skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I want to get on my moral high-horse and question why Netflix would give a platform to this... snake oil, but I don't know if that's just because my expectations of Netflix's integrity are / were set too high (probably because they were disrupting industries that sorely needed it, so I assumed a higher calling... no, doesn't entirely make sense).

Netflix appears to be aiming to profit off a company profiting from its consumers' gullibility, and in doing so increasing the reach of said company in finding more gullible consumers.

I hope it's a case of giving them enough rope to hang themselves (or giving them enough jade eggs to give themselves yeast infections), but I think it's purely business - attracting a previously un-tapped or under-served consumer-base.
Merging onto a freeway from an on-ramp is different, and zipper merge doesn't usually apply. There's a reason the merge zone is 300-500 metres long (where space permits), and depending on the region, clearly marked with a dashed line. It's up to you to match the speed of traffic, then signal your intention to merge before merging into a gap in traffic. Some on-ramps even have metering lights to space out incoming vehicles to make this process smooth. The only time other vehicles should have to change their speed is in heavy traffic, when a gap might not exist.
Problem with this is that this type of information gets old very fast.
Thank you Mozilla for blocking this annoyance.

Firefox you will rise from the ashes again.
As an Australian driver I like to use what I call the "Robin Hood Rule" - steal from the rich, give to the poor.

What that means is if someone tries to push their way in, I will block them off.

If someone is stuck and trying to get out of a side road / park, I will always let them in.
The author talks a bit about the architecture of PostgreSQL transactions, touching on lazy transaction ID consumption and vacuuming. Notably, writes require IDs but reads do not. So this is focused on write-optimized workloads.

If you want to get the basic tl;dr which answers the headline: these IDs will last so long it’s almost not worth quantifying. This is an obvious calculation even if you assume ostentatatious performance requirements three orders of magnitude greater than the author’s:

2^64 / (86,000 * 1,000,000,000) = 213,503.9

The author uses 1,000,000 writes/second; I prefer 1,000,000,000 since it’s more ridiculous. There are 86,000 seconds in a day. It will take you the better part of a millenium to exhaust those IDs, assuming you consume an average of one billion every single second.

The author didn’t talk about collisions, but those are worth mentioning because you could even confidently assign these randomly instead of incrementally. Since a collision will occur (in expectation) after 2^63 transactions, you shouldn’t even have to worry about a single one occuring (on average) for almost 300 years.

Of course, using 64-bit IDs comes with nontrivial space increase - every single tuple will increase by a factor of 2.

EDIT: Original collision estimate is wrong, see corrections. I took (2^n)/2 = 2^(n-1) as the birthday bound instead of 2^(n/2).
Before you go into negotiations, have a number in mind. Agree if they offer equal or higher, disagree if they offer less.

Your number should be something you're happy (not simply comfortable) with. Like you'd go home all excited to take the job.

Don't be that guy who haggles on everything. In fact, if you encounter a person who haggles on a good offer, reject them. They would be the type who are either unappreciative of what you bring or always looking for more. Those types are dangerous in tech - they're likely to push more responsibility to you (e.g. testing, UI), get you to work after hours for free, manipulate you. They'll often find some excuse to turn down raises, bonuses, claims on benefits like sick days.

Sometimes neither side will name their price first. If forced into showing your hand first, don't highball. Just stick to your number.
What a useless suggestion. The current political setup does not allow electing people based on issues as granular as this. No politicians will make promises about this because only a small population understands why it is important.

Also you know how useless attempting to run yourself is. You will never get anywhere which is good because just having one good idea doesn't make you qualified to lead.

The best thing to do is to start public debate among people who understand the issue and attempt to get those in charge to join in.
Strange. I see it working in practice 80% of the time... I’m on the road a lot, too. “Rettungsgasse” is something that regained popularity in the last years due to strong media push.
Wow, this logo generator is so amazing. Lol, hope logo designers don't get out of the job. But seriously speaking, for small businesses, this is a great tool. I have seen people charging hundreds of dollars just for a logo these days, so this tool is an easy growth hack for startups. Added this to my list of growth hacking tools for startups https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11JtTcBeZ0U3arpYthIrv...
I haven't tried rust in a few years, but I remember it was kind of annoying that you couldn't tell from a function name which parameters would invoke borrow checker stuff. At that time there wasn't great IDE support, but is there a common/idiomatic way of hinting the borrowing of function parameters?
I drove a Toyota CR-V and was really amazed how it manages to burn fuel while decelerating. It is a disgrace of a hybrid vehicle.
Such a thing would not destroy the advertising industry

Then it's not enough.
I agree with the general sentiment of this sort of objection, but where it goes off the rails is the generalization to all sorts of modeling. If you think the model and it's assumptions are wrong why not go build a better model? That's the whole point of the scientific method after all.
Your government owes you access to the software that you funded.
Fair enough. I just noticed this is your field.

So is it your opinion that Sapir Whorf is fundamentally just not true? What is happening when we learn a new concept or new word and start seeing things differently or noticing something more often? In your opinion what is the correct way to think about that if it's not language influencing thought/perception?
Kiwis have this rule, signs saying "Take this tip: merge like a zip!" (think of it said in a happy kiwi accent). Driving in Australia without the rule, merging gets personal quickly.
While I think I'm somewhat in agreement with this, this post seems to be making some claims without backing them up at all:

> To Forrester, low-income housing was an especially egregious example of a “counterproductive” urban program. According to the model, these programs increased the local tax burden, attracted underemployed people into the city, and occupied land which might otherwise have been put to more economically healthy uses. Housing programs aimed at improving the condition of the underemployed, Forrester warned, “increased unemployment and reduced upward economic mobility” and would condemn the underemployed to lifelong poverty.

Where's the data to suggest this is false? In fact it seems to me like something that may hold true in data, even if deeper causes are at fault.

> but we have decades of real-world evidence that demonstrates the disastrous costs of the “counterintuitive” anti-welfare agenda

... with no evidence provided?

Overall they actually seem like pretty reasonable theories at face value and calling them crap without evidence doesn't seem like a good solution if there's a problem with them.
Venezuelan Amnesty Law Analysis (SPANISH VER)
> "Even though Forrester had no expertise in urban affairs—or in social science more generally—Collins agreed that a collaboration could prove fruitful."

This is one of the most interesting sentences to me. I have long been convinced that the efforts to reduce behaviour and models down to pure numbers, and disregard the human element - whether willfully or through ignorance or naivety), are more harmful than we think.

I think we are seeing similar things with how the attempt to 'personalise' services like news by crunching user behaviour into 'predictive' algorithms has led to the rise of echo chambers and fake news.

Or, I suppose you could consider the attempts to reduce bundles of derivatives to simple algorithms, that largely led to the 2008 financial crisis.

It seems a particularly human thing to assume we know far more about what's going on than we actually do.
A MEMS Device Harvests Vibrations to Power the IoT
I can't believe this is even debatable. Near my house there are a couple of lights where the road opens up to two lanes before the light, then after the light narrows back down to one lane.

Obviously people should zipper off before the light to load both lanes evenly and get as many people through the light before it cycles. Then after the light everyone should go forward and re-merge back into a single lane again.

Yet people will stubbornly pile into the left lane before the light leaving the right mostly empty then play games blocking people from merging in after the light.

Well, that's when they actually move through the light in a timely manner if not distracted from texting while stopped at the light :/
Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that proper zippering is simply waiting until the lane ends to merge. You align the right side of your car with the curb and let it weave you into the lane at its own pace. It doesn't necessarily involve speeding ahead to get to that point, although certainly lots of people do that. It minimizes the jostling and speeding up and slowing down that people do to try to actively find a place to fit in.

When traffic is at its peak, it approaches its ideal state: the on-ramp is fully occupied with cars (no space wasted), and everyone's driving at basically the same constant speed up to the merge point, where everyone neatly and cleanly merges, alternating lanes. But if traffic is not at its peak, zippering doesn't require you to race ahead to merge point.

It wouldn't hurt anyone if you did that, of course. Same for everyone else waiting to merge. But there really are lots of people (where I drive at least) who are already on the road/freeway/whatever, who will move onto the (about to end) merging lane, race up to the end of it and force themselves back on the road, a few cars ahead. I've seen so many bad traffic jams made so much worse by people doing this. It makes a bad situation so much worse for everyone. Those are the people the straddlers are guarding against, not the well-mannered zipperers trying to do the right thing.
Thanks! Somehow I've never come across a featherboard.
Sweden has the same laws, but everyone still merges early because some sense of "fairness" kicks in, and people don't understand that they're making any queuing worse by not utilizing all available road surfaces.

I've stopped caring about other people's sense of fairness in these situations, and I always use the empty lane and merge late. The law is on my side, and people can glare and honk as much as they like. I just saved five-ten minutes of not queuing, they could too if they all learned to drive correctly.
They may scan them to make them one time use? Could always program a non-attendees info onto the barcode/mag stripe though.
Sorry, I don't agree, and I feel like I provided evidence why in my first post. To summarize, choosing services like Postgres and S3 doesn't lock you in. SQS and SNS might, but I think it's an exaggerated cost, and that has nothing to do with Lambdas (EC2 instances are just as likely to use SQS or SNS - moreso, given that SQS wasn't supported for Lambdas until recently).

There are tradeoffs, of course. Cost at scale is the really big one - at some point it's cheaper to bring ops/ hardware in-house.

I just don't agree that lock-in is a huge issue, and I really disagree with the idea that lambdas make lock-in harder.
The "merge when you can" mentality that has predominated in the US is the major cause of this. If people would just go down to the merge point and then merge there wouldn't be an issue.

It only leads to the perception of "cutting" when more idiots merge well before the natural merge point then logically where the lanes pinch back down.
Like Tesla? Or Patagonia, or REI, or allbirds, or bullfrog power, or seventh generation?
Your comment is completely irrelevant to the article.
Get 50% Cashback on First Transaction of Payment via Paypal
Yeah that immediately turned me off.
Is there a service that will let you upload a video and then it cross posts it to your YouTube & PeerTube & Vimeo etc.? - similar to those apps that can cross-post a social media post to your Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc.

I like the idea of moving away from Google, but I also think it might be good (in terms of content) if you could post to many platforms instead of one.
Cough, PWA.

https://docs.microsoft.com/de-de/microsoft-edge/progressive-...
Plant a flag on the roof? :P
Samsung Smart Shirt Helps Monitor Lung Function
Sounds like you've described IBM being priced exactly right, given their tenacious longevity.
I'd peg that at '0' unless some override was clicked.
Did you do something about these terrible interviewers? Your company is particularly famous for a terrible interview experience because of interviewers such as this. I've personally experienced them a few times myself, and if you know they are bad, hopefully you've taken them off the interview rotation and reeducated them.
Shouldn't the burden of proof should be on Forrester's model to prove that it is true?

As I understand it, this article is implying that Forrester's model incorporated those as base truths, without particularly rigourous evidence to support them - hence the comment about his lack of social science credentials. (Whether Forrester actually had evidence to support his model I do not know, as I have not dug deeper.)
> Less traffic jams, and money to invest in alternatives.

Assuming the money goes to alternatives, which it typically doesn't, and moreover that there isn't a less regressive way to generate the same money, such as sales or income tax.

> People can still drive during peak times but reduce the cost and congestion by carpooling. People can take other forms of transport, and people can drive at a different time. The end result is that everybody still gets to where they need to be, but without getting stuck in traffic for an hour.

They can already do any of those things, if they were viable for them. You can save hundreds of dollars a year in fuel and vehicle maintenance by carpooling, and then everyone but the driver can read or text or work from the passenger's seat.

The people who are driving alone during rush hour are the people for which that isn't an efficient option -- they already had significant incentives to do it regardless, and it wasn't enough.

> I don't disagree with your alternatives, but they have already been tried and haven't solved the problem.

They haven't solved the problem because they haven't actually been tried. Most of them aren't even a matter of money, they're a matter of eliminating restrictive zoning rules and minimum parking requirements.

> A lot of people take the car because it's what they're used to, and they simply hope traffic won't be too bad. But with a little push, they'll be a bit more likely to try public transport.

Traffic during rush hour is commuters. Commuters know exactly how the traffic is because they're in it every day, and none of them want to be.

And if it was a matter of a little push then the congestion charges wouldn't have to be as high to change behavior. They have to be because sitting in traffic is already terrible and the people doing it are doing it for lack of better options. Provide the options and enough of them will stop doing it.
Google GDPR fine shows 'embarrassing' extent of how firms misuse people's data
NSA hacking tools do regularly become public. Just not intentionally.
Honestly you may want to consider TypeScript + Node for this. I’m a huge fan of Rust, but learning a new and still-niche language for this project seems like a poor tradeoff for your business at this point. I could be wrong of course.
well, arguably, navy versus cornflower would handily cover pedantic differentiation, as needed.

put another way, one can easily counter that the flag and the sky handily share similar saturation of the same hue, differentiated only by the value of darkness.

take it one step further, and the sky at dusk will drop its brightness, and even if only for a moment, match the flag’s deeper blue, until the sun completely sets and the night sky becomes black, when not contaminated by light pollution.
Microsoft doesn't break out Azure in their public financial reports.
Facebook Acquires a Blockchain Company
> dump the heat into resistively heating the battery. Then use the battery again!

Will make your car prone to fires.
I independently rediscovered this driving in Southern California. It's the obvious fair and efficient solution for two lanes merging.

What most Americans have a hard time understanding is that German driving school, or Fahrschule, requires the student to master these "advanced" techniques. Unlike in the USA where if you can operate the throttle and the brakes you're good to go.
At that point it seems a lot more about cloud services in general and not merely "lambda and serverless".
Well, what scale would that be? Larger than Netflix?
Ursula K. Le Guin Was a Creator of Worlds
Slack takes 5-7 seconds to start up and connect on an ultra low latency 300 Mbit connection. I really wish there were a native app on Mac.
It always irritates me when I see people refusing to yield the right-of-way to rescue vehicles.
Out of curiosity, which Land are you in?
Another way of looking at it is: CPUs run at about 3 GHz; assume you can increment your 64 bit variable once per cycle (extremely optimistic); it will still take a ludicrous amount of time to overflow the 64-bit variable. I find this is a good rough intuition for upper bound on writes/sec. (Your 1 billion writes/sec figure works out to more or less the same assumption, at 1 Ghz.) The conclusion is the same, of course.
As people on this page have said, those who dislike/criticize FB fail to consider/imagine all the ways it's being used. For example -

I use FB for chatting with my friends around the world, i.e. most of my closest friends. I don't look at the news feed. Never see ads on FB. I chat with the people I want to, look at their recent pics when I want to, usually while chatting with them, so I can ask questions. The last few years, I don't share/post pics on FB, I just send in the chat to people when I want to.

So your criticism doesn't hit me, indeed my use of FB sounds like your solution. And yet people assume FB can't be used like that, for some reason.

p.s. Hacker News is infinitely more addictive..I'm not sure why! Maybe because muh internet points.
PageWrecker was actually pretty cool - did lots of school newspapers (legit and underground) back in the days...
As a government employee and software developer I think this is completely the wrong argument. Before we get that argument we should convince the government to not be afraid of writing software. In all but a few edge cases the government doesn't want employees writing software for a number of unfounded irrational reasons. Many areas of the government, especially the military, are still afraid of using any open source software.
It's a bit like saying that math is wrong though - logically speaking, low-income housing has costs associated with it in more ways than one, not just housing but for law enforcement, education, etc, all of which will clearly have demand go up and income won't go up as much as if someone who had more money were to live in that city instead. Depressing, perhaps, but factual.

If that basic piece of math is wrong, it needs to be proven - how do low income households contribute more than their fair share of city revenue for example? Does homelessness cause law enforcement issues to increase to a greater amount than low-income housing? Do low-income households produce more future earners that add up better for the city?

We need some data here to show that the basic economics of this don't actually add up if that's the claim being made, because from a basic economics perspective the argument logically and mathematically follows.
> Going back to tapping out messages on my phone in iMessage

...turns you back into a first class iMessage citizen. Meaning better security, more features, and a special color for the messages to signal all that to your recipients with an iphone.
Isn't security by obscurity only giving a false sense of security? So it's actually making things worse.
The thing that strikes me the most about the writings here is that even at their most snarky they are not cruel or unkind...

I'm not totally free of guilt in this respect but I wish we could find some way to not default to "vitriol" in our internet communications.
Flat files are a perfectly acceptable way of storing and retrieving data. Never start a greenfield software project with "ok, first we're going to need a database." At least defer it until you know it's the best way forward.
Discord is way more polished than both
Looking for a car for my daughter (15). Requirements in order:

Safety crash rating
AWD
Small
Electric

No solution set found. :(
I actually really like your service! However the pricing isn't obvious on the site.
I do already do! :) I use interactive rebase to squash multiple commits together when I need it.

However, I just find it easier to start from scratch if I changed 4 files at once, wanted the changes spread out over 3 commits, and I did those in the wrong order or something.
It would be more interesting to see this written to make the case to founders, rather than just promoting VC as an asset class.
The article was interesting; I'd never heard of Forrester before.

What I found interesting though, is the fact that the article never seemed to get into the question of whether he was right. Is that because the author considered it too obvious to warrant discussion, or because he didn't think it was relevant?

The tone of the piece feels like it's intended as a takedown, but the only actual criticism I noticed was here:

> we have decades of real-world evidence that demonstrates the disastrous costs of the “counterintuitive” anti-welfare agenda

But this came immediately after a section tracing this line of thinking back to some of the 20th centuries most respected thinkers, and after stating that this was now the default mode of analysis for policy wonks.

It reads like the author thinks they're administering the final blow after building up a damning case, and yet...
Your earlier comment misunderstands zippering (IMO). This one starts off less problematically but still ends with the wrong understanding:

> But there really are lots of people (where I drive at least) who are already on the road/freeway/whatever, who will move onto the (about to end) merging lane, race up to the end of it and force themselves back on the road, a few cars ahead. … It makes a bad situation so much worse for everyone. Those are the people the straddlers are guarding against, not the well-mannered zipperers trying to do the right thing.

This is basically incorrect. Regardless of how you and straddlers feel about this, using up that empty merge lane on the right is more efficient than straddling or other forms of early merging. That's my understanding, anyway.