skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Because most normal programs do open-write-sync-close, and that mostly works as expected.

Postgres does open-write-close and then later, in another unrelated process, open-fsync-close. They discovered this doesn’t always work, because if somebody somewhere does a fsync on that file for any reason, their process might miss the error as it doesn’t stick.
AppWindow (A Windowing Story for UWP)
I'm Pandora Music Analyst Hannah Glass, and This Is How I Work
Yet another reason to use ZFS I guess.
Review in the PostgreSQL community does tend to be on the "harsh" side.

I've only submitted one patch (\pset linestyle unicode for psql), and with a few rounds of review and revision it made it in. Overall I found this process nitpicky but productive. However, there is a point at which the harshly critical review can be detrimental, and from the other comments mentioned here, it sounds like this has been the case in the past.

With regard to the semantics of write(2) and fwrite(3) these are clearly documented in SUS and other standards, and the "valid disagreement" in this case may have been very counter-productive if it killed off proper review and acceptance of a genuine bug. There are, of course, problems with fsync(2) which have had widespread discussion for years.
+1.

This is a good Chrome extension for video speed control of all web video content:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/video-speed-contro...

Highly recommended!
Go is okay too. It's not as hyped as Rust but it has a lot going for it. So don't regret your choice.
It's by far not limited to only open source projects. There are many situations where some fault, no matter how small or irrelevant, has to be found in order to sate the ego of the person doing the review or consideration of a problem or piece of work.
You do have less unique moving parts. Just one per rotor, all the same.

I think that's a big plus. No jesus bolt, no variable angles of attack, no gearbox. I also don't know how well electronic motors scale, maybe a bit smaller is better?
The current paradigm of particle physics will likely fail after the next accelerator -- everybody abandon ship RIGHT NOW!!Elf!

So since the early seventies there was an interplay between discovery machines, accelerators that prioritize high energy over high precision, and precision experiments. In practice these are proton accelerators, which accelerate to very high energies since protons are heavy, but have the downside that protons are itself very complicated objects, and electron accelerators, that have the opposite trade off, electrons are light and therefore lower energy but are very simple and analyzing the results is therefore very easy.

The way the interplay worked is, that the precision experiments would constrain the parameter space for the next generation of discovery machines, and then the discovery machines would give the next generation of precision experiments a target.

This is to a large extend just research by timetable, and funding agencies love it. Physicists can write a proposal including a list of expected discoveries and funding agencies can then just check that list quarterly.

This paradigm will most likely come to an end after the next accelerator. The next accelerator will be a Higgs factory to measure with very high precision the properties of the Higgs boson.

Now theory did progress a lot in the last four decades, but it closely mirrored this path of experiments and therefore did work within a quite well defined paradigm. That is what she means with "no progress," there was a lot of progress, new calculation techniques, new techniques for model building, the entire effective field theory ideas and so on, but that is all in service of a narrowly defined paradigm.

So it is probably a good idea to start looking for more risky research, because we a pretty sure the boring predictable stuff is coming to an end, but I think that the characterization of "no progress" is a quite unfair characterization of a very fruitful endeavor.
I heard that to get interesting data we are actually supposed to throw them very fast against each other.
2016 Presentation: https://events.static.linuxfound.org/sites/events/files/slid...
We call those “San Diego”.
Maybe with https://github.com/kellabyte/rewind which should support WAL for lmdb
I love emoji but they aren't needed for anything. You can always discuss periods using ordinary words.

I have to admit that whilst emoji are fun the apparently endless growth in them combined with the way they break essentially every assumed invariant about text and thus create explosions of bugs all over previously working software is ... a bit concerning.

At this point, why not just define a set of code points that let you embed an SVG into the character stream? It'd result in fewer cases of broken text where new emoji are rendered by apps that are all of six months out of date. Actually defining an endless series of semantic code points just seems like a dead end for the Unicode Consortium that opens it up to relentless attacks by activists and political nonsense because it's changed its mandate from encoding languages to defining new ones.
My guess is prudent man principal applies - did they have a reasonable plan to remediate once the 0-day was known? How would peers in the industry have been affected?
If it’s truly a 0-day, and they followed reporting the breach, I don’t see it being likely.

You could argue a single 0-day should not result in a breach (security is best as a layered defense), but that’s probably far less likely to find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudent_man_rule
Most people learn inductive, not deductive.

They know how to map an object into an array or an array into another array. Many even know how to flatMap promises that resolve to promises.

But they don't know that they follow general rules that make their behavior predictable.
What are you gibbering on about?
Merkle Signature Schemes, Merkle Trees and Their Cryptanalysis [pdf]
Am I misunderstanding this or does this mean Linux literally does not provide any way to ensure writes are flushed to a file in the presence of transient errors?

Does anyone know if Windows's FlushFileBuffers is susceptible to this as well? (P.S., interesting bit about FILE_FLAG_WRITE_THROUGH not working as you might expect: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20170510-00/?p=...)
The classic book on this topic:

Notebooks of the Mind: Explorations of Thinking https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195108965
Pthread_cancel() considered harmful (2010)
While it may seem new, this has been a problem for a very long time. It’s the same thing Seneca was complaining about when he popularized the phrase “ars longa, vita brevis” back in 1st century Rome. And that wasn’t original either, but a translation of Hippocrates.
The hunt for dark matter, for whatever particle/string/widget is involved, is a particle physics problem. String theory may find support, or not, through the observation of black holes (ie fuzzball).

Neutrino detectors made big contributions in thier day.
7 February 2019 Lancet paper on Tisotumab vedotin trial here :
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2... (entitled: "Tisotumab vedotin in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumours (InnovaTV 201): a first-in-human, multicentre, phase 1–2 trial")

Tisotumab vedotin is a first-in-human antibody–drug conjugate that is directed against tissue factor expressed on the cell surface of tumour cells to deliver a clinically validated toxic payload to tumours. [...]
Tisotumab vedotin is comprised of a fully human monoclonal antibody specific for tissue factor conjugated to the microtubule-disrupting agent monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) via a protease-cleavable valine-citrulline linker. .... The study was funded by Danish and US biotech companies Genmab and Seattle Genetics

This Lancet paper references this 2014 Cancer Research paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24371232?dopt=Abstract (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/74/4/1214.long)
: "An Antibody–Drug Conjugate That Targets Tissue Factor Exhibits Potent Therapeutic Activity against a Broad Range of Solid Tumors"

Seattle Genetics page on Tisotumab Vedotin : http://www.seattlegenetics.com/pipeline/tisotumab-vedotin

Our [antibody-drug conjugate] technology combines the specificity of monoclonal antibodies, innovative linker systems, and the cell killing power of potent cytotoxic agents to treat cancer.

Interestingly, Seattle Genetics stock is down 12% on Friday:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SGEN ("cuz earnings"). Genmab was up 0.69% : https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GEN.CO
(The problem, in fact, is that the significance of monads in Haskell in terms of the side-effect model has nothing to do with category theory. The "side-effects" quite literally occur outside of these theoretical constructs.)
That behaviour is defined by a mount option.
Quora is pretty terrible. Loaded or stupid questions answered by some pretentious book seller.
Mr. Money Mustache is the big name in the FIRE (financial Independence; retire early) community. But a lot of people doing FIRE are in tech in some way. I think it's a left brain thing, which people in software/tech have both the left brain mentality and financial capability to make early retirement happen.

Resources:
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/blog/
https://www.bogleheads.org/
https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/
I started with Go and am now learning Rust. I liked Go, but it felt incomplete (currently there's a discussion on generics) and I'm tired of Java never settling down and now trying to be cool. Also, method declarations are weird (method over variable or pointer).

Rust seems complete. The ownership paradigm is a bit difficult at first, but the compiler is good at pointing out exactly what the issue is.
Most languages have an implicit “this”/“self” which works well. This makes it easy to convert functions to class methods and vice versa without using any editor refactoring features. It also makes it easier to refactor (no need to search and replace every reference to foo within an object to self.foo —- the only time this might be iffy is if there’s a global function foo, but in practice it’s not onerous to handle)

Also beginners don’t have to mentally blot out in their heads the self argument when calling a method (“you mean self isn’t the first argument?”). Debug messages are also more consistent (“the debug message says my method needs 1 argument. Isn’t self right there?”)

I accept Python’s explicit self for what it is (Python’s philosophy prefers explicit over implicit), and don’t have trouble with it but aesthetically it deviates from most OOP languages out there. It’s a valid choice for practical reasons but I would also say that an implicit “this” is an equally valid choice for aesthetic reasons.

Here’s a survey of this/self choices: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_(computer_programming)
I found the running horse to be an adoring touch. The author's site is also worth checking out: http://linkdot.link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Gardner_at_a_Gallop
Just a heads up: it works on Chrome but not on Safari
That can be a correct response, for instance, if you have some sort of async i/o in place so you don't want to wait for a write that's not ready because you'll block.
I have the same perspective.

Last night I had probably 20 tabs open on Reddit that I wanted to read. Didn’t have the time to look through them all so I bookmarked them in Pinboard, closed the tab, and moved on with my life.

Will I ever read them? Probably not, but it’s nice knowing they’re not lost in my internet history and that I could.
Going much further in the past, you have the discovery of the element helium, whose existence was predicted by the periodic table, and it was detected first in the sun atmosphere (looking at the spectrum of sunlight during an eclipse) than on earth (where it is very abundant, but mixed with natural gas).
Any project can contain fatal flaws irrespective of its review policies. Particularly when we are concerned with the subtle behaviour of the interaction between write and fsync. Even if you read the standard it's not clear exactly how the system as a whole should behave; there are a number of situations which aren't mentioned in the standard at all.

It would be quite possible for a review, and even extensive testing, to fail to pick up on some system-specific subtleties.
It's undeniable that the pace of creation of masterpieces has quickened dramatically at an unprecedented level. It's an entirely new age of creativity that is unlike anything before it and that will continue for millennia. We've crossed some kind of threshold.

"Ars longa, vita brevis" is an amazing quote however, and thank you for sharing that with me.
We’re taking barely-evolved apes whose brains are made for running down antelope and picking bugs out of each other’s hair, and putting them in charge of incredibly complex machines that have only existed for a short time. There are bound to be some problems.
> Very likely many years, or even never. People don't use large names because they like it, they always prefer small ones.

Well, we don't have exactly a barrage of complaints about the current limit either.

> How much memory are we talking about?

Good question.

The thing is - it's not just about table names. NameData is used for any object name, so it affects pretty much any system catalog storing name. A simple grep on the repo says it affects about 40 catalogs (out of 80), including pg_attribute, pg_class, pg_operator, pg_proc, pg_type (which tend to be fairly large).

So the amount of additional memory may be quite significant, because all of this is cached in various places.
You can't tell people anything.

http://habitatchronicles.com/2004/04/you-cant-tell-people-an...
The tragedy of systemd
You can share or access your hard drives online. Access your files stored inside your PC or Mac on your phones or browsers.

Dropbox stores files on the cloud. In contrast, with this tool, your files are still in your computers.
It doesn’t send the response to the client, but it still does all the work of generating the response.

I use nginx to proxy_pass to django+gunicorn via unix socket. I sometimes see 499 code responses in my nginx logs which I believe means that nginx received a response from the backend, but can’t send it to the client because the client canceled the request.

I admit I haven’t actually tested it directly, but I’ve always assumed the django request/response cycle doesn’t get aborted mid request.
I'm extremely sympathetic with Mark. And Google's support for its ~free services is indeed cursory.

Sure, one possible lesson is not making your business dependent on such third parties. But if your business involves an app, you're pretty much stuck being dependent on Google and Apple. I mean, ask Facebook about that. And amusingly, Google re Apple ;)

The key lesson here, I think, is the importance of vetting any consultants, developers, etc that you use. In particular, the importance of vetting their reputations with Google and Apple.

And indeed, maybe it's best to isolate consultants, developers, etc from Google and Apple. They do work for you, and then you interact with Google and Apple. And you make sure that everything gets sanitized, in the process. That would protect businesses, consultants, and developers from each other regarding their reputations with Google and Apple.

For many years, I did work for attorneys. But I never submitted anything directly to any court, opposing counsel, or whatever. And I was careful to wipe my identity from any electronic files that would be submitted.
So you can't think of any reason that the Chinese would be upset about specifically English speaking people implying Hong Kong isn't part of China?

I mean, I get that you don't like them, but at a certain point it becomes willful ignorance.
The sad thing about this is all of the "less than perfect" artists whose content gets swept up in the storm. Hopefully the rise of the Long Tail will combat this to some degree, but we will have to redefine our concepts of fame and eternal life through art. We have entered the age of globalized niche culture.

[0] https://longtail.typepad.com/about.html
Citation needed. Explain to me how the four pests campaign was a deliberate plot.
So rather than securing connections at the os level, we re-invent the network stack past layer 3. First you bring your own crypto, then create a whole new virtual network stack, then create connections. Or do what Google does and bring your own crypto, then bring your own layer 5-7 routing and transport on the server. These are "interoperable" if 1) your users download an extra app, or 2) your server implements custom app-specific solutions.
VM, Lambda, Kubernetes and Terraform Best Practice
I'm not worried about it, and I don't plan to give up.

Becoming an amateur art historian has greatly enriched my day-to-day life and given me much inspiration in my own creative output.

As a multi-disciplinary artist I feel called to recognize and hold important people and their creations in my memory, in order to help them live forever like they wanted.
Choice under Uncertainty (2006) [pdf]
It wouldn't be such a hard thing to do, to sign up for newsletters and create dedicated RSS feeds of the incoming emails. Allowing access to people who prefer being more private in their consumption is probably a nice thing to do, but isn't it 100% illegal?
Tanspiling from ES2015 to ES5 is no longer the main usage of babel. For example, there is transforming JSX to normal JS. And object rest/spread proprerties (ES2018) is often used by front developers, even if it is not supported by Edge. So, I don't think that babel and swc will be obsolete in 2 years. The most used transform plugins for those will change, but the parser and engine will remain. And having fast and robust tool here is a good thing for this field.
> I can’t recall any particle or fundamental force that was validated / found in this way

LIGO? Gravity waves?
So wayland is just a waste of time or what? Why are the Wayland maintainers doing it then? To hurt users? I don't get it, sorry.
Google’s Long March
These companies collect that data specifically to use it against you for their own financial gain.
People have insecurities and egos. Sometimes you come across someone who need to feel useful, or need to feel important, or have a need to assert their power. Or that simply don't trust you, and assumes that if they don't see a problem, something is lurking under the surface.

With a lot of people you will never need this. But especially in larger projects where any number of people might latch on and review submissions, the chances for someone to find something to complain about goes up rapidly.

And when one person has found something to complain about, all kinds of other social dysfunction quickly becomes an issue too.
I worked with Lisa Randall. She, along with Eva Silverstein, and now unknown Becker sisters are all diversity hires, with no real contribution to physics.
Udacity has a course that focuses on flight. I know several people who took this course and are very happy with it.

https://www.udacity.com/course/flying-car-nanodegree--nd787
What would you call this highly publicised and still present Tweet from CNN presenter, Kathy Griffin, I wonder [1]

> Name these kids. I want NAMES. Shame them. If you think these fuckers wouldn’t dox you in a heartbeat, think again.

[1] https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086927762634399744
I am curious about how you implemented the text editor. Did you use SlateJs, Prosemirror, Quill, DraftJs?
Knowing that a ring (in abstract algebra) is equivalently defined as "a monoid object in the category of abelian groups" is not going to help you with your first abstract algebra course. It makes things that are glaringly obvious from the usual perspective totally opaque, and means you have to define things like the tensor product of abelian groups properly before you can even define a ring. I don't know of a professor who would even mention this perspective during a first abstract algebra course. You get much a much better intuition for what rings are by just using them.

Mathematicians who work in category theory have often seen many, many examples of algebraic structures before they get abstracted away to "a monoid object in the category of blah", and many mathematicians still find it an exercise to unpack these compact definitions back to something more intuitive, or more familiar. And even so, most of the time identifying your favourite object as some abstract category thing doesn't bring anything new or useful to the table for the study of that object. (It can help spot patterns between objects though).

I say this for any aspiring Haskell programmers: don't feel like understanding this statement will make you a better programmer. The best way to get better at using monads is to just use monads more, and play around with them. Tracking down all the definitions in the statement is a neat exercise, though.
Technically there is no bug in error reporting. fsync() reported an error as it should. The application continued processing, instead of stopping. fsync() didn't report the same error a second time, which leads to the app having problems.

The application should have stopped the first time fsync() reported an error. LMDB does this, instead of futile retry attempts that Postgres et al do. Fundamentally, a library should not automatically retry anything - it should surface all errors back to the caller and let the caller decide what to do next. That's just good design.
Great tool! Thanks for making and sharing.
I haven't "read" it, but have flipped through it (definitely not the same thing of course) and looked at Norvig's lisp and Python code and can say he is waaay smarter than I am :)

It was a pleasure to read a bit of his work.
I don't think it's limited to open source project either. But open source projects are unusual in that often even when commit rights etc. are controlled, being able to opine on submitted patches is open, and a way of building social status within the project. And while that often works well, it also does attract people who may even mean well, but will be overly critical because it's their way of feeling they're contributing.

In most corporate projects, odds are you're dealing with a much smaller pool of reviewers.
That’s what I meant with tests of general relativity. Ligo didn’t prove the existence of gravitons though.
Obviously not, but it is not the solution to all problems, that people make it out to be, and still needs a lot of work.
Show HN: An AI app that generates quizzes from a photograph of a texbook
> I've said before and I'll say again: this kind of async is a design flaw. It's a retrograde step that brings all the cognitive overload of cooperative multitasking back.

You seem to be assuming that preemption is always needed or wanted. This is not always the case. The lack of preemption actually simplifies a number of factors that simply aren't relevant in async scenarios in a single program.

async/await patterns are actually the perfect solution for capturing the minimal context necessary for resumption after the async operation completes.
Well it did suggest 2 icons of presumably corporate scrum meetings...
I can absolutely relate to 4). Getting kicked out of the graphical environment every time sway crashes is frustrating enough for me to abandon it at least until 1.0.

The Nvidia issue is also annoying, why it has taken so long to resolve is hard to comprehend.
From Chapter 1.4:

"The most important aspect of a Lisp operating system is not that all the code be written in Lisp, but rather to present a Lisp-like interface between users and the system and between applications and the system."