skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Also interested to hear this. I'll start with my admittedly limited perspective:

I started with a Win 95 computer so I cannot claim to have loads of experience with with TUIs even though I love the idea of text-focused UIs that can be memorized. The idea of say an IBM POS terminal where workers can key items at a blistering rate without even looking at the screen (or the Bloomberg Terminal recently discussed in a recent HN entry).

I can say, things like DOS's EDIT mode, Deskmate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeskMate), or the old LCARS 24 clock/shell were always a pleasure to learn and made keyboard function keys, erm, "great again".

I now try to design my own little helper applications to conform to a keyboard-first role, where the mouse is a fully supported sidecar but not a required feature. I'm happy when I can get an application to be as easy to use with memorized keyboard shortcuts or sequences as with Mouse Keys.
It seems to me from my reading of this that the key specific question is about the unique issues that are raised by perpetuity and un-amendability. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point, but doesn't that result in a different twist on the examples you give?

>Companies and other organizations are sometimes bound by contracts that have only been agreed to by people that are now dead. Is that an argument for not allowing a company to be a party to a contract? Or do we say that a company is a legal person for that purpose, and so since that "person" persists, so should their contractual obligations?

Right but the legal entity making the contract is not dead, and further contracts in perpetuity are commonly unenforceable. In California for example if the contract lacks language on an express or implied fixed term, courts take that to mean it's terminable at will at any time by any party. And other states consider perpetual contracts to flat out violate public policy and thus be completely unenforceable (note this is different from auto-renew-by-default "evergreen" contracts which are totally kosher, any party can simply choose to actively non-renew).

And contracts are not inviolable, there just are consequences for doing so. And the entity is "living" so to speak and may amend itself and adapt to a changing world.

>I hear the U.S. Constitution described as a social contract. Should it be relevant (as Lysander Spooner believed) that all of the signatories to that contract are dead? Or does democracy nullify the principle? If the last legislator who voted for a law dies, should it have any affect on the law?

This seems to really be stretching the point too far. "Social contract" is not some fixed legal meaning at all, I think you're getting into silly levels of abstractionism. Polities are self-perpetuating in ways more basic of legal entities existing within them. And to the point, they're also endlessly amendable by definition and by society at large, not fixed in time by an individual.

>With a philanthropy, maybe the solution is to simply transfer ownership to the trustees, who then have the power to amend their own charter as they wish, breaking any hold by a dead hand.

That seems like one possible way to bring things into line with normal corporations and such, though there are others.

It's definitely a very interesting question though, to consider to what extent any polity should allow and support the creation of perpetual static legal constructs within it, particularly in a democracy. I'm not immediately fully convinced by the article, but I also feel like it's true it's become a recent unquestioned consensus without any modern debate or reflection, and that it deserves such debate on principle.
Imagine if instead of holding the budget hostage people held law hostage.
> collective employee action can be used to force an employer to stop exploitative behaviors?

I'm all for balancing the employer<->employee interaction, but is this truly something that works for most industries? Google cares about it's reputation among potential tech employees. Other areas (say, Amazon warehouses) probably have a lot less trouble finding people desperate for work and willing to put up with crap because they need the jobs.

As good as this news is, is this really a template that we can expect much to build from? (as opposed to organized unions with legally protected ability to strike, for example)
Actor Jussie Smollett Faces a Felony Charge
Apart from driving, I don't even listen to music while doing any of those things. Even when driving, the radio is off most of the time.

Having music or a radio always on is a concept I simply don't get.
it doesn't sound like it was related to religion

"Lee also told Weathers, who is pursuing a degree in ministry leadership and has a severely autistic son, that he didn’t care about Weathers’ religious holidays or children, the suit claimed."
if you try to connect to an 11+ server pgAdmin3 will nag you to upgrade with an endless series of error message popups
Sure but let anyone do voluntary arbitration not forced.
$1.2M total comp is not that unusual in finance if you've been in a number of years[1].

[1]https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/salary/investment-banking-co...
> You're effectively agreeing..

You are agreeing. As an adult, the choice to agree or not agree to conditions of a private transaction seem to be a fundamental liberty. If people didn’t agree and it affected recruitment, then companies would respond accordingly. Also, without arbitration, conceivably that could result in a lower offered salary to offset the risk of litigation. Given that the vast majority of employees never care about suing, the higher salary is a better outcome most of the time. Banning forced arbitration is necessarily going to increase employee costs to a company, which means less money to pay people much in the same way higher health costs affect salaries as well. I don’t agree with forced arbitration, but making it illegal disrupts the freedom of employees and employers to engage in agreements how they see fit. Without arbitration, you get a lower salary, all else being equal, which is essentially a form of insurance against the possibility that you might sue. Some people might be ok with that, but that choice should be between the employee and the employer; it isn’t government’s place to get involved.
My question is what were the expectations? Did he agree to be on call then? Or did he inform that he wouldn't be available? There's a lot of context missing here...
My understanding is that, if it is added at the correct rate, the U.S. economy can absorb infinite amounts of counterfeit money.
>>Wow, you mean collective employee action can be used to force an employer to stop exploitative behaviors? Who knew? :-)

This is why we need unions, period.

edit: It’s always amusing to see HN readers start pant-shitting whenever someone posts a comment in support of unions. :)
Averaged across distinct contracts (as opposed to contract-instances) forced arbitration is a very good thing. If Google and Microsoft get into a dispute about the meaning of some agreement they signed they it's far better that they get some third party to quickly resolve the issue than that they have to spend years and millions of dollars in legal fees fighting it out in the courts. It's only when these agreements are imposed rather than negotiated that they become abusive.
it seems reasonable to me that there's an expectation you are 'on-call' outside of normal work hours

24/7/365 isn't considered "reasonable" outside of the SV bubble. If you need that kind of coverage, you have two or three people available, sometimes on rotation. Even doctors — people who save lives, not tally reviews — aren't on call 24/7/365.

No company should have a single employee that essential. Will Yelp shut down if he gets hit by a bus?
Is it really religious discrimination though? It's pretty clear that the plaintiff's boss didn't care why he was incommunicado, only that he was. It doesn't appear that he displayed any religious hostility or intolerance, the outcome would have been the same if the employee was an atheist who decided to spend time with his family on a Sunday.
It largely is. Formalized types allow a documentation tool to do a lot of heavy lifting. But Go's documentation system is still quite a lot nicer than javadoc, doxygen, etc. for other statically typed languages.
I'm not familiar with the book at all.

It's interesting that you took the misogyny to be breathtaking yet it's not mentioned on the book's wiki page at all despite having a fairly detailed plot "overview".

Do you think the misogyny is breathtaking because of the cultural differences between then and now or is the misogyny a n intentional trait of the main character himself?
It may not be a crutch at all, but an essential part of human society. That's not the same as to say we need excessive dogma, churches funding super-PACs, DMCA wielding lawyers on staff, or silent code for dealing with rapist priests. We do need community, guidance, and a safe place to seek help when we're in trouble. Surely we can let some religions go by the wayside, and perhaps embrace alternatives that aren't in conflict with science or the contemporary rule of law.
That seems way too general of a conclusion to be adopting as a premise. At the very least it ignores the distribution of behavior in a population.
Depending on the magazine dimensions (single stack is hard) Reliable magazines can be largely 3d printed, as can the follower and the jigs used to bend piano wire into proper springs. The 3d.printed.mag will usually have less capacity than a metal one though.
Many union contracts call for arbitration. The advantages in that scenario is that it is faster and more definitive. Usually unions and management have some sort of process to pick the arbitrator in a manner deemed acceptable.

Advantages are speed, privacy and cost. You also avoid the political risk of the court district that you are in.

In an individual vs company situation, it’s always better for the employer, unless the employee can hire the arbitrator. If the company hires the person, that arbitrator may find it difficult to get future work if they side with the company.
I think there's great value in walking with no distractions and it is definitely still very productive if it lets you focus and gather your thoughts. Many great thinkers in history (Immanuel Kant, Charles Darwin, Carl Jung, doubtless many others) had walking as important part of their routine. But, there's no accounting for taste, and whatever works for you is all that really matters.
That's not reasonable, hire a second person.

Unless you're paying the person 24/7. Even then, it's absurd.
Yelp is terrible. They actually extort business to show good reviews as well
Funny, I do this with my digital trash can:

When I was consulting at Bell Labs in the early 1980s I saw that a friend of mine had two garbage cans in his office. When I asked him why, he explained that one was for genuine garbage and the other was a buffer into which he would throw documents that he thought he’d probably never want again. He’d let the buffer garbage can fill up, and once it was full, he’d throw away the lower documents in it, since from the fact that he hadn’t fished them out, he figured he’d probably never miss them if they were thrown away permanently.
Now write a unit test for

function fDing() {
...
}

Honestly with modern JS I am not sure this feature is that great. Looks more like a code smell these days imo.

Edit: Formatting
I don't have time to watch this, can anyone summarize?
Kiwi.com to Assist Customers in Case of Unreasonable Lawsuits by Airlines
It’s asciidoctor, and it’s indeed really nice.

https://asciidoctor.org/docs/user-manual/
I heard that if you give opiates to patients at a hospital they don't get addicted because it is in a controlled environment where the patient is not seeking out those drugs for pleasure. If someone is getting heroin off the streets, the are looking to fill a void and it's perfect for that ( not perfect for your health or lifestyle obviously ). Obviously if people are looking to stocks as a gambler does, it can be like an addiction. Whereas if people are looking to trade stocks as a principled investor, this analogy does not apply.
> This is a helpful thought experiment

That "thought experiment" isn't really helpful. It just starts with a particular morally-charged framing, and creates a mechanism to push that framing forward towards a conclusion, while discouraging thought about any other principles.

You could probably construct an infinite number of other "experiments" that push towards an infinite number of different conclusions on any topic, like "How many men...does it take to give you property rights? Do you own the car if only you say so? What if a gang of five men say you own the car..."
I've concluded when people say "break your body", they usually refer to the slowly accumulating string of little slip-ups. You turn the wrench too hard and bash your knuckle. You grab something that was still too hot. You drop something on your foot. You lift something the wrong way and pull something. No one slip-up is a real big deal, but you can't help but make a few, and they slowly add up.
My Year of Eating “Expired” Food
It's very strange though that there are sections of the constitution that we pay very close attention to. The oath of office and the process of electing the president, for example, is followed to the letter as if the consititution is the source of authority, though we really basically cast it aside for everything else. Have you ever tried to get a trial jury for a traffic ticket more than $20 (which is a civil, not criminal, suit)?

There's a lot of questionable things. The general idea of the constitution and the declaration enshrine the concept that governance is only permissible if with the consent of the governed. Hence the principle of "no taxation without representation". Yet, we do tax individuals who make money under the age of 18, in spite of the fact that we do not recognize their consent (try going to the polls if you're under 18). Governments spend more than they take in (defecit spending) despite the fact that it obligates future generations to pay it back, who cannot, as far as we know with our current model of physics, give their consent for that spending in any direct OR indirect way.
Burning fossil fuels has a real cost to everyone which is not priced appropriately by the free market (this is a well known economic effect known as a negative externality). This tax corrects for the artificially low costs.
Yeah I don't think it will get anywhere but that seems to be the only way they can see to fight since (I'm guessing) requiring someone to be on all call at all hours isn't illegal.
It’s voluntary whether or not to agree ahead of time to be bound by a conflict resolution method should such conflict arise in the future.
Disclaimer: I work at Kiwi.com. I wasn't involved in what's described in the article.
Nice title change. The original is "Re: The most insane proposal in regard to the Linux kernel development"

Maybe the author of that was or is correct, but we really haven't got a basis of comparison. We can't read MSFT's similar Windows kernel discussion, or Apple's similar Mach kernel discussion. It's an isolated data point. Comparison my lead us to conclude that Linux does not in fact suck compared to the problems MSFT and Apple have with the weight of their legacies, or whatever.
Google, Microsoft, and Big Tech Are Automating the Climate Crisis
Sure...but is there really a debate? I'm willing to accept a sliver of jobs that require that availability, if they involve saving lives or huge sums of money AND are explicitly agreed to by both parties.

Other than some quibbles about if money qualifies and if so how much, I don't really expect a lot of argument - even the jerks demanding such availability without caveats tend to only demand it when they are the boss involved.

Edit: Based on the other comments on the story so far...I may be wrong.
Hi there happy to answer this! We’re a tech company focused on allowing users to create and host all bracket-style, survivor pool, and pickem-style games for all sports! (Think March Madness brackets, NFL survived pools, PGA pickems). We even do brackets for The Bachelor and Game of Thrones! Unlike the media sites who built these games to push content and ads, our focus is on the user experience as it pertains to those playing in games, those managing games, and enhancing the competitive social interactions that have been lost on other sites.
Crear
he creado una pagina
Available evidence suggests that enough people want to be on whatever the biggest platform is for that to give it a decisive advantage over the competition.
My critique is of single-caller functions as a documentation device, not shorter functions.
+1 to the comment below. Last May, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a 25-year-old federal law that prohibited sports betting outside Nevada is unconstitutional - allowing states to pass their own laws either allowing or prohibiting betting on professional and college sports. Here's a link discussing this as well as new states that have opened up to sports betting: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/2019/02/21/state-sta...
Unions and their actions are collective employee action, I'm not sure what you're saying won't work?
You could make the same argument for almost any regulation. And we'd all be worse for it.
How cow, this guy is the world's most organized person. I operate in the exact opposite way. The more disorganized, temporary, inconvenient, and cluttered my workspace is, the more I can ignore the outside world and focus on the abstract problem at hand.
I don't necessarily agree with "one thing only". At least, for things that start simple and grow as needed, I split things into functions either to not have to copy and paste the same code, or for readability/structure purpose. But not out of principle and always, until I can't divide any further. I can still split things out into functions later, should I need it, but doing it "just in case" and then not even having a use for it doesn't save me time and just adds overhead.

Though it also depends on whether I'm doing something familiar or something new, if I'm doing something new I might split things up more to help me conceptualize the problem. But when I'm just making a quick CLI tool, I might put it all in main first and only split it up as needed.
Key Takeaways of Building a Product Team
because of shitty court rulings that make them legal. They also can't be banned at the state level.
> I heard that if you give opiates to patients at a hospital they don't get addicted because it is in a controlled environment where the patient is not seeking out those drugs for pleasure.

I am not sure if this is sarcasm, and I don't think it is, but just want to mention that I can't always tell on the Internet.

In-hospital opiate use can be important. But, there is good reason to believe that people using opiates appropriately for pain can still ultimately develop dependence and may develop addiction. Opiates have an important role right now, but the "fifth vital sign" is one of the things that presumably got us into big trouble with the current opiate crisis. We should tread lightly.

I know this is slightly off-topic, but if since the whole topic is reasoning by analogy, it seems worth a brief mention.
But didn't they make this happen without a union?
They need to define "Startup". What about an established business with a new 'startup'-like product?
I see one of the main systemic issues with philanthropic foundations existing in perpetuity is that they employ a large group of people with essentially no financial incentives to spend the managed money properly, likely increasing over time as the board gradually becomes removed from whatever good intentions and directions the founders had (if they were ever anything other than a tax strategy to begin with). So essentially you end up with a bunch of non-productive white collar jobs parasitizing some managed fund as long as it exists.
Make Your Code More Enterprisey: OOP Alternative to Utility Classes (2014)
Lambda + S3?
I can't offer a solution to what it was made with, but the italicization on this paragraph makes me almost sure it was a markdown source.

The go tool also supports a special package declaration, ending in test, ie., package http_test. This allows your test files to live alongside your code in the same package, however when those tests are compiled they are not part of your package’s code, they live in their own package. This allows you to write your tests as if you were another package calling into your code. This is known as an _external test.
HN is fully of early adopter types so I'm not surprised to see the pessimism about the future of podcasts but this industry still has a long ways to go. Podcasting will probably never be as big as video (streaming, TV, YouTube, etc.) but it's a natural 21st century transition for radio to make. Podcasts have the same advantage as Spotify and Netflix in the sense that programming is not limited to a specific radio station or a specific time. The medium is also diverse enough to support a wide array of content.

The worst thing about podcasts is the ad reads, but with the right platform I'm sure it will get better. Another criticism is that many "professional" podcast are edited with the same cloth, they have that "NPR hipster" feel with a banjo and some strings in the background. But as more podcasts come up this too will be remedied.
Reminded me of this classic:

>A group of friends and I used to do dramatic readings of the About the Author text from the Mathematica Book, which begins thusly:

>About the Author

>Stephen Wolfram is the creator of Mathematica and is widely regarded as the most important innovator in scientific and technical computing today.

>The guy wrote that himself.

>Wait, while searching for that, I see he updated it slightly in later versions:

>About the Author

>Stephen Wolfram is the creator of Mathematica, and a well-known scientist. He is widely regarded as the most important innovator in technical computing today, as well as one of the world's most original research scientists.

>I guess the original didn't fully express the boundless expanse of his awesomeness.

>"Does anyone want to bet as to which will gain self-awareness first: Wolfram Alpha or Wolfram, Stephen?"

http://chrishecker.com/Kurt_G%C3%B6del_is_Laughing_His_Ass_O...
> This seems to really be stretching the point too far. "Social contract" is not some fixed legal meaning at all, I think you're getting into silly levels of abstractionism.

Then according to the quote in dragonwriter's comment, so did Thomas Jefferson, a man not notable for silliness.
>the anxiety of constantly having a stream of money leaving your account every month bit by bit

I don't know that this is true writ large. Monthly budgeting is, essentially, how most people operate, whether for expenses of necessity or choice. That is, much of our financial lives are oriented around (largely monthly) cash-flow management.

So, we prioritize what's necessary or important to us, then add it to the mix. I don't know why a subscription to a service like FB would be any different than, say, Netflix (if the price were "right").

OTOH, there's an ease in just slipping into something with an e-mail address. So, I believe the friction of going from no payment to any payment is the much bigger leap to overcome (again, provided the price in question is reasonable).

But, there is also now the notion to overcome that some things (like a social network) "should" be free. But, that's another topic.