More pedantically, there’s no intelligence in ML; AI doesn’t exist (yet).
Marketers for ad companies live in a world of self delusion.
I’m not telling you to pretend to be nice, I’m telling you to actually be nice. You won’t have to hide those feelings of contempt because you won’t be feeling them. Before you start the conversation, get your brain in a place where you like the person you are talking to.

I used to be convinced I was autistic, I had a really hard time connecting with people. The median number of friends I had in my childhood was one. I might be on the spectrum, I definitely behave in a quirky way and I’m bad at small talk. But since I started taking the antidepressant I’ve had more positive thoughts about other people, which makes me nicer. Suddenly it’s easy to make friends. I went to a bar on Saturday and made a friend and he invited me to hang out at his place tonight. If you had told me that would happen five years ago I would have laughed in your face (or cried inside). Now it’s normal.

Most people want to like people. You have to give them reasons to not like you. If they sense aggression from you, that’s the best reason for them to not like you. You don’t have to play the part of a normal guy perfectly. You just have to be a decent person who doesn’t behave like they are surrounded by Ferengi.
Carving up a company is never easy. I'd say, clone out the search engine entirely, and as to the question of who owns google.com, the answer may well be "none of the above"; it could just turn into a page that offers you a randomly-sorted list of the baby Googles.

Business being what it is, even if you simply fork Google, both new halfs are immediately going to seek out some way to differentiate themselves, so I think it's less silly than it sounds.
Public transit is in better shape even in poor republics of the USSR. I rode public transit in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and both were better than the NYC public transit. I am not even talking about CTA and SEPTA.
I just priced one, they are almost double the price of this, so if quality is there this could still be a good deal.
Thanks for sharing those very poignant experiences. I can personally relate to having an emotional response to something that I then recognize as somehow askew. In fact, given the complexity of the human emotional apparatus, I'm betting we've all had the experience of a mismatched response through various insecurities, injuries, etc, that manifest as projection and other defense mechanisms.

The key to emotional health then, may come down to a question of degree and/or recognition when thinking is askew.
A Greater Gatsby: Modern, Static-Site Generation
I used to be a contractor and worked on a web application distributed across multiple web servers. We needed a state server at the time to hold some cached information and share it among the servers. Now there was a rule that said a web server was not directly allowed to communicate with the database. Okay I get it, that makes sense.

The state server we were going to use to store some application metadata had the word "database" in the product name. For that reason alone we got flat out rejected.

I said to them, "So it's OK to store all the stuff we need in memory and on the file system on the servers, just not stored in the state server."

Their response was, "Yes, because it's not in a database."

We finally switched to another product that did not have the word database in the name, and they were completely fine with it.
How well does it do? Would you have a link?
I don’t care about them selling it. I care about them having it to start with.
There are a lot of things the address bar on my web browser does that would be useful in an interactive shell, I think.
How to Be Productive When Your Life Is in Chaos (2018)
They invested as part of their partnership [0] to provide a successor to Hipchat after Stride was DOA.

[0] https://www.atlassian.com/blog/announcements/new-atlassian-s...
It's a distinction without a difference. At the end of the day, the deal was to shut down Hipchat - in exchange Atlassian was paid with shares of Slack.

Might not officially be an "investment" but it more or less amounts to the same thing.
Good article. I hope that trust-busting becomes popular again.

The article did not mention technological intervention in this situation. I believe we will eventually move past the technopolies and decentralized technologies will play a large part.

In my opinion the power and scope of some companies overlaps with or even effectively supercedes government in some ways. To me these are demonstrations of the obsolescence of current government structures.

The all-encompassing networks provided by these monopolies are extremely useful and I believe the main reason we tolerate them. They provide a platform.

Decentralized technologies are becoming increasingly capable and popular. The only realistic alternatives to the giant monopoly companies are platforms built on decentralized technologies. I also suspect that for government to be able to keep up or be effective it also needs to be decentralized and possibly integrated in some way into the decentralized systems or metasystems.
> the majority of users want autoplaying GIFs.

That's an assumption. If you ask users if they want gifs or no auto playing video ads they will choose the latter. And if they don't, so what let them choose.
> I can't think of another industry that has a product as good as the tech companies of today have.

The first step towards saner attitude towards tech is stopping with this glorification of tech.

With the exception of Google or say wikipedia, who have made knowledge accessible in unprecedented manner, modern technology companies (the name is imprecise, because it is really just digital technology) have not as much impact as we think they have.

I can think of a lot of technology products that are much older that have much more impact. The car for example, or something as trivial as the soap, or penicillin and vaccines or the conveyor belt.

If we measure the impact of technology by its influence on economic growth and productivity, human welfare and health, then most 'tech companies' don't make it high up the list. It's not clear that social media actually enhances welfare or productivity. Slack, one of the most valuable companies in recent years, is a reskinned IRC that eats more RAM. I'd say if hard benchmarks are any indication, we're de-innovating.

Sure, there's the argument hat AI is around the corner and soon we'll see an explosion in wealth and pull out of our sluggish growth, but I'll believe it when I see it. Up until then I think the first step is to bring the tech hype down to sane levels.
I'm not surprised by the paranoia. I think it's a natural reaction to the disgusting state of America, one which encourages a kill-or-be-killed mentality.

There is very little of a safety net if you fall through the cracks (and the safety net built up during the 20th century is rapidly being torn down). Health care costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy in America. And if you can't afford your rent/mortgage and don't have any family, well, you're screwed, you're homeless now. At least with your job you have some sense of control over that, you can work harder and better, but that doesn't always matter either. But the fact that you can lose everything over a health issue, that may be (and often is) due to no fault of your own, is obviously going to make people paranoid. It makes you feel entirely powerless and completely at the whim of an unjust system. I went to the ER for chest pains the other day, and I have health insurance, and the bill was $2500. Luckily I can afford that, but how many people could not? The system is basically screaming at you "just die already, we don't care about you."

All of these things encourage a state of fear, where we are all this close to being knocked down into destruction. I think paranoia is a natural reaction to our state of affairs, but obviously everyone handles it differently. Some even thrive in it, because they enjoy that level of brutal competition.
Users who don't contribute back, aren't removing what you have done, or a given government may have funded. Some governments ARE contributing to open-source... other governments using open-source doesn't undo or degrade things.

We are not in a communist/socialist world where every community must pay at the point of a gun for things they don't choose to pay for. And if some government wants to force users of software they develop to contribute to funding, then there licensing should probably be something to reflect that. But then it wouldn't strictly be OSI/Open-Source.
The libertarian argument against government breaking up monopolies is pretty simple, we believe that most monopolies were created by the government in the first place.

Here are some pretty standard arguments:

https://mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopoli...

https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

I'm curious, is there a particular sect of libertarianism that you identify with? I don't think I've heard any of the mainstream branches make the argument you did, and I would like to see how your line of thinking fits into the larger libertarian cannon.
Ingesting this could probably do some nasty things to your gut biome - but remember that we're talking about an herbicide. If you ingested most herbicides you'd be dead shortly after, so this could be much safer.

Edit - ingested herbicides at any meaningful quantity.
Tangentially I suppose.

> The story is that there was a big old legacy business that comfortably sold a standard package of features for a lucrative price, and then a bunch of tech startups came in and questioned everything; they unbundled the service so customers could get what they wanted rather than what the legacy players wanted to sell. It’s just that the tech companies didn’t do it as competitors, by offering the disruptive unbundled product, but as customers, by demanding it.