skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don’t doubt it has happened somewhere, but I’ve never seen the mythical complete rewrite that was awesome and saved time and did it better the second time. Unless you’re talking about rather small projects of one or two people rewriting something in one month...

In three different large teams (~100 people) during my career, I have witnessed the other kind of rewrite. People forgot how many things were working right, and had started to focus only on the warts. They overestimated their ability to redo what they’d done before, and underestimated how long it would take. Why does anyone assume a multi-year project will go any faster the second time? You need a lot of evidence for that, and I’ve never seen any. In all cases, the rush to rewrite quickly caused people to cut corners and introduce new design mistakes, ultimately ending up with something that was only marginally better after a heavy cost of several years’ development. In all cases I’ve seen, the people in charge admitted regretting the decision to rewrite code and told me they wished they’d done it more piece-meal.

Just a data point, but I have to wonder how often a clean rewrite actually happens. I’m looking for the link now, but I remember reading on Wikipedia that it’s estimated that 30% of software globally is late and over budget. I suspect that rewrites are more affected by Planning Fallacy than the first time through, it’s easy to assume you can do better. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_fallacy
Not patching servers for months and leaving them for attackers to exploit is definitely stealing. It doesn't matter how they got the data, they let others steal it and were therefore complicit in the theft itself due to negligence, willful or not.
304 has a specific use case, which is that if the crawler says, I have version X of the page already, give me a 304 if that’s still current or a 200 with content otherwise.

With dynamically generated content you’re more likely to just see 200s, but I think Nginx sets Etags automatically on static content so it’s common to see 304s there.

I’m pretty surprised you haven’t seen it often, but I’d guess it’s more to do with whatever crawlers you’re using (they’d need to be caching content and headers), rather than the scarcity of the status code.
For IEEE floats, the range [1, 2) has uniform absolute precision. Not so for [0, 1), which spans many values of the exponent.

There is uniform absolute precision on each interval among [0.5, 1), [0.25 0.5), [0.125, 0.25), &c., but as you get closer and closer to 0, there are still just as many fraction bits available (same relative precision), so these numbers are much more precise in absolute terms (i.e. relative to 1.0).

You can generate a random number in [1, 2) by just filling in the fraction part with random bits, because the exponent is always the same. Then you can subtract 1 to get a number in the range [0, 1). But for a number in e.g. the range [0.125, 0.25), the last 3 bits of the fraction will always be 0, meaning you are skipping 7/8 of the possible floating point numbers in that range.

The smallest possible denormal number among IEEE doubles is 2^(–1074), but the smallest non-zero value you will get with this method is 2^(–52).

If you want to generate any possible floating point number in the range [0,1) with probability proportional to the difference between it and the next representable number, it gets pretty tricky / computationally expensive.
Humanity and Machine Learning [video]
The Tragedy of Systemd – Benno Rice, Linux.conf.au 2019
Solid 90s. Would have been even more authentic if upon viewing the source code I would have seen more <table>, <center>, and <font> tags.
I read the original "The Machine Stops" by E.M. Forster way back in 1909, a few weeks back, following a link from this very website. It's worth a read!

http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html

EDIT: Looks like that link is a little overloaded right now... This one works: https://www.ele.uri.edu/faculty/vetter/Other-stuff/The-Machi...
> homogeneous population

Note that more than half of American's top tech companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/30/us-tech-companies-founded-by...
This might help: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/asset-class-correlations

I honestly don't know enough about finance to go from correlations between two asset classes to the correct correlation between five, but maybe google will help.
> it’s one thing to just be bad at your job and you leak a bunch of data and oops, you didn’t notice that a hacker was in your system like a Kofax for months.

Na, I'm tired of these excuses too. Maybe jail is too extreme in this case, but being sloppy isn't ok. Or not supporting MFA when you're dealing with financial data.
If you have not read the 1909 story The Machine Stops by E. M. Forster referenced here, it's worth doing so. It's in the public domain.
Or you opened a random blog, Reddit, or did an innocuous search, or ...
From what I understood (surveyed this a while ago) RavenDB wants commercial clients to pay. They do this by licensing the free version as agpl. You pay to get another license. Keeping your code agpl as a commercial entity is a kind of loophole in their eyes.

So they keep commercial clients out by using agpl. That means they want you to pay even if you build a website that uses a cms that uses ravendb. Even though agpl perhaps would let you get sway with it. Dont think so though.
I don't think you can - once you get banned, they run you through some automated thing which usually just tells you the decision is final, and you're banned for good. Then you CANNOT talk to someone. And if you do speak with a customer service rep that finds out you've been banned, they have to stop talking to you.

I had an account representative from google at some point. As soon as I was banned, all my calls were routed to voicemail automatically.
Hot Fixes Getting Cold, a Journey of 7 Versions/Years of a Sole Facebook Bug
SFML is great and has a rather big community.
"Cash" is also not risk free. Probably higher risk than US, Japanese, German, or British bonds. In the current fiat era a country is more likely to print money than default on its bonds. Countries that have recently gone bankrupt or gave bond holder haircut, rarely can borrow in their own currency anywhere near the rates on US dollar denominated loans.
Young for a country, pretty old for the same base set of rules within that country.
Subspace:Continuum ate up SO much of my time in middle school, I think it was my first experience with online gaming. Great times.

You can still download it to this day: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=14491...
Spotify is the company best positioned to fix this, although I'm not sure they'll be able to.

The real issue is that podcasts run on old backends like RSS, and there's no reason for creators to change that without a functional platform to offer a financial alternative. With the current format, creators embed the ads and all's well. Even if a lot of users skip the ads, some still here them, and some go to the affiliate link.

With an alternative system, like Spotify, there's the possibility of a better system. Spotify could host a network that allows creators to separate their content from the ads, and then Spotify can distribute the podcasts via their app, with an ad-free version going to paying customers. Furthermore, if Spotify manages the ads that get embedded, they could insert ads that are more tailored to the listener. The added benefit (for creators and advertisers) is that Spotify could use the app to ensure that listeners can't skip the ads when they're listening with an ad-supported account.

I've been a proponent for a refresh of the podcast platforms for a while now, and even pitched this idea of a more subscription oriented model to friends who have the ability to build an app or service capable of this, but the reality is that it requires buy-in from multiple creators for it to be viable. As I see it, Stitcher and Spotify are the only two businesses positioned to make it happen, and Spotify (with its recent purchase of Anchor and Gimlet) is probably the only one with any legitimate interest in going this route.
Get used to failure
Then the obvious solution is to apply a import tax on those companies, rather than trying to bribe companies for favors. Hell it could be called a 'human rights violation tax', specifically to fight the outsourcing of jobs to abusive foreign business or assemblies.
A tough interpretation of the existing US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which has criminal penalties, could do much of that right now. See the "exceeds authorized access" provisions. Any slip-up in asking for permission could place a company stealing your data in serious legal jeopardy.
I too wish I had the resources to go live in the woods and not deal with the modern world.
no gsuite is probably key - I'm thinking of terminating all my gsuite accounts simply due to no desire of having my business basically be terminated due to some stupid algorithms maintained by google's idiots.
You would think. But civil forfeiture doesn't care who owns what they take, only whether it was used in a crime.

You may be stuck paying court costs to defend your property and get it back. Which is why we have tons of ridiculous court cases like: "Bag full of hundred dollar bills V. US Government."
Math is done very very wrong, I don't think most teachers know enough math (sorry for that dubious and bold claim).

As a computer guy who hates state machines and was always obsessed with math, I feel that just about everything about maths is taught wrong from the get go.

Just the other day I learned about something inductive function got me curious about: linear ordering of structures as proof of termination. Turns out it's been studied in math for long: it's called a well-order. Fine.. thing is we're taught about linear recursion in HS .. but we have no pragmatic notion of induction except ~~ P n-1 => P n ~~ It's so cryptically compressed that I suspect no student beside aspies and other prodigies can have the slightest clue about that. Yet it's so important (and so obvious when shown).
It wasn't well described, but do people really not get the idea that it's about astronomy somehow?

I'm was dissapointed that the statues seem to play no role at all, no nifty alignment of shadows seems like a wasted oportunity if you are making an astronomy monument.
Just my opinion but Google has put a lot of time and energy behind Flutter and Dart. It is gaining popularity quickly and has a promising future. You should judge it on whether it's suited to your needs _now_ and don't fret about the future. Things come and go but Flutter has as good a chance as any to thrive and continue for years to come.
I also found the tiny gif of Stan Lee in the long empty footer. It appears if you pass over it with the mouse. Does it do anything else?
Internet champion implies Web champion, but not vice versa. What you're really asking for is some Internet champions - EFF, FSF(E), TOR.

The obvious difficulty is there's little money in it, as the benefits are distributed throughout society rather than captured by a centralized company. My overall point is that looking towards the tech giants to defend our own rights is folly.
I think the commentor meant in regards to both being the largest F2P shooters in their day. I disagree with that though because I see Fortnite capturing the more of the COD semi-casual crowd rather than the relatively more hardcore crowd TF2 captured.

Of course this is really generalized, but I can't imagine Drake playing TF2 back in its heyday.
With Google they offer enough data points to analyze for just such intent. In the absence of intent fraud is out of the question, but a jury might be convinced that a persistent pattern of incompetence which is brought to Google’s attention again and again without change meets the bar of fraud, especially in a civil court with the mere preponderance of the evidence standard. The post-banning behavior of automated responses and refusal to escalate customer service calls won’t help them either. As in the case of MS back in the day, it can seem like the law is just disinterested, but the law is merely unbelievably slow and equally inevitable. The day some prosecutors can make a career out of taking on Google, they will, and by then Google will be fully on the wrong side of public opinion.
Considering there aren't many totally reliable ways to avoid shady software save going through the source of a program line by line and verifying it yourself, least-unrealiable sort of comes across as best.
Agree.

take a huge cut

Exactly. It seems there should be some certain legal "level of expectation" that they will act in good faith for 30% (I'm guessing- I don't use them).

But really we should move away from these app stores

Yep. Which is why I have to guess at the 30%.

I find this whole story very disturbing. I understand Google's need to protect their ecosystem from malicious code, and the desire to ban developers who try to do harm (although I suspect that the real bad actors find work-arounds for the bans), but I can't help thinking that this isn't the way a good (morally) company would behave.

I guess it points to way more developers out there than Google needs in order to have a vibrant ecosystem, so if they burn through some percentage it isn't worth their time. It makes me think of fishermen who fished ruthlessly and perhaps wastefully when the ocean harvest was plentiful. Years later, however, those fishermen face some dire times, with perhaps more ahead, because the harvest is more modest and future harvests are threatened.
A couple on interesting points:

a) Bonds, as you said, were traditional seem as counter cyclical, when equities or rates went up, bonds went down, and vice-versa. Nowadays, it seems like this might not be true anymore. So much money is pouring into the US securities market that both often now move in tandem. In the past, in risk-off environments (when you want to lower your risk), investors would move out of equities and into bonds. But now, since so much money is foreign, you see outflows from both bonds and stocks is a risk-off environment. This makes bonds a worse hedge today against equities than in the past.

b) It's true that 100% stocks almost always outperforms 100% bonds. But things get really interesting when you consider a mix of equities and bonds. Take an 100% equities portfolio of say 10 stocks: do a simulation in which you vary the weights of each position (the percentage of each stock that makes up your portfolio). Now graph the historical returns on Y axis and the historical volatility of all these simulated portfolios. What you'll see is called the "Markowitz Bullet"[1] The efficient frontier (EF), is all the portfolios that have the best risk adjusted returns (also known as the Sharpe ratio). Basically what that means is that those portfolios on the EF (the top "edge" of the bullet) have better risk/reward characteristics than any of the portfolios below them. so with a 100% equities portfolio, the best you can do to maximize your Sharpe ratio will be on the top edge of the curve.

Now consider mixing in some bonds which are at the risk-free rate. 3 month US T-notes are traditionally considered to be the risk-free rate. That is, they have no volatility and a fixed return (say 2%).

By adjusting your allocation of risk-free bonds and equities you can achieve a better Sharpe ratio than anything you could do with just equities alone. So now, with adding bonds, you can now beat the EF. The EF is now the line drawn between the risk-free point (0 variance, 2% returns) and tangent portfolio (the highest point on the curve). Check out the picture below for an illustration.

But it gets even better! If you can borrow at the risk free rate, you can now your leverage returns (but also volatility) into outer space!

Modern portfolio theory is based on this concept that adding the risk-free rate to your portfolio can actually make you achieve better risk-adjusted returns than you otherwise could with just equities alone. Seems pretty magical when you think about it (though it's predicated on the original sin of finance: that the risk-free rate actually exists)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory#/media...
I'd expect Google to be devious enough to say "as a gesture of good will we'll pay your legal fees if you sign this NDA".
A logout action is idempotent, though. You can't get logged out twice. In my opinion, that's the use case for a GET request.

I just checked NewRelic, Twilio, Stripe and GitHub. The first 3 logged out with a GET request and GitHub used a POST.
Yeah, they didn’t steal your data. They were negligent with storing data on you given to them by lenders, and if you can demonstrate you were actually damaged by their negligence you can join the class action that’s happening. You should have got an email about it. I know I did.
Basically a young DevOps Engineer that wishes to relocate :3

Location: Israel

Remote: Possible but only if will result in relocation

Willing to relocate: Yes, That's my main target currently too

Technologies: Linux, CI/CD, Monitoring Solutions, K8s/Rancher and containers in general but excited to learn anything required for my next challenge

Resume/CV: Will be sent by request but LinkedIn show parts of it https://www.linkedin.com/in/mor-zaroor-75788281/

Email: morza9696@gmail.com
what kind of sorcery is this?
Unfortunately aarch64 does not have anywhere near the number and variety of events offered by the X86 PMU.
Regulation and anti-trust action are not mutually exclusive.
Live demo on my site as well @ https://pokatheme.com/
Battlefield did it before with higher tick rate + physics / vehicles.
Behind The Instant Classic Headline “Bezos Exposes Pecker”
Does that make geocities Bell Labs?
I think the commentor meant in regards to both being the largest F2P shooters in their day.

That's fair, and if that's the case, I'd still say Overwatch has a better claim to that title (beyond the initial purchase price, anyway-but Blizzard routinely opens the game up for extended F2P periods).

What's going to be interesting to watch in the purely F2P arena is this newcomer Apex from EA. I tried it out last night and it has a lot of interesting features and motifs that seem to be a collection of all of these games; you've got the dedicated classes from TF2, the "hero" theme from overwatch and the overarching battle royale/last team standing from Fortnite, PUBG and others.

Fortnite definitely getting there, but competitive Overwatch is reaching StarCraft levels of intense (or what competitive StarCraft was in the 2000's), there was a team from Europe I think that won over a million dollars in an Overwatch pro match back in 2017, teams are getting sponsored[1], even ESPN-"the worldwide leader in sports"-is getting into broadcasting Overwatch matches[2].

None of this is to take anything away from what the team over at Epic is doing or to say anything less of Fortnite, for what it's worth. It's definitely a phenomenon in its own right, but there's serious amounts of money being moved around for competitive OW gaming.

---

[1] https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2019/02/08/overw...

[2]http://www.espn.com/esports/story/_/id/24062274/overwatch-le...
Definitely agree. Unfortunately full-rewrites will always have some level of praise. Typically it starts with a POC, completely new tech stack, like for a new one starting today it will probably be a React/Node or something like that with GraphQL. Perhaps it is replacing a Java/JSP/JSF something-er-rather.

The POC will have the advantage of taking a small feature, and reproducing it, but working 10 times better, faster etc.. However, what is unfortunate is that often times the POC team will say, yeah this is about 80% of the way there, we still don't have X, Y and Z implemented. But that's where the rub is - it turns out that X, Y and Z are often always under estimated. After all, there is a reason they chose to exclude it from the POC.

Beyond that, the POC is just 1 feature usually. What about the other 80 screens. The POC team will then say, well if this took 3 weeks, then 80*3 (as a worst case) will be 4 year project - but the upshot is that it can be paralleled and done a lot quicker.

This is how I always hear it. So they put in a plan to do it, and things just start unravelling as you have 1) stakeholders slowing down work with getting existing functionality. 2) you still need to tackle the last 20% (which might really be 50%) 3) You will constantly drain resources for the next year or 2 from the ACTIVE product, and that battle will be ongoing.

If you use the strangler pattern, you will basically be making incremental releases that use the new technology AND the old at the same time. You don't have to replace the last 20% until it's absolutely a good idea. You're able to get the instant benefits to the screens/features you want out the door, and basically train up the existing team. There are no two teams competing, they are all working on the next short-term release.
Don't use walled gardens. Don't use servcies with shitty ToS. Problem solved. If you can't get by without this this means you're part of the problem of providing services to those contributing to the problem.

That isn't to say this isn't an unethical and jerk policy of Google's. It's just that you knew they, and most other centralized companies with rent models are incentived by profit to behave this way.

So many people are slapping their hands down a burner and then acting shocked when they get burnt.
Google is regulated in many ways. It just got the fattest antitrust fine in EU history (read all about it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17556497).
As I see it the licensing of RavenDB lets you get away with things like a closed source CMS using the DB for your own use, as long as the database runs as its own process. Not sure of you could sell the CMS binaries without source code, though.
When you think having giant corporations dictating your policy through lobbying is normal and good.
> What limitation of doubles are you overcoming when you use the range 1-2 and then subtract one instead of just generating in the range 0-1?

The limitation is that floating point numbers have different exponent depending on where in the range [0,1) they are, while every float in [1,2) has a exponent of 3FF. Generating a number in the latter range and subtracting 1.0 lets the floating point hardware do the work of figuring out the exponent.

On futher testing, though, it looks like you can just do ( rand53() * 1p-53 ), which will be hands down better as long as your floating-point hardware has a good int64->double conversion.
dont buy this book it has nothing about 7zip cracking.
I read the original "The Machine Stops" (written by E.M. Forster in 1909) a few weeks back, following a link from this very website. It's worth a read!

http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/prajlich/forster.html

EDIT: Looks like that link is a little overloaded right now... This one works: https://www.ele.uri.edu/faculty/vetter/Other-stuff/The-Machi...
this is incredibly detailed.

how long does it take to develop a game like that, and what skills are needed (and what tools are used)?

Is that even realistic for one person ?

I would like to play one for motorcycle parts mechanic (like a Norton or a Triumph or a Honda Goldwing).
They can do whatever they want but it's just a standard that I find valuable. That's my opinion, not a fact.