skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I often find myself wishing Go either allowed import cycles between packages, or allowed namespaces within a package. Because they can become unwieldy.

For example, a common convention is to avoid redundancy. Let's say you have a package "builder". Your encouraged to have "builder.New()" as a constructor, not "builder.NewBuilder()". Fine. Now let's say you need two types of builders: One for building "schemas", one for "objects". Your original constructor now needs to be something like "builder.NewSchemaBuilder()" ("NewSchema" would be confusing, since the function creates builders, not schemas). Or maybe turn it into a verb: "builder.BuildSchema()", "builder.BuildObject()". Part of this is due to the lack of statics, or we could've had "builder.Schema.Build()" or something.

You can also split the package up into two packages, one for schema building and one for objects. (Naming here can be tricky, too. Will it be "schemabuilder.New()", or "schemas.NewBuilder()"?) But if the two builders need to share types, you may end up refactoring the common types into a common package that exists only because of the split.

I have a concrete example of this right now for a small query language. The language has data types (common interface Type) and values (Value). Values can tell you their type. Types can construct values. But they're two distinct sets of declarations. The type implementations and the value implementations can't easily be split across separate packages without having a common package that exists only to hold the shared types. It'd be nice to have "types.String" (in types/string.go) and "values.String" (values/string.go), not "lang.StringType" (lang/string_type.go) and "lang.String" (lang/string.go).

Having a namespace option would help here. Everything could be in one package, but under separate namespaces.
I think what your talking about is speculating vs investing - the term Benjamin Garnham uses.
Thanks for your feedback, "painful" is not what I like to hear. If you're willing, will you send me an email ilya @segment.com, would love to get details.
For hardware prototyping and manufacturing, it already is.
Quine (Computing)
YC states their lead ethical underpinning in the first line of their Founding Principles: "Startups are on balance a good thing." They go further in describing their goal to support and advise founders; and include phrasing about their philosophy of being "benevolent" to founders. Their Principles also describe prioritizing mission-driven endeavors over money. You or I may not share their ethics, but they have theirs.
A Look at the Most Popular Open Source Crypto Trading Bots
Employers are forced to determine average wage for the job description in the area and pay this as a minimum wage to prevent exploitation of foreign labor. This has always been the case. H1 employees are not being paid less than citizens.
I used SSDS in a large datacenter database deployment some five years ago. Intel drives with sanforce controllers. Of the thousands of drives I installed I had a handful of DOA another handful of failures when writing maxlba to overprovision by 20% and to export wear smart value.
And after a year or two exactly one drive that needed to be pulled a because max re-write reported it was at 70% or write lifespan.
Compared to the 10k rpm sas drives that had an annual failure rate of 1 in 20 I counted it a win. Especially because I was getting 4x the performance out of 4 drives as I used to get from 12.

Then again there was a huge difference in failure between people who do SSD well (intel and sandisk) and manufacturers who did things... less well. I remember the OCZ controller would crash and block write operations for a half second while it rebooted. Kinda messed with the write throughout numbers.
>Why isn't forced arbitration illegal?

The US government was "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Now it is of/by/for big corporations.

Forced arbitration is a whole-scale privatization of the justice system. Americans are actively being deprived of their right to justice, see: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/business/dealbook/in-arbi...
Nusantara Satu Mission
> I don't feel "taken advantage of" when my code is taken, used in secret, and nothing is given back. I'm glad I could help.

If you make a new technology and an entity bigger than you comes along and makes profit, gives you no credit and contributes nothing in return, you are not going to be "glad to help", you're going to want something in return.

These companies do not contribute so they're required to adopt the new rules as a consequence. It's not fair Amazon profits off work others do entirely for free. They should be required by law to contribute a % of profits to the open source community, based on software they've used. Similar to artists being paid a % of streams of their music.

You use that NPM package? They have a donate button? You should be required to donate if you're a giant like Amazon/Microsoft/Google etc.
It doesn't matter. Are the Indians and Chinese going to stop pounding on the doors because the American government makes the rules marginally more strict? No, probably not.
After I told my coworker that I was beating the market in my stock picking account by quite a lot, he said “Man, I’m down 80%, like $10,000. What do you think I should buy to make it back?”

I said, “Just sell everything and put it in an index fund.”

I don’t think he did. He’s probably down more now.

Stock picking is fun, but for me it’s just gambling. If I lost that much, I’d quit.
As a mechanism of governance, it’s the best we’ve found so far at achieving prosperous, stable societies over a long time horizon. Perhaps the single biggest advantage well-run democracies offer is peaceful transfer of power.
That sucks. I'm okay if I never reach the same income as I had though.
There are newer/commercial databases that use that sort of microbenchmarking approach. My guess is that no one has implemented it for Postgres, or there's a fork that does it, or it's somehow pluggable. I'm not sure if there's been any discussion of it in the developer communications, but its worth a look.
Any company that lays me off for having boundaries is a company I don't want to work for. Work-life balance is pretty much the _only_ think I optimize for when looking for jobs now. I'm fine being flexible once in a while but if the default assumption is that I will be available on slack every night, I'm not gonna stay there.
Canada, already a major center for AI innovation, will be the new silicon valley.

The corollary of this is that with our punishingly high personal income and capital gains taxes and dearth of good exits for startups, the only thing we really have going for us is our sane points-based immigration system. I work at a company with a lot of engineers who were trying to get entry to the US and gave up and decided to work towards PR in Canada instead.

We are essentially arbitraging America's dysfunctional immigration rules. If the Americans ever get smart and pass comprehensive immigration reform (hint - like Obama's Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 which never got a vote in the House and withered on the vine), tech in Canada is even more screwed than it is now.
If the Average Joe loses more money, maybe they should rename it SherrifOfNotingham as it would be stealing from the poor to give to the rich.
US State Department Travel Safety Map
Note to self: don’t call anything “forever” in a SaaS product.
If China were to have continued its gradual openness before XJ, I would have agreed. Now, I have my doubts. Sure, innovation needs capital and it also needs an educated and skilled workforce, but it also needs freedom of speech to thrive and grow. Without freedom of speech, all you have is one giant copier. There's an intellectual cost to constantly having to determine whether you can say or write something without getting in trouble. imo A South Korean metro has a much better chance of replacing SV long term.
Really? I’d be worried about doing R&D in China, given the track record of outright stealing anything that isn’t nailed down. You’d also have to wade through a Byzantine network of graft and family connections to get anything done, deal with the central government’s whims (imagine Apple in China telling their equivalent of the FBI to sit and spin), and hope that their opaque economic structure really is heading in a good direction. China gets the manufacturing business because of plentiful, desperate labor, but that’s just for manufacturing. Much of the other business there is a matter of gaining access to the Chinese market.
Why a Hotdog Is Not a Sandwich
> you are not going to be "glad to help", you're going to want something in return

That's not true and the very point of my comment. To each his own, but no need to assume it of others.
I want to address one of your points, I work here in the US under a work visa for a FAANG company. I disagree with your idea that it's somehow unfair/evil that I was "stolen" from my home country.

I decided to come work to the US, no one "stole me" from nowhere, and I don't think it's somewhat unfair to my home country that I decided to do so, just as the many immigrants I met and worked with back in my home country in the tech sector.
That's why I said "~ the minimum" :)

In particular, it does at most the same number of multiplies as the LRU cache version in the OP
> I think forced arbitration should only be legal in actively negotiated contracts (i.e. both parties were active in writing and modifying all the terms), where the proposing party disclosed the implications in plain language, and where agreeing to it was entirely optional for either party (sort of like GDPR consent).

That may have the unintended side effect of employers including _even more_ onerous impositions which they anticipate will be negotiated away, making the negotiation "active" as far as the parties are concerned but with the same outcome.

If it were entirely optional, what employee _would_ opt in to forced arbitration?

Thinking more about it, I would imagine employers would offer small incentives in exchange for the forced arbitration clause (like more paid time off, etc) but at least in that case it would be a trade-off made by the employee.
Bowser Will Replace Reggie Fils-Aimé as Nintendo of America President
Cambridge University Launches Archive of Aerial Photos Going Back to 1945
Awesome letter, thank you. Feynman was a genius in more than one way. In a way, all great teachers have the ability to see into us.
One can never have enough backup storage. I fail to see where your problem is.
And great news for Canadians eligible to work in the US under a TN visa. Why work in Canada when you can dramatically increase your earnings and reduce your living costs?
You guys should come to New Zealand... working outside of your work hours is not cool here. More and more companies expect only 37 hours per week... a new trend is 4 days workweeks.

Nobody checking their email or phone after work... Ridiculous.
Yeah, probably is, I only use macports as my computer is substantially out of date (2006)! But even my 'port info shellcheck' (0.3.8) only says:

Build Dependencies: apple-gcc42

Library Dependencies: ghc, hs-json, hs-mtl, hs-parsec, hs-quickcheck-devel, hs-regex-tdfa
What do you mean by liberal?
Dammit TechCrunch... neither this nor the previous license were/are "open source".

My comment from another thread:

>As an outspoken critic of the original change, I applaud this move. I still wish it were open source, but this solves a lot of the confusing nomenclature I took offense with. Kudos.

That being said, this is some serious bullshit:

>But after the initial noise calmed down — and especially after some other companies came out with a similar concept — the community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed
And making it free, at least initially, for businesses removes the requirement of having to have a conversation about it or get permission. It's the same way Dropbox gained so much traction (arguably, the first to execute this model).

You let all of the employees use something for free, come to rely on it, and then all of a sudden it's become entrenched in the workflow/culture/whatever. At that point, it's easier to just pay for the service than to switch.

See Slack.
In a country where even citizen couples can need two jobs, each, just to survive, it is frustrating that immigrants are still expected to just somehow pull it together. Oh, and all the immigrant-heavy jobs seem to be in very expensive areas, at least for tech.

Here’s a good yardstick for citizens: for any given immigrant policy X (or heck, any policy X on any subject), would you want to live that way? If “no”, the policy is Wrong. Period.

These policies also keep trying to restrict immigrants without paying any attention to the benefits that companies receive, and indeed that citizens receive, when there are immigrants. First, the basic one: more people = more customers to buy stuff in your local economy, broader tax base, etc. Second, sometimes the entire presence of a site is based on filling a certain minimum number of jobs. A site with 1000 people that has 300 immigrants is not “300 stolen American jobs”, it’s +700 jobs that wouldn’t have otherwise existed for citizens; or, it’s a site that wouldn’t be able to do as much otherwise, possibly causing the entire company to fail in some way that ends up costing U.S. jobs all over the place, even at other sites.

Policies should never be “death by 1000 cuts”, either. Politicians keep finding ways to make things that they don’t like unnecessarily hard, just because they haven’t found a way to kill them off entirely. Well, frankly, that kind of thing is crap.
I'm not saying we should criminalize gambling. There's a whole spectrum of policies between fully legal and completely illegal.

However, I don't agree with the notion that spending revenue from immoral sources on "good" causes warrants the immoral source.

Edit: Typos
Yeah but this is in America where those laws don't exist, though I wish they did
I agree. If the documentation seems duplicated, chances are the code is too. Worded oppositely, if the code is duplicated, chances are the documentation is duplicated or repetitive. Both the documentation and the main logic it describes should live in one place.
There is currently no consistent incentives for global multinationals to invest locally when there's "always labor somewhere else." If you compelled local hiring, then the multinationals might stop giving locals the middle finger and invest in a country instead of strip-mining it into an impoverished favela. I don't want to get into divide-and-conquered, tribalism political malarkey, but the people have to push out the corporate corruption and get politicians working for We The People, not just We The Corporations. Without fixing the political system by rising up, the corporations will keep killing the middle class.
Emirates has live TV. Granted it's limited but it's there.
I feel like the corollary to this is that you're strongly encouraged to not access work stuff from a non Corp device.

I don't think I've ever logged in to my Corp account from any non Corp device other than my phone, which uses a work profile for exactly that reason.
No. However, not letting people speak will make it more likely that they will feel there are no other options for them. That's just common sense. If you take away an option, people feel they have one less option.

Good thing that I am not making such an argument then. But you have asserted that 'the remedy for violent extremist tendencies is to let people talk,' and I would like evidence for that claim, which I don't think is unreasonable.

Sure, therapy is probabilistic, with no guarantees for any given individual. Effectively, you have been straw-manning by conflating the two.

You're attributing an awful lot of statements to me that I haven't made. How can I be conflating therapeutic and societal contexts when I distinguished between them in the first place, and agreed that your approach might function well in the therapeutic context?

Your conflating the therapeutic context feeds into a narrative your'e pushing about certain people being irredeemable.

I don't have opinions about redemption, I observe that some people express violent animus against others within an ideological framework and then go on and commit violence much as they said they wanted to do. That this happens is an empirical fact, and you don't seem to have any strategy for dealing with it. Earlier on in your post, you said:

In the US, we can vote. We have freedom of speech. This is a big reason why we can resolve differences and exchange power without violence.

But there is already a lot of political violence in the US and it includes a lot of murders. Many of the people committing said murders had a presence on social media where there stated approval of political violence were variously tolerated, shared, or encouraged, even if they were unpopular with the public at large. Do you have any strategy for dealing with this beyond listening to people talk?
I think you should start a business and travel. Now is the time, it's going to be much harder later on when you're working full time. You won't be able to take the time off later...

You'll also be able to get another job no problem, go travel if it is important to you!
But there is a shortcut in this particular instance: following Charlie Munger's advice and just buying index funds like VTSAX, SWTSX, or FZROX. A 10-year return of 13.25% for VTSAX is really sweet given the very low effort it takes to throw money into that fund.

It's not a matter of being dumb or not: it's a matter of whether the average investor is willing to carefully research companies or not. You seem to do it as a hobby, and it's great that you're getting 12% to 20% returns. But I'd wager that the average retail investor doesn't have the same drive as you do in figuring out which company's stock might rise.
I'm kind of outraged that he has a solution in hand to carsickness in the form of strange glasses and didn't prove a link to the product.

Does anyone know what those are? I would kill to be able to read in the car.

edit: seems to be these https://www.boardingglasses.com/?action=home&lang=EN
> The sole purpose of democracies is to make people's problems their fault.

Why is this good?

I would say the goal is to reduce problems.

> Most systemic issues we see today have a root cause in people giving up their ability to vote

Could you provide examples? Is this responsible for poverty, war, or poor education?

> preserving each person's share in the power pie

Bit of a mixed bag. Depending on your political leanings, I might give Trump and Brexit as examples of democracies making poor choices.
> You use that NPM package? They have a donate button? You should be required to donate if you're a giant like Amazon/Microsoft/Google etc.

a license with these terms wouldn't conform to any definition of open source or free software. if you want that, go for it, but if you've licensed something with any libre license you are already consenting to allow anyone use your software for profit as long as they meet the license terms. you may or may not agree with this state of affairs, but adding these types of restrictions/requirements also means that you aren't doing open source or free software anymore.
If you want to do an analogy with GPU compute shaders, I think it is more accurate to compare to how GPUs can scale the number of cores without (potentially) the need to recompile, as long as enough blocks are scheduled.

This is orthogonal to the fact that these are warp-size aware I believe.
H1B is a dual intent visa.

>So I'm confused. How is it some kind of tragedy when the visa under which you are working doesn't provide a quick path to a green card? Isn't the visa doing exactly as advertised? Furthermore, providing the H1B spouse with a work permit -- doesn't that mean that the spouse can work in a non-shortage occupation without restriction? Doesn't that necessarily mean that the spouse is able to compete with Americans and permanent residents for jobs that are not hard-to-fill? Basically 1 work visa provides 2 jobs? That doesn't seem like the intent of the H1B program which is to provide temporary workers of high ability to fill specialized jobs for which there are verifiable shortages. It certainly isn't designed to be a recruiting tool for big tech: "Come work for us and your spouse can get a job too! The salary is lower than an equally qualified American, but since your spouse gets to work too, you'll have enough money to live in San Jose and maybe one day, you might even get a green card!" That seems to be the promise the H1B crowd is expecting.

The problem is that everything you wrote currently applies to only two or three countries. For H1B from all other countries, H1B is a pathway to green card in as low as 7 months upon which their spouse gets a green card and work authorization. How is that fair?

If H1B is all what you claim it is, why are these people getting green cards and work authorization?
The second worst way to help people who are sick is to flood the market with their addiction, and then justify that as a way to essentially redistribute money from the desperate and the stupid, to the rich and cruel. That the latter then shares a cut with some half-asses public programs doesn’t change the way the money was made.

Don’t make it illegal, but don’t encourage it. I support total legalization of all drugs for example, but not advertising them or encouraging people to take a vacation to a shooting gallery.
> Country based discrimination at it's finest.
> Born in the wrong countries(China/India) = 70 years waiting for a green card and dying before your spouse can legally work. > Born in the right countries = Green card in 7 months and being able to work instantly.

Born in some countries... have almost zero chance of getting any visa at all.
> For new startups (<2 years, <$5M raised)

Basically this definition works for venture-backed startups, who will fail or get big funding in 2 years. For those of us taking a slower, lower-risk path, two years is a pretty short cutoff for "startup" status.

If the entry-level, non-startup pricing were more modest, this wouldn't be much of an issue. But reading the comments about pricing here, it seems like the non-startup pricing is very high.
This all sounds completely normal. Do people actually imagine that the hardware they use at work is somehow theirs, and not their employer's?

"Keep a hard boundary between your work and personal systems" has always been the right answer. I am surprised that this does not seem obvious to everyone.
Real-Time Chat Solutions vs. Chat Platforms
The Curious Story of American / Italian Coffee Culture Exchange
this isn't even relevant. your spam strategy needs work.
Bridges usually suck, even for IRC. Split brain, someone needs to monitor it constantly, you are not sure if Matrix clients have received it and vice versa.
Germany today: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/01/german-mini...

They agreed to merely postpone it for a year https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rwe-lignite-hambach/germa...
I'm in the same boat. I love love love segment at Reforge (and I hear Segment loves Reforge, too). I've built some pretty awesome data pipelines (Personas are my favorite feature of all time) and have armed the marketing team to the teeth.

But my side project, Casting Call Club, has 150k uniques a month, most of which are not monetized. There's just simply no way I can justify paying for Segment. Many of the ideas I think about are simply lost because it would take too much time to build out myself.
H1B is dual intent, meaning a H1B holder is allowed to have intent to immigrate. This is different from, say, a TN visa, where a holder expressing intent to immigrate at a border could be denied entry