skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Huh? This is an issue affecting backend JS. We are discussing front end applications.
Why do you obey coding guidelines or autoformatters which stop you writing good, well documented code? If a tool makes your work worse, fix it or stop using it.
Nobody has died from a funnel web since the antivenin was introduced many years ago. Still, I'd prefer to keep my distance from them while in Australia.
To varying degrees of success.
Wechat for example, is a killer app that provides immense value to users (privacy concerns aside) and probably would not have been developed without the firewall.

On the other hand, online search services in China are still relatively garbage, which is why China had to block Bing recently.
If it makes you feel any better, even many of those who had that seed watered still feel lost in life :)
This will give you a random distribution, but not a uniform one. Concrete description why: you're just as likely to end up 3 units from the center as 6 units from the center. However, there is twice as much space that is 6 units from the center than 3 units from the center.
Hard to make any kind of fair comparison, but given the context, AOC2018, and the many many solutions in many languages, I think its reasonably fair to compare it to all of those and make a judgement on how it stacks up. It seems like it's being offered up for that specific comparison.

Just for reference, another HNer offered up the following in python for inspection

https://www.michaelfogleman.com/aoc18

There are other posted solution sets on HN if you search... Now of course, lots of very different languages with different goals and philosophies. Hard to make a fair comparison, but, still I'm making a subjective comparison. The Coq code just does not seem compelling.
It's meaningless to compare with the status quo ante, because you want to investigate the effects of a single change (the stirrup is adopted in Europe) and not freeze everything else in the world. Otherwise, the answer to "what if the stirrup hadn't made it to Europe" would be "it's still the early middle ages". The stirrup hypothesis is a statement comparing our world to a world without stirrups, but still with all the later inventions.
Consider uploading them to the Internet Archive.
Special Relativity: Intuitive Explanation
To be fair, I feel the same way about the stock market as I do about bitcoin, so yeah some of the sentiment is shared. At least with capitalism, for better or worse, just about everyone participates.

That said, I don't think a complex economy can really operate very well without some form of market (at least not until we're at 80%+ automation). And with markets come waste.

I guess I'm not saying anything should be done about bitcoin, but rather that I personally believe it's a complete waste of energy when there are already many better alternatives.
No, it makes sense, although as you say there's no rule, so some will use "SPA" and others "S-P-A".

I'm reading it as "an S-P-A" now and it feels so, so much better :)
2016 with discussion below:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11466849
Though this submission is talking about development dependencies rather than runtime dependencies. For example, the scaffolding it generates builds a Javascript app that runs in the user's browser.

Still a potential problem, since each transitive dependency even gets to run arbitrary code during install on the developer's machine, but a different one.
I don't know about Android, but the Camera app on iOS is extremely responsive.

And I envy the amount of processing that goes on when you press the button.
From turning a noisy mess from a fingernail size sensor into pretty good JPGs to auto choosing the best photo from crazy fast burst mode, even before you press the button!

And audio/video, oh boy. Hyper slow motion 4k, noise canceling…

Imagine what Apple/Google could do with something the size and weight of a DSLR and 3k US$ budget.
Good on you.

"Greater in battle than the man who would conquer a thousand-thousand men, is he who would conquer just one —
himself. Not even a God, an Angel, Mara or Brahma can turn into defeat the victory of a person who is self-subdued and ever restrained in conduct." -- Dhammapada 103-105
Mind emailing me? You don’t have contact info in your profile. I’d be interested in hanging at a library for a few hours with my laptop and have some questions before going.
If I remember correctly, Steve Jobs compared the iPhone 4's design to a Leica.
> What I would be terrified of in Coq is some tiny change in business requirements ends up pulling the linchpin out of some fundamental premise way down at the bottom of your stack of proofs, this forcing you to go and fix everything. Sort of the mother of all brittle testing scenarios.

Isn't the same true for static typing? One small business requirement changes, you change a foundational type, and suddenly all your code needs to adapt.

Of course this is true with dynamic typing too, but at least you don't know.
Source available?
looks like a typecast from pointer to non-pointer, probably compile-time error.
That your generalization does not generally apply, especially in an era of extremely miniaturized popular goods.

Consolidating the S&H into the item cost makes sense for a subset of situations sure, but there's a huge set where it's exploitive.

Amazon orders for example often can amortize S&H costs by shipping a single package containing multiple items sharing a common origin. I'd argue that's true for a huge portion of Amazon orders. It's simply not a good generalization.
Vector Display Gaming
" with the hope that the compiler will direct one towards the bugs and they will be easier to find."

Also, less expensive to fix given bugs are cheaper to fix earlier in the lifecycle. You can also reduce breakage during changes to existing code. Finally, you can warranty the code at specific defect rates or for certain kinds of defects where the fixes are free within the warranty. Companies using Cleanroom and Correct-by-Construction did that with the above benefits.

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~al/cseet-paper.html

http://www.anthonyhall.org/c_by_c_secure_system.pdf
Digiconomist's figures are entirely fake. They've been debunked but the author (and hapless news outlets) continue to promote them.

https://hackernoon.com/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-...
Americans Lost $143M in Online Relationship Scams Last Year
There's nothing special about "backend". It's normal for the client side bundle to contain many dependencies that came from NPM.
Point taken, but then we get into the 'omg how is this development package installed on the prod machines?' ' Because it is convenient for finding issues'. I am sorry to say I know disturbingly many devs that run dev on prod because they can just continue devving on prod. That's not restricted to Node but I see it with RoR and .NET Core as well.

That would not pass muster at all for me but I see it quite often and interestingly not in startups but bigger companies on departmental level (no code reviews there anyway...).
Razer Game Store to Cease Operations
This is so cool I just got chills. I’d consider time in that sim just for fun, and the prices seem reasonable.
Jasper Johns, American Legend
That presumption would not be correct because I have worked at multiple startups at senior to executive level positions.

While the reduced comp is alluded to in the post, it is passed over and not addressed. It is absolutely _material_. Over the first five years of your career, you could easily forego over 500k, and if you keep staying at startups over the next 5, another 1-2M. With that money, you can easily mess around with side project ideas for a while, and go back to either consulting or BigCo life if things don't pan out properly. If nothing else, you've got the couple hundred thousand to a couple mill in the bank that's worth how many in the bush? If you apply a risk adjusted discount to the cashout case (which is rare), how much do you have to make on exit in order to break even with that much? It's a lot. It's enough where the numbers only make sense if you're coming in on the ground floor as a founder, or later on as an executive.

New engineers can work directly with upper management in the early days of smaller companies, but as soon as real money enters the picture, you will have a layer of middle management. Often times, this will get hired externally, over the heads of those engineers that joined specifically to avoid this kind of situation. If there's VC funding in the picture, this can get political very quickly, and there are many instances where an old guard from the earlier days is pushed out and replaced by a new guard. I've seen it happen multiple times.

You may dislike those 7 layers of middle management and they may be attempting to make themselves look good, but their existence also provides a formal structure for promotion and growth, and they also serve as a buffer between individual contributors who want to do their own thing in peace and the jostling nature of upper level power grabs. I lament that this appears to be the nature of the corporate beast -- nothing about startups being smaller intrinsically protects you from this. You can get screwed over if you don't play politics well enough, or even if you just get unlucky. The difference is that in a large corporation, you know what you're getting into.

Nothing stops you from taking risks when you're not young. In fact, you will likely take more worthwhile risks because you can actually gauge risk properly, and you probably won't be taken advantage of by people because you're considered young, inexperienced and not knowing any better. In fact, the older the founder, the more likely it is to still be alive after one year's time.

Taking risks when you're young sounds fun in concept. But, you never get back that time or youth back. You could be taking those risks with things that don't materially impact your upward progression in socioeconomic class -- such as through traveling, hobbies, studies, art or side projects. To conflate and tie the very healthy and human nature to experiment and take risks with one's adult ability to survive is a certain kind of gambling and dysfunction bound to end in regret and misery. I wish someone had warned me about it earlier, when I was that age. Perhaps it would have saved me a lot of headache.
Bad Numbers Are Ruining Your Pitch Deck
Thanks this is exactly what I was looking for. Found out it's called identity management on AWS as well as other services like Auth0 and Okta.
How much extra in taxes do you wish to pay for this? And what happens when the government chooses a subject you don't wish to support?
What's the power output of those I imagine much smaller reactors, compared to ones meant to power entire regions and millions of consumers? What did they cost to build? What risks are there, compared to regular reactors?
A few reasons:

1. At least for me, I didn't know the game going in so I wasn't prepared for it. A lot of folks I interview don't either (though its becoming less common... almost everyone is somewhat prepared for it now), and I feel bad for them.

2. I feel like I'm a competent developer, but I'm not very good at the game, even when I practice and study a lot for it. I can barely eek through the process. And at least for me, I don't have a wide, general set of skills... I'm kind of only good at writing code, so when these artificial barriers are erected, I see future job prospects disappearing, and I don't really know what to do about it.

3. Perhaps it goes hand in hand with engineering, but I criticize absurdities an inefficiencies in business all the time. There's something particularly hypocritical about an industry which prides itself on meritocracy developing a process which not only fails to recognize qualified developers but often actively works against them.

4. I think we actually need more engineers. A lot more. Gatekeeping is preventing this from happening, leading to a general population wholly unequipped to understand and maintain the software that's taking over their lives. Programming should be a lot more like reading and a lot less like specialized medicine.
And King Solomon, ~950 BC :)

"But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body."

Eccl 12:12
This is exactly what Outco.io does, and I highly recommend them for this purpose.
> With their algorithmic interviews that require college-grad level of studying, they filter for people that are ready to follow orders without complaining.

Spot on. Certain companies ask silly question and to perform tedious exercises and, in the debrief, investigate if the candidate complained.

(disclaimer: I worked for Amazon and never seen this pattern in the company)
Before you get on your high horse, you should realize that this is unlikely to be a real emergency. Uranium ore is around an order of magnitude more radioactive than bananas. These officials appear to be overreacting and you seem to be going along with it without evidence. Chemical hazards are much more of a concern if it's not encased in a sealed exhibit. That to me is "really stupid."
Credit Card Number Generator [CVV-Expiration Date] – Exact Hack
> What I find weird is why does anybody want to work at Google? I use their tools all the time at work. If you go to console.cloud.google.com... I mean... Wow. Just yesterday I was trying to find the logging for our cloud endpoints on Stackdriver. They should use that as their interview question ;-)

Working for Google is the only way to get bugs in Google products fixed, or your feedback even listened to. ;)
To my downvoters:

This 'strategy game' type dilemma is why 'Free Trade' negotiations actually exist in the first place.

If 'open markets' benefitted both parties irrespective of what the other party was doing, then most nations would simply 'open the kimono' as wide as possible to everyone, essentially reaping the benefit, waiting for the 'full benefit' to be yielded when the other parties eventually open up. Negotiations wouldn't really be needed.

But it doesn't work that way.

During the establishment of free trade, there's considerable negotiation around tit-for-tats on protected industries like telecoms, agriculture etc.. Also, there's a lot of rules in such agreements about how governments are allowed to subsidize specific industries.

If the Canadian gov. is giving massive loans to the lumber industry below market rates, enabling Canadian lumber makers to sell very cheaply and therefore wipe out their American counterparts, and then of course acquire them for pennies on the dollar ... well, this would be considered a 'subsidy' and you can see the problem aka 'strategic dumping'. (FYI this is almost a kind of problem right now - Canada leases 'Crown Land' (i.e. government land) on the cheap to forestry corps. and US believes that's a subsidy)

Hence 'Free Trade' only works if the parties play by an agreed upon set of rules.

Without such agreements, and assurances that counterparties are playing by a set of rules, then a degree of protectionism is warranted.

If one side cheats, they can win in a much bigger way.

All of that even when parties are ballpark in the same sized economies, at similar levels of development, i.e. France-Germany.

But with US-Venezuela for example, it's another ballgame as unprotected access to undeveloped markets can possibly lead to a total takeover of the economy, rendering one state a commercial vassal of the other.

In reality there are no perfect, textbook scenarios for fully bilateral and open trade agreements which is why there are always special cases and things to be negotiated.

Canada's banks and telecoms for example, are not up for sale in NAFTA/USMCA.
> I'm not a climate sceptic and I'm not trying to debunk the entire thing. This is a thread about disinformation and I'm pointing out an instance of disinformation.

You're pointing out an 'instance of disinformation' by using a site known for disinformation and spreading disinformation. Don't lie now, we both know exactly what you were trying to pull.
I think a great option is a collection of example configurations for a stack. When learning Webpack, 90% of my learning was by looking at other examples. The hardest part was making sure I wasn't looking at out of date examples.

The unfortunate thing about CRA is that it's another tool on top of a tool to learn. It's not just instant and obvious, it has its own layer of configuration and understanding of how not to break it, how to upgrade it, etc. So people spend time learning the tool's tool instead of the tool.

I'm also not convinced this is "how the experts do it."
Neuroscientists Say They've Found an Entirely New Form of Neural Communication
"Yes, I agree that my argument would be completely irrelevant if only something that will never happen happens."

The same could be said for people changing their behavior because you complain about it on a message board that the people in question don't even read. Nobody's going to stop using Bitcoin because you don't like it, so why bother?

That said, I think the cryptocurrency world is moving in that direction anyway. Most of the more exciting new cryptocurrencies use non-PoW consensus mechanisms, eg. IOTA = tangle, Ethereum Casper = PoS, EOS = DPoS, Stellar = SCP. And there's a strong economic incentive for that: when you reduce the cost of computation, you can use those computations for more applications, which drives adoption, which increases the value of peoples' cryptocurrencies. The challenge is that the fundamental benefit cryptocurrencies offer is computational trust, so until people are confident that these other consensus mechanisms are at least as immune to attack as PoW is, they're unlikely to switch away from Bitcoin.
Options:

1) don't do it at all. Vulnerable families remain vulnerable to organised crime and we have systemic weakness to state and/or vandal attack (worms, botnets or whatever else.)

2) Government does it, in public, performed by public servants, with appropriate guidelines that are enforced under pain of criminal prosecution. This has the opportunity to shame and possibly sue ISPs who provide default routers that suck giving indirect systemic benefits.

3) Private enterprise does it. Facebrick and Gogglers being the obvious candidates who one would think would just love to get in there, probably with the same checks and balances they've enjoyed so far.

4) Some rumsfeld style unknown unknown, beyond my limited imagination - really keen to hear if anyone has an idea here.

I absolutely agree with you that the number of people in positions of power who are completely f&^ing clueless about the domain over which they make decisions is astounding and a huge, massive problem. It still isn't required to have someone who knows what a usb drive is on your board of directors while they sign billion dollar contracts with Oracle, IBM Global Services, Accenture and whoever else has the best con, for example. Same for public service IT consulting contract ripoffs of which ripoffs utterly dominate the space.

So the "expert" minister thing you raise is really bad. Just as you say it is in fact and must be remedied across the board in all countries.

And I'm still going with (2) govt. doing it, with public scrutiny as the best of the available options.
You make a very valid point, but compared to other programming languages and cultures, the JavaScript ecosystem encourages mammoth projects with many more dependencies than they need.

It’s not the concept of dependencies that’s at fault, it’s the number of them proportional to the task.
totally agree.

Not just because it's harder to use without JSX (and JSX is a great idea), but also because every Stack Overflow answer assumes you're using Webpack and JSX. For a beginner, choosing not use JSX or Webpack, etc just makes the learning cliff steeper.
You don't find the existing Go code using the built-in generics (arrays, dictionaries, channels) readable? You find that its expressiveness makes it too complex?
Even if this code is only run on the developer's machine, you're trusting 1,600 entities to not pwn it one day.

It's worth some concern.

As the copay attack shows, that everyone uses these libraries doesn't let us rest assured. There are virtually zero eyeballs on the code of transitive dependencies because you would have to extract tarballs to read code. And attacks can be extremely targeted. The copay attack was only discovered because of a deprecation warning in the attacker's code that someone reported.
It absolutely and obviously is not.

They do significantly more than this, even if you wanted to (incorrectly) classify all of their products like this, they actually do more than that to entice people in.
The homebuilder cockpit community is an exciting and welcoming place for both newcomers and experienced builders.

The Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 are by far the most popular projects, but homebuilders have built hundreds of different flight decks of varying levels of complexity and realism.

One of my favorite groups is SimFest (http://www.simfest.co.uk/). They fly a 747 (homebuilt sim) around the world, stream it live, and raise money for charity.

For anyone interested in learning more, a few resources:

ProSim Aviation Research (https://prosim-ar.com/) - cockpit avionics software. Powers flight models and avionics screens for most 737 and A320 projects. Established, respected, and popular in the community.

FlightDeck Solutions (http://flightdecksolutions.com/) - Flight deck hardware. Both individual components and turn key solutions for 737/777/787/A320

Vier Im Pott (https://www.vier-im-pott.com/index.php/en/) - Flight deck hardware, A320 focused.

There are numerous other hardware manufacturers and software developers. A few good communities to check out if you're interested in learning more:

http://www.cockpitbuilders.com/
https://www.avsim.com/forums/forum/110-home-cockpit-builders...
"What I would be terrified of in Coq is some tiny change in business requirements ends up pulling the linchpin out of some fundamental premise way down at the bottom of your stack of proofs, this forcing you to go and fix everything."

I'm still wondering how often that will be a problem if high-assurance methods get more adoption. I'll note it's mitigated a lot by the advice we give about where to apply formal methods:

1. Highly critical stuff.

2. That doesn't change at a fast pace.

3. That's known to be verifiable with existing methods in the time frame needed. As in, you want pre-verified components or it to be really similar to past projects.

One thing to support No 3 is to have straight-forward, sequential code that's composed in a hierarchical way with clearly-specified interfaces. You'll mostly be just be verifying behavior of individual components. A change at the bottom will be isolated into that module. Then, you prove the integration of whatever calls it. Then what calls that. With the proper structure, you dramatically reduce the work required with the reverification.

" I don't think Coq leaves much room for being pragmatic about test coverage like that."

People that use it often try to use it for everything because formal verification is their job. In industry, you use it where it makes sense. That might be most critical component which is also pretty simple. Actually, most in industry use model-checkers (i.e. SPIN, TLA+) and languages with solvers (i.e. Frama-C, SPARK Ada) for verification. That minimizes their work. The most-adopted methods, though, for the $5 bugs are software inspections (i.e. checklists), static analyzers, test generation from source, and fuzzing. I strongly recommend using them in order of lowest-cost and fastest results to highest-cost, hardest results to avoid wasting time.