skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hmm, we had more than 2, if you consider how big Android and iOS are (in amounts of clients). Not sure what kind of GPU something like the Librem 5 is going to use.

For desktop Linux FOSS drivers, sure, you are right. What choices do we have here besides low end Intel and AMD (who can't seem to compete with Nvidia for marketshare)? I mean, I put my money to AMD for GPU and CPU whenever I can. Ryzen and Vega give good price/performance... but the option isn't always available (Vega weren't in stock or expensive during the cryptocurrency hype, and for say laptop its difficult to go AMD).

Now, I get that Intel is a small player in the GPU market, and that competition is good here, but Intel is huge in the CPU market. I feel like AMD is the underdog; they face a gigantic bully on #1 in both CPU and GPU field: Intel and Nvidia. I don't like either of these companies...
I agree wholeheartedly. I've been in several Canadian hospitals, and the older ones tend to feel cramped and have old fixtures, chairs, etc. Like a school built in the 70s. However in all cases I - or my loved ones - received what I would consider excellent care.

This resembles the "crisis" in education, where Univesities are spending huge sums of money from rising tuition fees on fancy facilities and amenities even as full professors are replaced with adjuncts.
Why Following Your Dreams Is a Myth
This.

There are 2 types of developers: those who enjoy philosophizing about programming minutiae and then there are those who enjoy shipping products.
Can you expand it on this?

I agree that I use Ubuntu on server because I use it on the desktop, that makes sense.

However, when I installed Ubuntu Server 18.04 recently it was delightful. There was this simple feature they added which automatically pulled down my ssh key from my GitHub account. During the install it asked me to enable the semi-recent kernel livepatching (and old fashioned unattended-upgrades) it even suggested plexmediaserver as a snap package - which was my goal.

Of course installing actual servers is a bit archaic in the age of docker, but it made me feel like I made the right choice of OS.
The attitude says to me "We've lied or misled the public so often, they're not even going to try to pin us down on this tiny one".
What is the selection criteria ? I feel many folks who have flexible jobs (waiter, uber driver, etc) would love to join your program, work on assignments for a say 5 hours and do part time work rest of the time.
> What are the boundaries of problems we humans just don't have the grace of asking about

> What questions aren't we asking?

I don't see the point to your submission. First you postulate that there are things we cannot think about, and then you ask us to think about it.
It is correct. Usage makes it correct, and it has been used this way for centuries. Its your incorrect labelling which results in the unnecessary spread of gendered pronouns.
It's semantics to say community guidelines serve to support a wide range of people and not behaviors. It has the same effect. It will drive away people who do not fit your definition of "good" behavior. It's no different than homophobic policies that said we don't discriminate against gays, we discriminate against "bad behavior". And certain behaviors can drive away people, but censorship definitely does.

And I have to disagree with you about the worst communities. The worst communities are those with too much guidelines. Of course some guidelines are necessary, but mostly those involving harrassment, not speech. The US is based on the idea of less guidelines. North Korea, China, Russia, etc are based on "lots of guidelines". And the death spiral can go boths ways. Just as much to totalitarianism as it can go to anarcy.

Also, it's not an exaggeration that "insults and inflammatory language" is stifling. It's the definition of it. Anything can be considered insulting to anyone. That's why we have principled understanding of free speech. The basis of free speech is that you have the right to offend. Otherwise, you claiming that the earth is round is offensive and inflammatory to a flat earther and grounds for censorship.

You seem to think that just because I think someone should be allowed to say "an argument is stupid" is me advocating for anarchy or harrassment. I'm not. Also, "insults" aren't that insulting to everyone. Language that you find offensive isn't offensive to me. And I don't consider Linux's language to be offensive. But you do. But that's the point isn't it. Everyone has a diverse upbringing and diverse opinions.

Also I'd stay away from the term "bad behavior" because that's the same terminology the chinese government uses to crack down on its own citizens and oppress them. It's rather paternalistic and authoritarian which reminds people of the worse form of nanny states.

And last thing, why do you care how linux speaks. He is his own individual. Does he come to you and tell you how you should speak? I just find it the high of arrogance that you ( a relative nobody just like me ) has the gall to tell someone like Linux how he should speak or behave. If you don't like it, just don't read what he says. That's what I find frustrating. Why do you feel like you get to tell others how to live their lives?

At the end of the day, the people at HN can do what they want because it's their property. Regular users like you and I won't change anything. Just like we aren't going to change Linux or the platform he uses to express his opinions. I wish I could have changed your mind but I think I failed so I'll just end it here too. I just find it strange that anyone on hacker news would be demanding that linus torvalds or anyone for that matter be censored.
> many things does it break?

Almost nothing, surprisingly enough. Of course it breaks websites I sign into, so I simply whitelist those.
Free Game Skins Hurry to Get This Limited Packs
I work right across the Tollway from Willow Bend, and I regularly walk to that mall for lunch. There was one time that was really convenient: sick and tired of Lyft drivers using Apple Maps consistently going to the wrong location when attempting to pick me up at home, I went into the Apple Store at lunch, hopped on an iPad, and looked up my address. Sure, enough. It was in the right place. So I submitted a change request to put it where it's supposed to be. They eventually fixed it, but it took months, and by the time they did fix it, Lyft had already banned their drivers from using Apple Maps.

Also, Willow Bend had the first Apple Store in Dallas, and for a few years, it was the only thing that mall had going for it as the original "upscale" concept of the mall flopped.

What's really going to sting, though, is losing Stonebriar. Stonebriar is really far away from Dallas... I grew up a little bit north of where the Galleria is (closer, actually, to what used to be Prestonwood), and when Stonebriar first opened, going all the way up to Frisco of all places felt like a massive journey. I've been desensitized to it since, but that's still a pretty long trek. Of course, when I was a kid, development completely ended just north of Legacy (and in parts of Plano, just north of Parker), and everything in sight of 121 was farmland, so every time I go to Stonebriar I'm going someplace that used to be a no man's land when I was little. How things have changed...

And from my personal experience going to the Galleria after work, the traffic turns into a nightmare at the drop of a hat. During rush hour, the southbound Tollway is completely clear until just before Keller Springs, and then the traffic becomes bumper-to-bumper until way past 635.
The Reason Conspiracy Videos Work So Well on YouTube
I don't think that follows. Email and IP addresses both have decentralized yet very effective blacklists against bad actors.
Modern DevOps and CICD should be able to abstract this away. Devs can develop on whatever they want and then push to ARM or x86 servers.
Yes, exactly that.

You can set up multiple vaults, but it seems to store the master password for the additional vaults within the first, after the first time you unlock the additional vaults. So, effectively, it's a single vault -- access to the one gets you access to all.
Proof-of-Work in effect is giving control of PoW blockchains to anyone with the most excess capital to spend on electricity and hardware, in return for the lottery tickets the software generates.
I have definitely experienced this.

Imagine a competent developer writes a mostly correct system with few bugs, and that requires few fixes over time.

Management will likely perceive the first incompetent developer as better than the more competent one.

Why? Because the incompetent developer is seen to be fixing problems all the time, which is a positive thing.[1] (You could say his work is more 'salient' to management.)

Frustratingly, the incompetent guy comes off as a rock star.

[1] Ignorant of the fact that the problems were created by the developer himself.
Still though, in this scenario, (and which is why I think smart contracts themselves are waaaaaaay oversold) is that most real-world contracts deal with real-world things: e.g. you will deliver a set of goods, at a specified level of quality, at a set time.

But as the author points out so well (I really like his "Blockchain is not IOT" mantra) once you're dealing with real-world objects, you are relying on an oracle that you must trust.
Despite your assurances, the writers at the OED and Fowler's seem to disagree.

https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...
Specific locations? Greater Seattle Area?
> Blockchain is a fractional reserve system...

I'd argue that it is the opposite since you can't receive 1 bitcoin and produce 10 bitcoins through the magic of a fractional reserve system (unless, of course, you run one of the exchanges and keep the transactions local).

If you have 1 bitcoin you can only spend/loan/destroy 1 bitcoin as the blockchain prevents double spending.
I.e. they are more effective against humans.
I can't speak to banks, but I have some personal experience with this sort of thing in the case of trading. I'm guessing it's at least somewhat similar to how it works among banks.

All the big players have got real-time feeds they're sharing with each other to keep track of who's made what transactions, and they're constantly reconciling them against each other, to make sure that everyone's looking at the same picture. There are also daily reports summarizing the previous day's activity, and they are also reconciled as a second check. The proactive parties work together to sort out any discrepancies they find as soon as they find them.

None of this is strictly necessary, because there is a central source of truth that you can rely on. But it tends to operate much too slowly for a lot of people's needs, and mistakes do happen, and they can be costly, so it pays to be proactive. Meaning that, in general, nobody's actually relying on the central authority to keep this organized.

The actual real-time feeds are log-structured: You can add new records, but not delete old ones. If you want to reverse a transaction, you just add a new entry to the ledger to back it out.

In that sense, it works a lot like how a blockchain would work. The only difference is, nobody's bothering with all that crypto stuff, because all it would do is make the whole thing more expensive. Like, literally, that's the only impact I can see. It won't help with preventing errors - when mistakes happen, it's invariably because of an error at the boundary of the system, and fiddling around with hashes of the previous message when sending new ones does nothing to guard against that. All it would do is slow both the throughput and latency of transactions by introducing more spots where synchronization must occur together with a bunch of ancillary computational load.

In a world where time is money, that sure sounds to me like a $100 solution to a 1¢ problem.
Very much this. I have made a point to give somewhat legitimate answers to these questions out of fear that a phone agent would ask them someday and that I could fall victim to exactly what you describe.

Phone agents don't always have to actually enter the security questions to access your account. sometimes they can simply see the answers on their screen and are able to make a judgement call. Don't trust humans, especially not humans who are incentivized to help you as quickly as possible.

Also its easier to say a word over the phone than it is to say a random string of letters numbers and symbols.
“Danger Zone” on the Floppotron
That's called something being stringly typed, and it's a code smell. You make URL classes, UUID classes, timestamp classes, enums, etc to replace the strings.
Actually I think it's because of the seaplane flight path https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/OPCD/OngoingIn...
> There are no other upscale malls in the north Dallas region beyond those three

Well, there's also NorthPark, but I believe that already has an Apple Store.

And I wouldn't really call Stonebriar "upscale". It's basically the only non-upscale mall here that isn't dead or dying.
I didn't know this... how can you access historical images in Google Earth?
We like to see some evidence that they want to do software development. E.g. they have some small projects or they've been doing some self-study or courses. We have several uber drivers in our cohort right now actually.
Author here.

That solution has been discussed elsewhere in my blog. If you think of the family of problems involving nested things, or tree-like things, or recognizing, or parsing, the case where we only have one kind of parentheses and nothing else is what we might call the "degenerate case."

And like many degenerate cases, there is an optimization: Instead of pushing the exact same parenthesis onto the stack over and over again, we count them.

Alas, this does not grow. If we want to modify our code to handle multiple types of parentheses, or parse expressions that include parentheses into trees, and so forth, we must return to the stack.

So... My general thinking is that it is useful to know that for the degenerate case, we can replace a stack with a counter, but should I ever find myself writing a parser or what-not, if I used an optimization like this, I'd probably document that it's an optimization the degenerate case where we only ever put one thing on the stack.

One wild way to do that is to leave the code as-is, but hack the stack itself. So you still call .push() and .pop() and so forth, but behind the scenes, the "stack" object just counts pushes and pops.
Listening to my father and his work friends at Microsoft in the late 90s talking about their upcoming retirements from their investments solely in Cisco and MSFT.

It sounded so glorious, yet... my dad is still working.
Sure they can, but why bother? When I use Windows, I use real Windows applications with desktop UIs. The touch UI mobile apps are a joke on a desktop monitor.
The challenge is that the issue is created in the courts, and direct lobbying of judges is a lot less acceptable than lobbying politicians. And even if you solved that, tech would find itself lobbying against big pharma, and they are a lot better at lobbying the government than tech has historically been.

US rules on patents are created by a combination of laws and precedents. Of the two, precedent is in practice more important because courts are bound to interpret new cases in accord with how higher courts have interpreted old ones, no matter what they think of the interpretation.

And now consider the structure of US courts. An insane fraction of patent lawsuits start in Texas. Thanks to a special legal arrangement, all patent cases from anywhere next go to a special court known as the Federal Circuit. And only after that to the Supreme Court.

It is a general rule of bureaucracy that people will consistently interpret their jobs in a way that makes their role more important. All patent cases go to the Federal Circuit. The more powerful patents are, the more important that court is. Would you guess that their precedents are generally going to increase or decrease the importance of patents?

Now the Supreme Court does overturn them occasionally. But the Supreme Court is busy and only does this so often. And when the Supreme Court overturns them, the next case relying on Supreme Court precedent inevitably goes to the Federal Circuit, which has proven very willing to engage in sophistry to issue a new binding precedent that clearly is the opposite of what the Supreme Court meant. And since there is no easy way to remove those judges, there is no consequence for them in doing so. Around the country lawyers who specialize in patents, whose livelihood also depends on patents being important, cynically applaud. And the escalator continues.

Now here is the truth. US law already says that abstract ideas (like math) are not patentable. The decision that software is more like machines than math doesn't come from Congress, it comes from the courts. Congress could pass more laws. But they would get interpreted by the same court. Would you care to wager on how that will work out?

The real solution is to recognize that creating the Federal Circuit in 1980 was a bad idea and reverse it. However remember what I said at the beginning about big pharma liking patents? Exactly...
Depends on the time frame - if we go back 100 years and include governmental killings the US seems much more peaceful.
What you actually need is to check if the count ever goes negative.
power matters a lot on a phone but not that much on the server
The supply chain management use case from the article might not really work in the sense that the oracles/involved parties can tamper with the their input sensors, but it still offers other parties plausible deniability.

Let's say you get meat delivered by cooling trucks and this is mirrored in a public block chain. You publicly claim that all your meat is sufficiently cooled and every single delivery is tracked. If this data is in a public block chain, there is no doubt that you didn't input this data, it was in fact the delivery company, and if they cheated with their cooling sensors, the liability is on them. With a privately hosted database under control of the corporation (you), there would be suspicion that you manipulated it.

So it doesn't actually solve the problem, but you can legitimately claim that you did as much as you could (as far as using technology goes at least) to ensure the quality of the delivered meat.
The stack solution checks that the stack is non-empty before popping.

The counter solution simply needs to check that the counter is non-zero before decrementing.

All cases then work perfectly.
Thank you for this article. The point is not F#. The point is finding a philosophical fit with your code .. a kind of "Drift mode" (like the Del Toro movies - https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_3696719)

For me, it was Ruby. I have stopped writing Ruby code and have found other languages that I love now (yes including Typescript), but nothing will replace the enlightenment rush of Ruby.

I think all programming languages that exist today are a symbolic representation of different kind of mental models that humans have. When you find one that synchronises with your mental model, it's just magical.
You're describing STEM professors. Humanities professors don't manage research teams or fundraise much. Ditto social science, for the most part.
> Also, if you want to build automated systems for money management, the barrier of entry will be significant in the legacy banking system.

There are a lot of good reasons why there's a high barrier of entry to set up shop in the financial system.

Trying to sidestep financial regulations through using cryptocurrency/blockchain is at least trying to actively exploit loopholes in the law, if not actually illegal.
> easy going, pleasant to work with

This is a survival tactic, and in a way it's a dishonest put on.

If the same developer were abrasive arrogant and difficult to get along with, then the other programmers, who always have to fix his work, would have him run out of the company.

Meanwhile, sometimes the crustiest curmudgeons in a team are the ones who have the most experience and knowledge to impart if you get to know them.
It was responding to:

>when you can't use contracts and the legal system to ensure trust between the parties

If a threat to sue over the violation of small amounts is not credible, the court system doesn't help.
I think it's fine since it's opt-in. Maybe there could be a warning in the UI though.
You know, there was a thread the other day about a new release announcement for some IDE. It was quickly removed, on grounds that the Hacker News FAQ says you shouldn't repost something "If a story has had significant attention in the last year or so".

I remember thinking that it was a real stretch to interpret different release announcements, separated by months, as "duplicate" posts. But this was coming from dang himself, so I guess that's the authoritative view.

Just pointing out that Gitlab operates on a more or less monthly release cadence. Pretty much every release gets an announcement thread on HN's front-page for the full day. And usually there's a separate front-page thread or two in between, to announce stuff in upcoming releases. I've never once seen any of this removed, or even questioned.
We all prefer win-win solutions, but not everything in life is like that. Sometimes in order to get justice for one group of people, an overly privileged group has to be knocked down a peg.

Just because Certain People Who Shall Remain Nameless™️ are promoting a toxic zero-sum attitude that unnecessarily divides us nowadays doesn't mean there aren't some things in life that truly are zero-sum.

At the moment, economic justice appears to be a pretty zero-sum proposition. Ending billionaires would end poverty. And there doesn't seem to be a way to end poverty without ending billionaires. (Or at least significantly reducing inequality.)
1. I think your assumption of pay-to-play is too strong. It's true to some degree but it's not as simple as having the right budget. For one, there are always factions working against you. There are always multiple jurisdictions and branches to consider, with different incentives. Add currents of public opinion and how they impact electoral and business interests on top of it all... it's a complex puzzle. So even the biggest budget is no guarantee.

2. Your broader point about Apple and patents presumes that all software patents are always bad. That may be popular on HN, but I sincerely doubt it's that black and white. Yes, patent trolling trivial components or processes feels and probably is overtly 'wrong'. But there's a more nuanced debate about creating the right incentives to do difficult intellectual work that benefits everyone. There's probably a 'correct' granularity of patentable idea even in software.
That was probably the weakest soldering joint I've ever seen. It was very funny to me though, so perhaps they were going for irony?
Physicists Calculate Proton's Pressure Distribution for First Time
Same. Jolt, apparently actually from New York [1], was the first hacker drink I learned about. The best one though, is the German Club Mate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolt_Cola
Could you link me the case? I'm pretty curious about it. The cases I've seen have been when the school shooter was already largely finished killing people.
I know many people (two billionaires, a few several hundred millionaires, and many low 10's of million net worth) who make 7 figures and none fall into that bucket. The folks I know mostly fall into the buckets of Finance (think fund/investment management), inherited money, and self-made. The finance folks can move jobs at will and are able to get significant concessions to do so. The inherited money folks use the family money to invest and make even more money. The self-made folks parlay early success into bigger time roles and also seem to have no problems moving jobs. In all cases, the people seem to be in control, and not controlled by someone else.