skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think you are not really disagreeing with Linus - he's not saying ARM is not viable - he is saying it will not win. With your current setup (cross-compiling), are your ARM executables more performant than x86? Or do they have any other advantage at all over x86? Without an advantage, ARM can't possibly win.

Having a cheap, viable ARM-native development platform drastically increases the chances of ARM-only killer apps to exist, this would be an advantage over the currently dominant x86 (just as there were Windows-only and Linux-only killer apps that cemented their ascent). However, if everyone is cross-compiling due to the cost, it means ARM will always be a secondary platform (at most)- it can't win by being the Windows Phone of platforms.

[edited for clarity]
> don't force them to admit to themselves that they were wrong: if you let people 'save face' they can just get on board and agree with you. If you force them to grapple with being wrong they will be difficult and will hate your guts

I think that an inability to admit a mistake is arrogant and results in a lack of accountability and ownership over individual's work.
If someone makes a mistake they should be proactively owning it and trying to find solutions to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
Right. It would have been be clearer if I sad people pay RedHat for the promise that they quickly make a patch for any issue available, and that they know how to identify which patches are relevant for any individual customer.

What's the joke where someone fixes some machine and charges $1000? Their cost breakdown was:

turning a knob: $1

knowing which knob to turn: $999
Only ~20k lines. From the book's into:

> The current Linux kernel source code amount is in the number of millions of lines, the 2.6.0 version of the
kernel code line is about 5.92 million lines, and the 4.18.X version of the kernel code is extremely large, and it
has exceeded 25 million lines! So it is almost impossible to fully annotate and elaborate on these kernels. The
0.12 version of the kernel does not exceed 20,000 lines of code, so it can be explained and commented clearly
in a book
Similar to chemical warfare. There needs to be a UN resolution to ban these types of weapons. Make it so use of them constitutes war crimes.
Yes, the fact that these systems will be built by someone regardless needs to be addressed unless we want to become the equivalent of redcoats lining up in neat rows to fight people who are not playing by the rules.
I'm curious about examples of things that moved from LGPL to AGPL, given that LGPL is more for libraries, and AGPL seems way more common in software that can standalone?
From the other perspective too, Google clearly seemed to want the flexibility to change the details of Android architecture on a "whim", seeming to settle on the Linux kernel at the last minute and expecting to support both ARM and x86 and whatever else they felt they wanted. Google's focus on the JVM/Dalvik and making Native hard in Android seems quite intentional, forcing developers to cross-develop in a different way by obfuscating as much code as possible into a virtual machine that they could 100% control abstracted from underlying architecture and even kernel.
Arms control treaties are always vaguely pointless in the sense that countries will either leave or violate them the moment they are no longer within their interest. The biggest example of this is probably the Washington and London naval treaties of the 1920's and 1930's. The only real exception so far seems to be nuclear arms control treaties, which (a) mostly entrench the existing nuclear powers in a position of military hegemony over the rest of the world and (b) don't really stop anyone from having the weapons.

Landmine bans in particular are kind of ridiculous because of how easy it is to build and plant IED's.
goodness me. i always chuckle at these kinds of reductive strawmen.
Agree completely but the amount of decent companies with work-life balance is rare in the Bay Area. If they exist, they won't for long.
> Blockchain provides satisfactory answers to all those problems.

Sort of:

> who owns the database?

Whoever has the most computational resources, in most implementations.

> who enforces the contract?

Depends on the contract. If I sell my house via a blockchain contract, a computer isn't going to come and evict me. If I sell you some heroin, or an action figure, or a rare in-game skin, it's still not going to help.

> who owns the actual data?

Nobody, and that's a problem when data needs to be removed.
> I'm curious how often you find yourself dealing with loops that run millions of times? I think the majority of loops I've written don't need to deal with millions of iterations

It's trivial to come up with 80s-level counter-examples to this.

A megapixel image, for example, is tiny.
One of the things that made the article so interesting was that the author would try to find salvation in a solo side project, only to find himself right back in the same hell.

I've been through this same problem, even with Ruby. What I ultimately had to realize is that you have to just get really really familiar with Ruby before you can get a taste for its superpowers. I don't think it has all that much to do with languages / stacks, though I do think it matters to a certain extent.

I personally don't mind seeing warts in a Ruby codebase, because it means I'm at least working with Ruby. I've been violently dragged kicking and screaming away from Ruby more times than I ever want to see in my career.
> who owns the database?

A trusted authority with legal obligations of honesty.

> And who enforces the contract?

The court system.

> And who owns the actual data?

Ownership of data is a very ill-defined concept and not well-specified by a blockchain system either.
The passage below is from the short article you're commenting on:

>Residency is also a factor in determining the applicable venue of a patent infringement lawsuit, but in May 2017, the Supreme Court shifted precedent by ruling that a U.S. corporation resides only in its state of incorporation. Apple is incorporated in California, not Texas, satisfying this clause.
Really? You (seriously plan to resort to) go(ing) to court over every contractual dispute? Even $5?

HN Bandwagon, Monday: "Don't you understand that courts exist to make it so no one can break a contract without penalty?"

HN Bandwagon, Tuesday: "Lol don't go to court over $5, that's stupid."
This is an interesting project with the department of defense - https://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/...
Boy, 12, Said to Have Created Nuclear Reaction in Playroom Lab
James Mickens Blockchains are a bad idea also is a good one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15RTC22Z2xI
CycleGAN or other style transfer projects might do what you’re looking for:

https://junyanz.github.io/CycleGAN/
The database owner owns the database.

Lawyers and judges enforce the contracts.

Data ownership is stipulated by statute or contract.
There's a hybrid approach we use here at Wolfram where a lot of employees work remotely 99% of the time, but at least 2-3 times a year are in town for our conference, picnic, etc... We also have virtual 'meet-ups' where remote workers can interact with the corporate or regional offices for video games, activities, etc. It's not a perfect solution, but does help keep interactions and idea sharing greater than zero.
Uh, emulation and scripting language byte code engines? State machines? Filtering?

There are plenty of reasons to iterate a switch statement, even much more than millions of times.
Not necessarily for or against "blockchain" in any one specific use case, but I'm curious why you would define anything that can't use contracts and the legal system as "illegal".

I can imagine that for many non-first world countries where people wouldn't trust things to the legal system or contracts - I wouldn't necessarily define those things as illegal.
For sure. Looks like over 300 pages of background about how Linux works before it even gets to the source code!
> Seems to me that using a switch over another structure for performance at the expense of readability or maintainability

But is not more readable or even more maintainable.

Plus there is absolutely no optimization involved, it's just another way of expressing it.
Of course, you could allocate once by extracting it or with an IIFE + closure from TFA's functions.

lookup = (() => {
map = { a: 1, b: 2 }
return (key) => map[key] || 'not found'
})()
Or, augmenting #9, the team lead who takes all the interesting work and doles out compliance etc to everyone else.
This is a really dumb observation, but my apartment is in the cover photo! (Vancouver BC, Canada)

Sorry, I got super excited!
single-page web app doing n times the amount of work it should be doing because components are synced over an event bus with bindings set up wrong in a way that nobody has bothered to debug
Came here to say this. Many of the complaints about switch statements are about classic, kinda terrible, implementations of switch statements. Swift gets that right. Like, really super right.
Why Use a Password Manager?
Most of the developed world does allow for private coverage on top of whatever public system they provide. Similarly, many have some kind of premiums.
The following is an excerpt from the short article you're commenting on:

>Residency is also a factor in determining the applicable venue of a patent infringement lawsuit, but in May 2017, the Supreme Court shifted precedent by ruling that a U.S. corporation resides only in its state of incorporation. Apple is incorporated in California, not Texas, satisfying this clause.
There are other legit reasons for not being able to use regular contracts and legal systems.

For example, when you are dealing with multiple small transactions where a potential for fraud on the buyer side is significant.

Also, if you want to build automated systems for money management, the barrier of entry will be significant in the legacy banking system.

Or managing electronic assets (stocks etc) - blockchain significantly lowered a barrier for entry in those cases.
The usual problem with such comparisons is that in order to understand the benefits of Clojure/ClojureScript, you have to use those tools to write a reasonably large system. Otherwise the comparisons are superficial.

The other problem is that most comparisons are apples-to-oranges. Does core.async sound kind-of-like async/await? Write a checkmark in a comparison table and move on. But reality is nothing like it.

Every time I have to write some JavaScript (interop) code, I am amazed that people put up with all the incidental complexity. I mean, just recently I had to implement three different ways of accessing data which was essentially in an array. Three various pieces of imperative code with iteration. In ClojureScript that would have been zero code, because everything that is "array-like" can be accessed as a seq. That sort of thing does not come up in superficial comparisons.
Taiwan had to introduce cost-sharing for pharmaceuticals because of abuse of the system. I truly because cost-sharing is necessary to keep total costs reasonable and unnecessary visits down.

Plus, it offers a minor incentive to actually be healthy. Health should be a personal responsibility just as much as a government responsibility. I don't support subsidizing unhealthy habits.
I’m aware that patent trolls bring a lot of cases there. That’s hardly the same as the judges being corrupt.
At which point you're back to a centralized system - who maintains the blacklist and has authority to add people to it?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19225144
I grew up in Plano; the Willow Bend location was the "main" one for my area.

I think this will sting. On a map it looks like the new location is trivially close-by, but the Galleria is in "Dallas proper", as opposed to the other locations which were deep in suburbia. In other words you have to brave Dallas traffic across the urban sprawl to get to it. It's not a mall people in the suburbs go to to just hang out; it's an outing. On top of that, Plano and Frisco are both relatively wealthy areas with lots of people who really really like their Apple devices.

Hopefully this is a wake-up call.
Is this similar to what PrivacyBadger does, or would they complement each other?
Credit card companies have a good system for handling $5 disputes. They write them off.
There are two things going on here. One is whether someone can make an argument and rope a dope out a lesser party so they win. In that case in theory a good set of lawyers might be able to argue what you are saying at least enough to get money out of a 'typical' defendant who doesn't want to fight and that it makes sense to settle. [1] But Apple is not a typical defendant. They are a large and profitable company that has near unlimited resources to fight and drag things on. A patent troll with this type of power on the other side is much more likely to move onto a 'home with no security system' than to try and fight Apple. Most trolls are not world class firms. Easier to simply pick someone else to go after.

Separately one thing that I frequently see on HN is people interpreting things very exactly and literally by law or otherwise. As an example let's take someone who states that 'if you go 57 in a 55 mph you can get a speeding ticket'. Sure you could get a ticket and sure there are people have gotten tickets for going 2 mph over the limit but generally that is not something that happens. Or that you typically have to worry about.

[1] After all this is the basis for much of this troll action.
Those are great points. Could you comment what resources you have used to learn ML?
> And who enforces the contract? [...] Blockchain provides satisfactory answers to all those problems.

No, it doesn't, not if the contract touches on anything outside the blockchain. At the very least this includes anything physical (physical objects or physical services) and currencies not based on that particalur blockchain.
This use case seems disruptive in the finance niche:

https://www.lawsnap.com/smart-contracts-are-set-to-transform...
Interview Travel Expenses, Who Pays?
I was asked for an onsite interview (already passed two rounds), but they want me to advance the travel expenses (Flight + hotel, it's about $1K). There is a staffing agency in the middle and I don't trust them.
I talked to the agency about this making me uncomfortable, and they still want me to book it. In the past, companies always took care of the logistics. I'm worried that they could decide to ghost me and leave me with the bill.

I'm thinking about declining because of that. Thoughts?
If it's actually that bad, you should just fire them or do your best to not work with them because they will drag you down with them.

For milder/more moderate cases, giving someone a way to concede without publicly admitting they're wrong is a often a useful tactic to get said person to do things the right way while building trust in your relationship with them.
CppCast: Analyzing Undefined Behavior with John Regehr
I suspect this has more to do with the foot traffic at these two locations.
Apple Privacy Policy Is Largely Illegal (German Google Translate)
> Shadow notifications?

Is that the name for the "recent tweet from X" notifications? Those have made Twitter notifications completely useless for me. :(
Is there any more info on the redis cluster proxy?
Orgasm and Man's
I'm sorry, just to be clear, you're making a serious contention that the PRC 1. Has universal healthcare (false) and 2. that it's something that is to be imitated?
One part of this scheme that I forgot about, which the link in the sibling reply mentions, is MixMaster (http://mixmaster.sourceforge.net/faq.shtml#1.2), a self-hostable service for “mixing” SMTP traffic (including SMTP>NNTP gateway traffic) around. Many people host these, even today. It’s a bit like Mailinator with all its alias domains, but for the other end of the connection, and distributed.

So, to get all the security features at the same time:

1. Using Tor to hide your IP,

2. Connect to a MixMaster node (using TLS), and

3. Send an encrypted NNTP message through it,

4. To an SMTP>NNTP gateway,

5. With the embedded NNTP message’s Recipient being alt.messages.anonymous.

Kinda complicated, but you could wrap all that up into a nice GUI program if you wanted.

Oh wait, they already did: http://aamdirect.sourceforge.net

——

MixMaster doesn’t do the Tor part for you, though. My suggestion would be to run AAM Direct in a https://tails.boum.org session, which will automatically force the connection through Tor without any configuration needed.

An additional boost to security would be for there to be .onion MixMaster nodes, so that the traffic doesn’t have to traverse the public internet (and thus probably force you to rely on the only-kind-of-secure SMTP STARTTLS extension for security between the Tor exit node and the MixMaster node.)
More background on Idera: https://medium.com/@dirk.avery/r-i-p-travis-ci-347753c73775
I'm getting burned out on all the narcissists writing articles about how they thought everyone else was an imbecile, and rudely raged at everyone most of their career, and how great they are because they got slightly less cancerous. Life is too short for that, if you love something, or have a technical opinion, be a kind hearted teacher and discusser not a rage monster.
+1 on this. I don't think anything in that book was especially new to me, but it matches what I think of as "good software design", and having it all compiled in book form makes it easier to transmit that knowledge to other people, especially students or newer engineers.
To be fair, I think most people who have given blockchain an honest 30 minutes of brainstorming aren't arguing for real world assets connected to a chain.

I would argue that there is potentially a use case when it comes to things that can be completely represented digitally e.g. money.
Here's a profile of a developer:

- Easy going and pleasant.

- Really interested in programming and tech in general

- Talks intelligently about the problem at hand. Asks all the right questions. Agrees a plan of action in collaboration with colleagues.

- Creates systems that definitely appear to work

- Code looks pretty sane. Structure is right. Style seems good.

- Always very responsive to problems. Jumps straight on them.

- Every problem fixed another one seems to pop up.

- Eventually you dig into the code and problem space in detail and you find that in a very subtle, even complex way the whole thing is completely wrong, the problem space misunderstood and everything patched over with little fixes to get things working for a particular case.

In the end no system created by the person is useable without major remediation by another developer.

Anyone experienced this?
Up until a little while ago, it was how jurisdiction worked in the Eastern District, so it isn't (or wasn't) and unreasonable way of thinking about it. Recent Supreme Court precedent fixed this though.
Philadelphia vs. Tampa Bay Live Stream
https://qiita.com/SukhNai05/items/08294a70dc6cd8cbc693
https://qiita.com/HareGelam/items/b2166e52c8e4a205ce81

https://qiita.com/ShukhNai/items/3dac7ce76c09da61a202

https://qiita.com/SukhNai02/items/181cdbbc29bc9a31403c

https://qiita.com/SukhNai03/items/d1ae5196447dbd714954

https://qiita.com/SukhNai04/items/bec9251be84b0549cf69
That helps solve the performance issue within one execution of the surrounding function, but if the surrounding function is called many times, you're more introducing more closures and more indirection. Switch statements involve no allocation. Closures objects, and function calls aren't free.
> Some guy working for a year getting nothing done and pretending like its some other problem than what it actually is

This is a management issue. In a rational engineering organization this guy's manager would be like "okay, so we know there's a problem with this tool. Now how do we work around the tool so we can move on to another problem?" And if the conversation becomes "workarounds are stupid we need to make them fix their tool" then the manager needs to be all like "I agree with you in a perfect world that's how things would work, but we're engineers being paid to solve people's problems and not to build the perfect software system. So build the workaround so we can solve the problem and we'll circle around and fix the tool when we have time."
Chemical weapons aren't used because they're not worth the risk. There was virtually zero battlefield use of chemical weapons in the Second World War, which was otherwise as "no holds barred" as you can imagine.
The discussion is missing the most important point, IMHO: readability and maintainability of the larger system in the long term.

I used to love objects and multimethods (or single-dispatch multimethods for those more limited languages). But then I ended up debugging a large code base which used them extensively. It is a nightmare: by reading the code, there is no way to find out what all the dispatch options are, and without interactively debugging it there is no way to see which code will get called (inheritance messes things up greatly).

I think performance is secondary to these problems, so these days I prefer switch statements (or pattern matching), for their simplicity and reliability.
> You don't - you NEVER - develop to the details of an architecture.

You don't try to develop to the details of an architecture. You even try not to. Then you try to run it on a different architecture, and you find (some of) the places you developed to your specific architecture even though you didn't mean to.

And that's why Linus is right. It's easy to be architecture-specific by accident. It's really hard to not. And it's going to take time and effort to go to a different architecture. In the real world, few people want to waste their time doing that.
I relate to this.

I think one of the symptoms is not picking up enough detailed understanding of anything because you keep moving around and don't believe in most external knowledge anyway (eg. don't want to learn [beyond a certain depth] SQL, it's so ugly on some inner level I'd much rather start with datalog and build my own up, don't want to learn economics I don't trust those science cargo-culters). But the other reason you don't want to specialize is that it would be to accept a limit on yourself (OK I'm going to get specialize on getting very good at c++, my upper salary cap is 500k and likely cap 200k, career is mapped out).

One of the things that's slowly curing me I think is running into examples of systems that are genuinely very heavy to understand/improve, and examples of people who are just unarguably higher ceiling in different ways than you.

eg. go watch a SGM play 30 second hyperbullet chess, I don't think I have either the memory or raw processing speed to do what they do, ever. If those guys exist a lot of other people have way higher ceilings. Also realize that chess (and by extension must be a lot of other activities) rely on both a crazy cpu, an amazing memory and an insanely built-out internal database of positions and ideas, and since my cpu is good but not unbelievable, my memory is nothing special and my time is limited there must be a lot of activities I'll never really be good at. Also just getting older and staying unsuccessful relative to your ego, you just start to compromise I think.
> Maybe the thing is too complex and must be cut down to smaller pieces

i suspect that for many, it's not necessarily their fault Thing is 'too complex' (though perhaps this is tangential); nor are they necessarily provided the opportunity, time or even permission to 'cut down to smaller pieces'. piles of work, looming deadlines and all that.