skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Theocracy doesn't work. What is the point of this article? Nobody is advocating for socialism or theocracy except for a few fringe people without any political power. I see people advocating for "social democracy" (more government services), which is a far cry from seizing the means of production; and I see people enacting some (not all) rules from their religions as law, which is a far cry from putting religious leaders in charge of government.
That's the thing - this works only when you have clearly task - solution based jobs. But when it is more creative and abstract this is not feasable.
We can agree, but that doesn't mean that others won't do it anyways; unless you operate in a silo, it's not likely that you're the only one writing software to use your system.

Standards get written and implemented by lots of people, and even tooling like Docker gets alternative implementations.
I know some people down vote TL;DRs but I do want to save people's time.

The answer is the robot didn't perform well during the demo.
The article is about dropping the hours to ~32 a week, not working 10 hour days to still do 40 hours in four days.

Switching to 10 hour days would be a terrible idea - that’s just asking for burnout. Anyway, I find it really hard to believe more than a small percentage of workers would be able to be actually productive for even two thirds of the day when consistently working that long.
Only if you've had too much coffee.
This is one of the technical topics I've organized into a group I call "Topics that have launched a thousand flame wars."

That being said, every now and then I find them a good refresher in software politics, with a side of insight.
That sounds extremely clear.
> [change is] trivial. I just do it, and the compiler goes

You are talking about the ability to refactor. In my experience with major refactors, you need a test suite, not the type checker. Why so specific? Very simple, when I did this in the past, the compiler tended to be happy way, waaaaayyyy before the test suite. Had I relied on just the compiler, I would have been in a very bad place.

> "locking down" an architecture

Simple refactors are not "changing the architecture". Static type systems tend to be fairly specific about the kinds of architectures that are expressible, and they tend to be "you can have any architecture you like, as long is it's black, er, call-and-return". Now we tend not to notice this, because we are so used to everything being call-and-return that we don't even notice it.

"We Don’t Know Who Discovered Water, But We Know It Wasn’t a Fish" -- Marshall McLuhan

Once you do notice, and you do want to build alternative architectures, the straight-jacked becomes very constricting.
It's a nice use of SSH tunnelling (e.g. https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SSH/OpenSSH/PortForwarding).
Seems that the four wings rotate around the central unit creating centrifugal force that will keep the cables tight.
Autonomous Vehicle Safety Myths and Facts, 2019 Update
It's a bit preposterous, no serious professional hold this kind of prejudiced view.

Yahoo, McK, GS, FB, Uber, etc. might not hold the prestige it used to on your CV, but these things ebb and flow. Microsoft used to be "lame" but now it's cool again.
That's a good point, I guess I don't really know. We see with soldering stations that to really remove the hazard, the ventilation hood must flow very high rates of air and be very close to the work. However flour is not toxic the same way lead is, so maybe general filtration & ventilation would be sufficient.
Stupid expensive for what really?
The problem with the debate is that it's all based on personal preference and anecdotes, all of which are subject to cognitive biases. What we really need is a proper study, but they are notoriously hard.

The debate fundamentally comes down to 'under what circumstances is the extra cost of working with a static type system worth it for the benefits'.

For a 15 line helper script of the sort I've just written, Python with its dynamic typing is (to me - a proponent of static typing) the fastest thing to work with due to the low overhead. To me there is a threshold of project complexity where the cost-benefit ratio flips. Is that actually true? Does that vary for all people?