skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This reads like a joke.

>Talk to anyone who has ever worked on a mainframe and you will see that they are acutely aware of important factors that are sometimes overlooked on other platforms. Things like security, control, scalability, and reliability are second nature to mainframe computer systems and applications.

Those things have always been apparent to the majority of my distributed peers.

> Well, it is because of the robust system management processes and procedures which are in place and working extremely well within every mainframe shop in the world. This is simply not the case for Windows, Unix, and other platforms. By working on mainframe systems newbies will learn the correct IT discipline for managing mission-critical software.

This just isn't logical, and he's not providing evidence. I think what he means is that by working fresh out of college in an environment with good processes the programmer will learn those processes, and become a better programmer. Why that required a mainframe environment isn't mentioned. It's also obviously not required, since there are plenty of places out there that run mission-critical software on non-mainframe systems, and have excellent processes in place.

I suspect the root here is that mainframe systems are so exorbitantly expensive that the additional expensive processes are required to maximize ROI, hence those processes being more likely to be in place, and rigorously enforced in a mainframe environment.

All the processes mentioned are required to be in place and well managed for all mission-critical systems - there's no actual argument here requiring a mainframe, except that it's more likely to be an indicator of good processes.
You actually hit on the point when you say it was 'unintentionally surreal' - you can probably lose the 'unintentionally'. It has a report-like 'stranger than fiction' quality that works very well for the novel I think, as if it is a declassified communist era file. It never lets up, never once winks at you. Contrast say "Use of Weapons" by Ian Banks - I just read this before "Death's End". This is a good book, lauded as one of the best Culture novels. Reading it you can sit back and think oh that's a nice metaphor, and I like how allegory is used here, and the pastiche of advanced technology and primitive human war is very interesting, and this unreliable double narrative structure running backwards and forwards in time is extremely clever. But when you read it you can sense it is being written for you, it lacks sufficient strangeness to induce a sense of wonder. I was no where near as riveted or interested in what was going on as I was with the 3 body books, I genuinely wanted to know what was going to happen next.

I certainly enjoy literary books, but I think describing the style and tone of Liu's books as simple and juvenile is missing the point a bit.
Remind me! 7 days.

Shit... wrong site.
i believe those are build against non-OpenSSL 1.1.1 branch so don't have TLS 1.3 supported by official nginx docker images.
In some sense. I’m not sure when “langsec” started, but it’s certainly older than rust.
Is their a gun shop owner liable for murder (and/or wrongful death) every time someone is killed with a firearm? What about the clerks at the gun store? Or the truck driver who delivered the firearm to the store? All of their respective actions clearly created a situation where people have died; your position is silly.
I find "Latinx" cringeworthy as well. Spanish defaults to the masculine adjective when referring to an unspecified group. If gendered adjectives bother someone, just use the English word: "Latin".
Is_int vs. Is_integer vs. Is_numeric in PHP?
it's on the very first sentence on the site (not the forums) https://centminmod.com/ linking to https://centminmod.com/lemp.html
A ritual they seal by promptly shitting all over it
From what I've seen/read, the more people are responsible for monitoring something, the less likely each one is to monitor it, sometimes to the point where more monitors can get a worse rate of catching problems.

Sort of like why the driver of a "self-driving" car is more likely to watch TV instead of paying attention to the road.
This is not parallelized, but the blueprint is there.

Suppose we replace delay with an async opreator, and force with a corresponding await ...

The mlet macro is simple enough to be written in ... less than forty lines of readable C.

http://www.kylheku.com/cgit/txr/tree/eval.c?id=txr-212#n4217
I agree with this. Here's the official link though: https://www.cfainstitute.org/programs/cfa/curriculum/print-v...
That’s not true. Fastmail provides about 600 aliases per account, not unlimited. [1] That’s quite high, but it’s also easy to run out of if one hands out aliases on a per-site basis.

[1]: https://www.fastmail.com/help/account/limits.html
Luca Turin explains it really well:

«... Dzing! smells of paper, and you can spend a good while trying to figure out whether it is packing cardboard, kraft wrapping paper, envelopes while you lick the glue, old books, or something else. I have no idea whether this was the objective, but I have a few clues as to why it happened. Lignin, the stuff that prevents all trees from adopting the weeping habit, is a polymer made up of units that are closely related to vanillin. When made into paper and stored for years, it breaks down and smells good. Which is how divine providence has arranged for secondhand bookstores to smell like good-quality vanilla absolute, subliminally stoking a hunger for knowledge in all of us».
SJWs have ruined a generation but statism has made that possible.

Had the government not subsidized and enabled such behavior which made it viable and even profitable, the impact of said SJWs would have been much smaller. Like Nazi sympathizers without monopoly on the use of uninitiated force, they could be safely ignored. (This now isn't possible because - as the prof said - SJWs can now employ state to act violently on their behalf)

Anti-social, coercive behavior can't be profitable in a free market economy.
Wow! What a long and pointless article.
> What's amazing at Airbnb is their ability to make places look so much nicer in the pictures than what they look like in reality.

But hotels do the exact same thing. I don't see how that's super incredible?
i wonder why he has the "wrapper over wc" which does just what wc does?

#!/bin/sh

total=0

for FILE in `find . -type f -name "*.txt"`

do
wc -w $FILE
words=`wc -w < $FILE | tr -d ' '`
total=$(($total + $words))
done

printf "%'d" $total

echo " words"

all this achieves is

wc -w $(find . type f -name "*.txt") | sed '$s/total/words/'

and frankly, i'm not sure the total->words substitution is worth the trouble.

then there's the inefficiency of running wc twice per file. while this is not exactly bitcoin-level disaster, it rubs me the wrong way...

wc -w $(find . type f -name "*.txt") |
awk -v t=0 '
{ print; t += $1 }
END { print t, "words"; }
'

personally i'd just do this (in zsh):

wc -w **/*.txt(.D)

the (.D) is two "glob qualifiers": the . (dot) limits the result to plain files, the D turns GLOB_DOTS on for the pattern.
Pentagon may tap military pay, pensions for border wall
"Are you willing to risk your life to improve this" is a leading question. What I think you meant to ask is something more like "are you willing to improve safety with your daily risk or not". I am already risking my life on the road every day. Last month I was in a Lyft and the driver decided to go around a car that was blocking an intersection and in the process swung the front of the car though the path of an oncoming light-rail train. I've known a couple people that got hit by drunk drivers; they didn't sign up for anything at all. So what's the difference? There are multiple fatal automobile accidents per day per major metro area. At least make those deaths mean something.

In fact, we already do this. All over the place. Clinical trials. Yeah, those are more heavily regulated, but the possibility of relatively increased risk there is far greater - I would not expect a modern autonomous vehicle to be ten or a hundred times more likely to kill its passengers than a human driver is. How about legislation? The legislation on drugs that's ruining some states is nothing more than some politician spending their constituents' lives to signal their own perceived moral virtue to their party. Or maybe construction projects. Every time we put up a lighter, cheaper bridge we are saving time and money by risking the lives of every person that takes that bridge instead of finding a job on the near side of the river. Or allergic reactions to medications, including vaccines! Negative reactions to vaccines are incredibly rare, but you bet your ass that I will choose to bet that someone doesn't have guillain-barre instead of letting them spread measles.

Alternatively, excuse me while I fight dirty for a bit. Let's turn your argument around. I believe that it is effectively certain that autonomous vehicles will save lives in the long run. Slowing that down costs lives. So why are you so willing to spend those lives? What right do you have to spend the lives of the people who would have been saved by autonomous cars because you thought that it was more important to preserve people's right to get hit by drunk drivers today?

This is what civilization is. Just do the math.
Economics is a science as much as hydrology is a science: it isn't exact, but it is based on solid science.

Nobody derived Navier-Stokes equations to reach the formulas that show the erosion of a river bank, or the discharge calculation of a weir. Doing so would be nearly impossible given the extremely high level of complexity.

So instead of trying to start with the fundamental equations and build "up", you start by analyzing the behavior and modeling it.

It isn't any different than what Kepler, Newton, Galileo, etc. did: you look at the real world and build models that describe the world with enough precision for what you need.

Sure, you might say that hydraulics isn't a science per-se, but an applied field and so on. In that case, so is economics.
There are other privacy respecting email providers who give aliases. Posteo and Mailbox.org provide three aliases to begin with. Additional aliases on Posteo are EUR 0.1 per month. Runbox provides 100 aliases per account, and more can be purchased later. Fastmail provides about 600 aliases per account.
India and Pakistan Are Flirting with Nuclear Disaster
You missed my point, which is that none of those statistics are meaningful one way or the other.
This is really clever! Here's a more traditional approach that I stumbled across:

https://github.com/lukasmartinelli/py14

It translates a small subset of Python to C++ 14.

I'm going to attempt this for real pretty soon on my shell project :) Although I'm using MyPy rather than relying on type inference.

MyPy is useful and solid now!
Isn't science based on experimentation? I think economics is a science in the same way psychology is a science.
While it is certainly true that Langsec has been around since we invented programming, Rust is the only viable language I’ve encountered in practical use anywhere that prioritizes langsec over ease-of-delivery. The focus of C++ on features rather than safeties is echoed by almost every language invented prior to Rust.

(I don’t know why Rust was the agent of change in that priority, but I’m very glad for it!)

EDIT: COBOL is good at this, or tries to be. Lots of loopholes but it’s clear from this article anyways that they tried to make it a safe language. But they prioritized features like “call arbitrary C functions” over safety, and you can just write unsafe code without even a hint that you’re doomed. That’s perhaps the essence of what I see as the difference: Rust forces you to declare your unsafe intentions to do unsafe things.

https://www.kiuwan.com/blog/security-business-oriented-langu...
The words needed to define a universal turing machine (and a program to simulate a human brain, but that doesn't require additional words).

We could extend it to cover words not conceivable by humans, and any universe, by using a program to simulate those, but (1) I assume the question implicitly assumes human words, though (2) it wouldn't require more words anyway.
> for me the limiting factor for programming has never been how fast I can type, but how dumb my brain is.

Not the OP, but isn’t that one of the things that a fast input->result cycle helps with? Thoughts come and thoughts go, and if I don’t get it on the page before it goes, it better be simple enough to think of again immediately. With any complex idea, the struggle to not lose it before getting it written down is real.
It's already popping up again in some other places! (For what I assume will be until browsers get an actual scheduling api)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypPRdtjGooc
You seem to be referring to "The Nasty Book", designed to make people insecure about the quality of their writing.

Google it. I'll wait.

The essay is thoughtful, nuanced, and not easily summarized. Poison for modern readers, savory for patient readers.
You are assigning blame further up the chain, which I am not doing. I stated in my first post that I do believe the manufacturer is liable for their faulty products, but can not be SOLELY responsible. I might find the gun shop owner for selling a faulty or damaged gun, for example if there was a recall and they ignored it.

If you bought a faulty gun with a broken safety catch, and waved it around in a crowded street, and it fired, killing someone, you should be held personally liable. You brought the gun out in public and created the scenario which caused someone to be hurt by it.
If I have 5 accidents and you have 25 accidents you've had exponentially more. You don't need 3 data points, x^2 is an exponent.
"Are you willing to risk your life to improve this" is a leading question. What I think you meant to ask is something more like "are you willing to improve safety with your daily risk or not". I am already risking my life on the road every day. Last month I was in a Lyft and the driver decided to go around a car that was blocking an intersection and in the process swung the front of the car though the path of an oncoming light-rail train. So what's the difference? There are multiple fatal automobile accidents per day per major metro area. At least make that mean something.

Actually I meant what I said, because I responded to someone explicitly endorsing not only Risk, but and worth the large amount of property damage and human injury that comes with it. as for Lyft, you choose to get into thst car, I can choose to get into a car or not as well. The lady who was run down by Uber didn’t make any such choice. In general, choice and informed consent are the big different and big deal when we’re talking about unproven technology being developed on our streets; not because no other option exists, but because it’s quicker and cheaper.

In fact, we already do this. All over the place. Clinical trials.

People volunteer for them, and are fully informed of the risks and benefits, they don’t volunteer random other people. This is the very key difference I was pointing out. As I said, if you want to be a guinea pig in the name of progress, that’s your right and I’ll support and laud you for it. Just don’t volunteer me.
Someone pointed out the other day just remove everything after the plus and you have the real email.
1) There could be an `await` method already defined on the Promise. It's just an object.

2) `await` can work with anything that conforms to the Promise spec, native promises or Bluebird or what have you.

3) Sometimes, a method doesn't return a Promise, but a value. In those cases, the await syntax returns the value. Can't do that with a method.
This is not a new insight and there have been a number of attempts to create programming systems where the programmer does not primarily interact with plain text but they have been largely unsuccessful. It would probably be worth exploring why they haven't taken off if one were trying to design another such system.
It demonstrates that Sapir-Whorf is more interesting than a hypothesis. But you do have to pay attention to get that.
> They always try to sell it as some kind of natural science, based on mathematical models, but in the end its just social dynamics.

How is the study of social dynamics something other than a natural science? How is the use of mathematical models incompatible with the study of social dynamics? It doesn't seem to me that other social scientists feel that that they're studying something unnatural, or that mathematical models aren't useful in understanding it. Do you know of social scientists that believe otherwise?
Great product for crypto index builder! Love it!
Imagine that your only recourse is to go after some big faceless corporation whose immensely complex algorithm failed in some highly unusual way, and no one can really say what happened, not even the engineers who wrote it (and some of whom might have long left the company...)

It's similar to the situation with companies like Google blocking people who have no easy way to get support, except more morbid.

I'm not fond of living in such a world where personal responsibility is dissolved and becomes meaningless.
thanks for your clarification i appreciate it
Somehow this reminds me of quarterly results and technical debt vs long term success.
Did you make it to the end (I'll admit, not an easy feat)? Because that's not what it's about at all.
You get from it what you bring to it. Is that pointless? If your life is pointless, then probably.
Usually operators are defined as being left-associative, right-associative, or non-associative.

So e.g.,

a + b + c is interpreted as (a + b) + c because + is commonly left-associative

whereas

a ^ b ^ c is a ^ (b ^ c)

because languages that support ^ for exponentiation treat it as right associative.

For non-associative operators, parentheses are required if you have two operators at the same precedence, so I believe the grandparent is arguing that e.g. a + b - c should require parens to disbiguate in a language where + and - have the same precedence.
Yes, you have associativity right. The question is what kind of price you pay. Allowing a user to type ‘a+b+c’ seems reasonable and forcing them to write ‘a+(b+c)’ seems draconian. But what does ‘a/b/c’ mean? Does your grammar have to have different productions for associative and non-associative binary operators? For general operator support do you have to have productions for every operator, or do you add a little bit of state to your parser outside the grammar to handle the lookback to determine if the same operator is being used? These are ugly decisions to make for the smallish benefit of being able to omit a couple of parentheses. And how often does it really occur outside of heavy numeric computations, which are kind of the minority.

Some APLs go overboard here and just say that everything operates right to left so 2*3+4 is 14. This is super awkward but once you get used to it it’s kind of a relief to not have to think about operator precedence. Similarly RPN and Lisp dodge the issue.

In my experience operator precedence causes actual bugs, but associativity rarely does. So despite all this I’m not firmly against associativity, but I’m getting there.
AT&T Is Dragging HBO’s Streaming Strategy Out of the Dark Ages
I agree with everything up until life lesson #1. How does that follow from the preceding? Nowhere did you say you had learned that inflation in renting prices is greater than inflation in wages which is what would be necessary for "inflation to catch up to you". Maybe I misunderstood?
The summary carries as much truth as every misstatement the author examines. I.e, none.
I Quit My Job to Protest My Company’s Work on Building Killer Robots
For the Sake of What Is New
Chicken pecking orders can be brutal.

We had multiple flocks for eggs when I was growing up, and they were usually placid but some hens were so aggressive that I wish we had made dinner of them.

One in particular systematically pecked to death every other hen, working down the pecking order until it was the only one left. She was eventually taken out by a fox. We raised them all together from chicks, so I have no explanation for it. As the Simpsons put it, some animals are just jerks.
> The entirety of the NSAKEY evidence is "it has NSA in the name."

Your comparison is out of line because of ridiculous characterizations like this. Microsoft said that it was a backup key, which either means that they have the most poorly implemented scheme for backing up cryptographic materials ever devised, or they don't mean what most people think when they hear the word "backup". Microsoft then claimed that the backup was necessary for passing the export control review, which is a bold lie to tell since the Export Administration Regulations are available for review to everybody. One thing not included in the EAR that might influence Microsoft's conduct in trying to get permission from the USG to reach global customers: executive orders. The government had a hard limit at 56-bits and was proposing that anybody wanting to export crypto beyond that needed to participate in their push for private-key escrow, which they were calling "key-recovery". Recovery... sounds kind of like a backup plan...

I provided links in my response to the parent comment.
Rowhammer is easily solved with very small overhead by building counters into the ram chip. We don't need to look to alternate ram technologies for that. So don't let rowhammer distract you from appreciating the unique bandwidth/latency/write size/durability/density/price for each tech.
Your system looks useful and at the same time seems to involve some manual work. Please consider writing one or more blog posts about your setup. It could be very helpful to others.
:shrug: I've booked quite a few times in various ways online and it seems fairly common for the hotel to receive the booking via fax--at hotels big and small. I'm pretty sure I've had this happen when booking through the chain's own booking site. If you book ahead of time it probably happens without you knowing all the time.

I just pulled up the reservation. It was in 2013 to a Fairfield/Marriott 3 miles from the airport.

For an example of the types of hotels, the other two bookings I've made were to Sonesta ES Suites in 2014 (during a surprise blizzard) and a Four Points/Sheraton in 2015.

If I had status or points I'd probably check out that chain first. Since I don't, sticking with a single chain isn't the most convenient or the cheapest.
> First of all, this is criminal liability. Uber may still be held financially liable in a civil court.

I am waiting for the 10% of market value punishment for Uber.

> Secondly, liability needs to be decided on a case by case basis.

Agreed.

> In this case, the woman (not "a women") shouldn't have crossed the road and the operator should have been alert.

In this case, "the Uber" should have made sure it's sensors pick up the point cloud in 1/15th of the second and stop the car in time.

>Furthermore, why should a company be criminally liable for >any negligent behavior of an employee? That's ridiculous.

Indeed - I am just preaching for 10%. And only from the shareholders :).
What I am trying to say is that FPGA fabric is expensive, and at some point if you use too much, then it will push you to a new part. Most of the time I would guess it to be cheaper to have a separate processor for more intensive tasks. Of course if you have some IP that is partially implemented in a soft core, then it might not be practical to offload it to an external cpu.
Debouncing just means the UI lock happens slightly less often. Not sure how a spinner is going to work when we're talking about synchronous updates which the article's `mineBitcoin()` is trying to simulate.

So it just depends on how much you care about UX. And consider my markdown preview example where UI lock on every Nth keypress is hardly better than every keypress.

If you don't care, then why bother with auto-updating on keypress at all? Just wait for user to press enter. Much less jarring for the user than a shoddy half-solution.