skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I never read Clean Code because of a kind of silly reason. I've worked with a couple of devs who read it and then decided the optimal number of lines of code per function was three. I always felt like I needed 6 monitors to be able to understand anything that was happening.

But if you recommend and say it's similar to Code Complete I'll give it a shot. What I liked most about Code Complete is he always talks about trade offs with a clear goal in mind. For instance if function sizes are too small hidden pre-conditions or side effects can cause a bug. But if functions are too large they are hard to follow and it's difficult to isolate side effects.
Slightly ridiculous. Blockchains enforce the contract on the blockchain.

The contracts don't, and can't, concern themselves with anything that is off the blockchain. Once the ether is in your account, the contract is complete.
> I really hope someday I don't have to explicitly say things like "Just because I'm capable of swimming in a pool that might have some urine in it, doesn't mean I'm OK with swimming in a pool comprised solely of urine."

Just like I long for the day I don't have to explain to somebody that just because I know urine isn't dangerous to swim in doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to swim in a pool with less urine. Yet here we are.
It was free with every NeXT workstation!

This right here, I believe, is the biggest problem facing software today. How do you pay for it? End-users expect software to cost $0, yet it takes a lot of time and effort to build anything.

The most successful software projects and companies I see today are those which figured out innovative business models: advertising, hardware, free for open source / paid for business, make it all open source and get a job maintaining it.

There's no one correct answer. For any business model you pick for your software today, half the world will be upset with you. I wish Mathematica was more affordable, but I can't fault someone for creating a sustainable business. As Joel Spolsky said, good software takes 10 years (at least!), and most software dies long before it gets 10 years of development, so we never even get the chance to see if it could have been good.
I'm not going to defend a negative generalization of all autistic people, however I am going to ferociously defend thinking or dreaming of killing someone being perfectly normal.

I had an investor in a company I started who used his position as a giant dick-waving platform. He would constantly come in and tell us that we shouldn't be paying ourselves salary, or that he could make more money by opening a lemonade stand.

Eventually I started having thoughts and dreams about, if not killing him, him having a terrible "accident."

I think if you haven't wished death on someone ever in your live, you're either living in denial or haven't met a wide enough range of people. One day you might have to associate with someone who's entire existence you find vile and pointless, and you might change your tune.
Re: documenting code, I've gotten a lot of conflicting advice over the years, with some people insisting code should be documenting, and others insisting on docstrings.
I don't think pointing the way to a better understanding of the problem is arrogance, especially when these type of posts effectively just add to other learners' misunderstandings. I can tell the poster is still learning due to that title, and because they call a switch statement on constants "typical" (as opposed to seeing it as a broken implementation of match).

The fundamental issue is called the "expression problem", and arises because the problem of assigning behavior is two dimensional (one dimension is the types/cases, the second dimension is the methods/operations), and possibly open along either dimension. Match works better when the methods/operations are open. Objects work better when the types/cases are open. If they're both open, then you need to figure out which one to make less open. At best, you can carve off partial sections where one particular dimension is open by fixing the other dimension, etc.

CLOS kind of punts and has you express each element of the matrix on its own. Which doesn't actually solve the problem, but at least makes it symmetrical.

That is the state of the art, AFAIK. Fixing the problem along either dimension is enough to make a workable language, but neither one is "better". There could be something better, but we haven't found it, and we're certainly not going to find it if people don't appreciate the whole problem!
They’re also stupid because they perpetuate this meaningless idea that things can’t be done because of “politics”. Quote: “But most also said plans that eliminate it now are politically infeasible.”

Three years ago Medicare for All was “politically infeasible”. Then it turned out when you presented a direct, clear policy that improved people’s lives and was clearly untainted by special interests, people started to sign up. And suddenly every democrat candidate who hopes to have a shot at least has to pretend to offer Medicare for All. (Pretend because obviously some are for “realistic” “politically feasible” plans that mostly maintain the status quo and keep lobbyists and the insurance industry happy.)
This is literally just responding to someone saying "people buy more Heinz ketchup because it's tastier" by saying "perhaps it's because they made it as tasty as they could".
LOL

It's not a critical flaw. It's a reality to be contended with.

The flaw would be pretending this isn't the case, and trying to be just like Silicon Valley and competing with them on their terms at their own game.

Sudbury is a real city in a real place. It can't relocate. It can't choose a better climate. So community leaders have to contend with reality.

Like any competitive landscape, you have to look at your strengths and weaknesses. Our weaknesses are obvious (it's fucking cold). But our strengths?

How about having two of the largest and longest running mining companies in the world operating here? How about having an entire class of engineers who have specialized on mining and have already chosen to live here? How about having two colleges and a university supplying fresh talent every year? How about a radically lower cost of living? And an abundance of funding from local, provincial, and federal governments who are hungry to see real progress in this space? How about a far more open immigration policy attracting top talent from countries your president is afraid of?

I'm sorry but this Valley-centric mentality is just weird. It may surprise you to learn that not everyone thinks the Bay Area is awesome. (I've been. I loved visiting. Wouldn't want to live there.) Alot of brilliant mathematicians, scientists, and engineers want nothing to do with it.

We also have universal health care, radically lower crime rates, an abundance of nature, low population density, comparatively cheap real estate, and hockey. So much hockey.

That smoke stack has long been roughly 98% water vapor because we long ago cleaned up our smelting process to not need it, and the steam was needed to push the other 2% to the top. It's also being decommissioned in the next few years.

So who's moving here? The people who love it. Don't believe me? Check out #WeLiveUpHere for a hint of the passion locals have for this community.

Anyway, that was all an aside. This wasn't about "hey, look how great Sudbury is, you should all be like Sudbury." It's 100% fine if you don't like it, but it's delusional to think that everyone feels the same way.

My point was that every community has to contend with tech disruption. The desperate ones will throw their money behind anything tech and hope it sticks. The smart ones will focus on the areas where they're already strong.
Anyone can call themselves a "blockchain enthusiast" that doesn't mean they're smart or know what they're doing.

Examples of good thinkers are the guys over at multicoin capital, a crypto focused hedge fund: https://multicoin.capital

I don't agree with everything they invest in, but they have clear, logical theses
This is some kind of funny joke article
Trying to Fix Messy Concourse YAMLs with Dhall
Oh god no. At least not as the primary guidance for long-range. It can be partially used to track a target, but it's not being used to decide where to target in a broader sense.

Short range devices sure, but they still require a human to point and launch. There's not a margin of error there that will divert a missile from an armored vehicle to an elementary school.
They don't want to re-define how patent law works because they sometimes use it to their advantage.
why does it "say more about the author"?

does your comment about Dunning-Kruger "say more about you" than the author?
Surprised this is the only mention of SICP. Although I don't know that I would have been able to handle it earlier in life. Perhaps it's different with accompanying lectures, but for self study it's quite a workout. I think it's worth trying, worth putting aside for later if you're not ready, and worth ultimately returning to. I'd be amazed if the undergraduates it was aimed at were able to appreciate it in full.
You might enjoy any of Mike Dash's writing, also. He walks the line between vivid history and nonfiction novels, but he's also a diligent researcher who's pretty often covering material from unexamined primary sources.

Single-story history is of course easier to make vivid than thesis-based writing, but he still stands out to me as way above the usual mark for density * readability.
I think you're being unnecessarily cynical here.

For the sake of argument, let's set aside whether Gladwell's conclusions are correct or not, and just focus on the structure and style of his writing. Not all brains process information the same way. Just like some people are visual learners, and some are auditory learners, some people react better to one type of anecdote versus another. Offering multiple anecdotes or stories around a given topic offers the opportunity for more people to "click" with the concept being presented.

I'll give an example from my own life. I enjoy reading about new technologies, whether programming languages, cloud services, databases, etc. Frequently over the years, I've heard of something, and read a couple of things about it, and then decided "That's not very interesting, I don't think I'd use that, so I can ignore it." Then some time passes and I read something else about it, written from a different point of view. Maybe it describes an application for it that I hadn't considered (and that wasn't presented in the previous things I'd read), or perhaps it relates it to something I already know in such a way that I understand where it fits into my world. I reconsider my position, and find that technology X is, in fact, interesting and worth paying attention to.

That's happened more than once. Probably closer to a dozen times over my career. It's the same thing with books of this nature. If you're the kind of person who can look at a summary of a concept or a new thing, and immediately take stock of what it is, how it works, and how it applies, that's great. You're exactly right, you're not the target audience. That doesn't mean that the people who are the target audience are simple-minded folks who are looking for the intellectual equivalent of junk food. It simply means they process information differently than you do.
People say this because blockchains are currently extremely complex and expensive in exchange for the value prop "don't need to be hosted by a trusted authority". That doesn't mean the value prop doesn't exist - it just means there are better tradeoffs today.

There are tons of cases where groups of entities interact and don't inherently trust each other. That is basically all of trade. In all of these cases, it would be more ideal if no one party had to be a trusted authority.

As soon as it seems simpler and less expensive for blockchains to implement this behavior, they will suddenly become a useful tool for all kinds of applications.
> First of all, you can't trot out stuff like "I have the power of common sense" while complaining about snide comments

Tit for tat.

> As for due warning, they were informed of the religious observance at the time (and before Easter Sunday), and proceeded to straight up make policy on the spot that invalidated it and future religious celebrations.

Yes, the the day before Easter, which he also took off as apparently Easter weekend is a holiday, not just the day.

> I asked for your qualifications not to be hostile but because legal matters are often - for better and worse - more nuanced than most people's intuition, and I don't think you have adequately addressed either the legal specifics of what constitutes adequate notice, examined Yelp's response to the situation, or how any of this might look to a jury.

You asked because it functioned as an ad hominem. You're part of this conversation, and haven't suggested you have any legal qualifications, which we can safely assume it means you don't.

I don't need to address the legal specifics of what constitutes adequate notice, because I'm fairly confident "the day before" isn't going to qualify.

Have you read any case law on the matter? Reasonable accommodations doesn't even require that employers remove the conflict, they just need to accommodate it. The request for this "time off" was made the day he wanted to start taking said time off, for 2 days. Yelp had an "emergency" situation that obligated him be on-call.

Read the standard: "Unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business." Minimal burden. Furthermore, the EEOC defines what reasonable accommodations might look like:

"Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practice"

How many of those can be implemented with no notice? None. The very idea that you and others think 0 days notice for religious accommodation is acceptable is so very confusing. The bar to show the request as unreasonable is exceptionally low. Almost anything can be considered more than a minor burden.
Ask HN: Where Could Someone Post about a Medical Experience Anonymously?
Asking anonymously and looking for an anonymous solution, lol...

I recently went through a medical procedure and I want to share my experience. The problem is I don't want to be personally tied to the article - I just want to share information I learned that people with the same issue might not know about or might be scared of.

I'm not a doctor. I spent years trying OTC solutions; nothing worked; finally at my limits and breaking down and going to see a doctor; the solution was ridiculously easy.

I looked at posting on medium.com but I'm not seeing an anonymous option. I guess I could create a "fake" account there as well.

Any medical related websites that might allow submissions from the general public?

I think a more personal touch - first hand experience - would give others confidence to just go see a doctor. And the reason I'm thinking a lot of them don't is because of comments on the OTC product pages and how much other people are terrified of seeing a doctor or don't know that the solution is quite easy and painless.
I just want to point out that different countries in Europe have different implementation of universal health care system. UK != France != Swiss != Germany ~= Netherlands...

The German system, which is also the oldest universal healthcare system, would be the best/easiest fit to transition the USA towards that.
two things:

First, that's the cost of doing business in less politically developed countries like South Korea. Google withdrew from China for not wanting to stoop to the oppressive, corrupt gov't; Apple on the other hand outsourced all data collection to a domestic Chinese company to continue business there. Samsung unfortunately doesn't have the luxury to leave South Korea. You don't hear Samsung exec's getting convicted of bribery in the US, do you?

Second, lookie here, a red herring! We are discussing what to expect from most sane big "reasonable" companies with respect to their IP, not the recent political corruption scandal, or the messy ouster of President Park, in South Korea.
This Startup Does Not Exist
I'm not saying: you don't need the blockchain because you shouldn't be doing bad things.

I'm saying: you need the blockchain if and only if you are doing things that are illegal in your country. It's a decision criteria for when you need the blockchain.

I'm making no moral judgement. And there are very good reasons to want to do things that your government deems illegal (for example, donating to a political organization that has been blacklisted)
Google is in the midst of a large expansion in NYC. Amazon themselves are even still expanding in NYC, just not to the levels (and location) of the HQ2 plan.

NYC tech will be absolutely fine. It's still a very desirable place to base a company, and IMO people won't even be talking about the Amazon deal in a year's time. I mean, think about the level of resistance big tech companies face in San Francisco, or Seattle even. This is a pretty uniform thing.
Moreover, blockchain isn't even allowed to be a satisfactory answer to all those problems, except when you're operating in an extra-legal environment.

Because, if a court decides that a transaction was illegal and orders you to reverse it, answering, "But the blockchain. . . !" is a great way to land yourself in jail.

Which, granted, plenty of anarchists and criminals have moral or practical reasons why they would rather operate in an extra-legal environment. But here we come to the reason why skipping the "as a..." line in your user stories is such an anti-practice: Those are two very specific user profiles. Most the rest of us would like to see QuadrigaCX's clients get their money back.
Namecheap Has DNSSEC Outage, No Disclosure on Status Page, Refuses Post-Mortem
Multiple people, including myself, have reported on Twitter that Namecheap had a DNSSEC outage a day ago which caused an unknown number of domains to stop being resolved by major DNS resolvers including Google 8.8.8.8, Cloudflare 1.1.1.1, and Verisign 64.6.64.6. Some are still down today, presumably due to downstream caching.

I do not mind that they had an outage. What I do mind is their response to it. They still have not acknowledged the problem on their status page, and they refuse to provide any post-mortem.

I searched on Twitter and this problem seems to be occurring yearly. I have serious concerns about how they run operations, DNS should be mission critical for a registrar.

Which registrar takes DNSSEC more seriously, where should I move my domains?
So you mean a system could exist to lower costs for some parties?
>I don't think there ever will be. I would probably not shoot a kid that I only suspect would shoot someone. I doubt a teacher would either.

There have been interviews with bystanders who had firearms on their person during a mass shooting and they didn't use their firearm because they didn't want the police to think they were on the side of the attacker(s). The idea that life is like a video game where there are unambiguous and easily identified "good guys" and "bad guys" in a chaotic situation is very juvenile.
So, according to your article, 29% of Canadians had to wait 4 or more hours, whereas 24% of Americans did

What? Where does it say that in the report? The figure is 24% of Americans and _56%_ of Canadians!

Patients who waited 4 weeks or longer to see a specialist, after they were advised or decided to see one in the last 2 years: Country results from highest to lowest

Canada, 56% (below average); Norway, 52%; New Zealand, 44%; Sweden, 42%; United Kingdom, 37%; Commonwealth Fund average, 36%; France, 36%; Australia, 35%; Germany, 25%; United States, 24%; Netherlands, 23%; Switzerland, 22%

Also, here's a quick guide to health insurance systems around the world. As a Canadian, I would urge all Americans to be extremely suspicious of the National Health Insurance model that Canada has. Wait lists are very real. The Bismarck model seem like a better fit for US culture and needs (still universal access).

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/health_care_syste...
> needs to be forcefully briefed

This will let you feel superior and get the pleasure of making the dumb person feel terrible, but it really won't accomplish anything productive. What do you hope to gain by doing this? Will they start being smarter? Will they be better at their job?

I'm sorry, doing what you describe is just being a bully. If management isn't dealing with the problem person you should privately make them aware of the issues (in writing if possible). If management is aware of the issues and won't do anything about it, well you did your part and you aren't allowed to fix the problem. Unless it is a life and death or national security situation, either accept that the dummy is going to be around or resign.

If they haven't done any work for a year their manager is useless. You work at a place where managers don't do their job. If you take it upon yourself to set this person straight, you are basically propping up this useless manager. Useless managers hire useless people and chase away good people. Fixing this problem treats the symptom and may let the bad manager last longer than they would have otherwise, which means you are going to have to go set two additional people straight about how useless they are next year.
Oh yea they're evil. I have no compunction about saying that
Wondering how companies with not very good ideas or products and losing huge amounts of money could be getting the valuations that they were.
Blockchain these days is mostly a hype train terminology. There are three components that come together to make a blockchain, but people will often call their technology blockchain if it meets only some of theses:

1. Merkle tree or some other cryptographic append-only technology. (This is really old, by the way).

2. Proof-of-work. (This was, to my knowledge, first proposed as an anti-spam measure, which incidentally went nowhere because most spammers "borrow" other people's computers for free, and so it doesn't inconvenience them in the slightest).

3. Achieving consensus by saying that he who did the most work is right. (This, again to my knowledge, was actually the main innovation that Bitcoin brought to the table).

Many people pitch things only having the Merkle tree as being blockchain technology, because blockchain is in and Merkle trees are so 20th century technology.
https://outline.com/ZUGZzz
> You think they happen less often in Russia? Syria? Venezuela?

"Mass Shootings", yes. "Shoot outs", no.

Venezuela, most shooting homicides are to cover up a crime, such as petty theft. These are inherently not "mass".

Syria is in active civil war, these are not "mass shootings" as much as battles. They're also more shootings to achieve a political end (not to create terror towards a political end) or for the personal vendettas of the shooter.
Amazon paying $0 in 2018 federal taxes was widely reported. Here's one citation: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/15/amazon-ta...
> I don't know if I'm an outlier, but I hate having to resign back into sites I use even semi-regularly unless its for administrative access or purchase confirmation.

Having set up a master password in Firefox, resigning usually takes me a single click (as the login info is filled in by the browser). Would this be useful in your case?
> since he’s overseas, can’t get the fallback SMS

This is one of the reasons I purchased a mobile/cell number from Twilio to use as a backup for all of the websites that only support 2FA via SMS (Apple, PayPal etc.).

The 2FA code gets sent to a channel on my own private Slack workspace via a webhook [1]. If I lose my phone I can always log into the Slack website on another device to access the code.

[1] https://www.twilio.com/docs/studio/tutorials/how-to-post-sms...
Ah my bad. I guess it's still relatively fair overall.