skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Maybe not quite 5-year-old, but here's my attempt:

The elevator is the little wing at the back of an aircraft that tilts up and down to make the nose go up and down. When the pilot is flying, this up-down is what moving the yoke forward/back does.

The elevator also has a tab (the trim tab) part of the wing that can move independently from the main part. This trimming movement allows for adjustments to the plane's up/down movement that don't require the yoke forward/back (this is useful to "lock in" the current desired climb/descent/level flight so that pilots don't have to be constantly pushing/pulling on the yoke to get the plane to be climbing/descending/level the way they want it).

The 737-MAX has a system that automatically uses this trim tab to pitch the nose of the plane down when it senses certain conditions, without notifying the pilots. In this case (plane inexplicably pitching down), the natural response from a pilot is going to be to pull back on the yoke to counteract.

This can cause issues because the act of pulling back on the yoke increases the pressure on the elevator (because physics - the more the elevator deflects in an attempt to change the plane's attitude, the more force the airstream flowing over it exerts. This "catching the airflow" is why it can change the plane's attitude at all). Apparently on this plane if the trim tab is way out of line even if disconnect the erroneous system that was automatically adjusting the trim tab and try to reset the trim to a safe position by hand, the airflow over the "loaded" elevator (which is trying to counteract the position of the trim tab and keep the plane from crashing) is too strong to physically allow the manual control to move the tab. So the "correct" procedure is to push the yoke in (allowing the nose to go down/lose altitude) to reduce the airflow that's hitting the elevator, while frantically spinning the manual trip wheel to get it back to neutral. Then, once you've reset the trim manually, you presumably pull back on the yoke to get the nose up and pull the plane out of the dive.

The issue with that is that the ground can get in the way in between when you've let off the yoke and you've spun the wheel enough to get the trim tab back to neutral.
To me personally, it is not monolith vs microservice that bothers me, but statefull vs stateless services.

If a service can't assume local state, it creates unnecessary design overhead. For example, you cannot achieve exactly-once semantics between two services without local-state. If you replace local-state with message-queues, you just turned 1-network-1-disk op into 5-network-3-disk op and introduced loads of other problems.
Huh, it's as if threats from policymakers can cause a change in behavior!
> Is it impossible to make a laptop better than Dell or Apple?

I don't know about impossible, but they've both been building laptops for a long time and they have large market shares, so if it was easy to build better laptops than theirs someone probably would have done it by now so it's probably really hard.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19367366
I'm not saying containers are bad, I use them everywhere. They require the same audit and lockdown that the host system needs. If the container accesses data, and the container has vulns, then we still have to deal with situation 1, malicious actors.

From the article:

> Another form of system hardening you can use is containers.
Oh, I hadn't heard of those reports. It must be terrifying when your plane is actively trying to kill you.

I don't understand how they could build MCAS on the basis of one (!) AoA sensor.
Makes sense. The people at every death metal show I've been are always pretty happy and friendly. Even in most mosh pits people look out for eachother and will help somebody up who falls or help someone who gets hurt out of the mass of people. It's always been positivr, even the show I split my head open on someone else's head(accidently) we both just laughed about it, then after someone told me my face was covered in blood me and my buddy went to go get me some stitches. Good times.
Great to see research coming to a conclusion I think most metalheads intuitively know.

I love walls of sound, I love intensity that feels like it takes a surplus of cognitive bandwidth (ADHD) and gives it a little bit of resistance to tug against, almost like those various rubber stress toys. I think most metal fans hear lyrical gruesomeness as something between fantasy and a cause for more empathy than anything else. And let's be real, a lot of it is flat out unintelligible. It's an aesthetic.

Most of the metalheads I know are absolute teddybears. I listen to some pretty heavy stuff (see links), but the other day I cried at a dog video, and recently had to turn off the police scanner at the mention of a particularly sad crime. Mosh pits look scary but there's a shared ethical framework. Injuries happen, but they're almost never due to malice. Somebody falls down, you pick em up. Bigger people stomp around keeping the peace and returning lost shoes, aha. It's bounded, consensual violence – just like a martial art.

Exceptions exist – there are church burners and skinheads, but they tend to cluster in their own sects and you don't get mixed up with them accidentally.

https://youtu.be/E9z-Tipz5JQ?t=40

https://youtu.be/Y037ZIKckIY

https://youtu.be/9YkSki1qbLA
The author is talking about real-time rendering in games and is arguing it does matter but in different ways than it used to.
Tracking is state. It's just that the state is used for advertisers' benefit rather than yours.
Microservices at least force people to draw a line in the sand between subsystems/services. How effective or useful the lines you draw are, that's up to the skill of the engineers building your stuff.

I'm not saying microservices are better, but people should really take more serious considerations between the boundaries between subsystems. Because it's so easy to create exceptions, and things end up infinitely more complex in the grand scheme of things.

Clear, well-defined boundaries matter. It's the only way a developer can focus on a small part of a problem, and become an expert at working on that subsystem without needing greater context.
So you say that tribes can physiologically adapt depending on their environment.

Do you then admit that tribes can adapt cognitively depending on their environment? Or does adaptation only occur below the neck?
So I have a question regarding GDPR. I've recently done two projects for intergovernmental organizations (like the UN, to give you an example). Both organizations claim that they do not have to comply with GDPR. I kindof doubt that but IANAL. Short of reading the GDPR laws, or contacting an expensive lawyer, what's the best way to find out if they are right? I'd like to find out before I start the next project for such an organization. Thanks.
This is the answer. The FAA considered the Max 8 after the Lion Air crash and determined that it was safe to fly, even taking into account the cause of the Lion Air crash.

If that was determination was done correctly, then there is no reason to ground every plane of that model, just because another one crashes shortly thereafter.

The FAA obviously is inclined to believe that they did that determination correctly. Of course, they could be wrong.

It will be very interesting to see how the Ethiopian investigation turns out. If the cause was the same as Lion Air, then the FAA will come under tremendous pressure to reconsider what constitutes "safe to fly".

(IMO the industry in general will come under hard questioning about the role of software in compensating for aerodynamic issues. Yeah the military does it, but we have different standards for airlines.)

But if it turns out that some other factor caused the crash, unrelated to the Lion Air cause, then the FAA will come off looking insensitive but ultimately justified in their determination.
They fixed that though. I think the current most problematic bug is that your dwarves can't kill undead heads if they're decapitated from the body. The dwarves just gather around and endless keep beating it the zombie head.
Optical tap for unauthorized access, but surely port mirrors for the national-security-letter stuff. Wouldn't make sense to go through the hassle of a tap install and the ongoing risk of it failing, versus using a capability available on almost all serious switching hardware to give you a guaranteed 1:1.
Ironic: https://imgur.com/a/M2SzqIc
I imagine that would be insufficient to transform the purchase into that of a physical good. Might have a chance if it were a physical widget (USB key?) that you plug into your computer or phone to validate your subscription. Even that is walking the line, since you're arguably still buying a digital good, albeit one that is activated/confirmed via a hardware key.
The Amazon Basics point is interesting. They are able to capitalize on other's R&D and market research with almost no cost. If you want to sell a product, you have to do some amount of research to determine if it will be profitable. They are able to just look at selling statistics and launch their own version of popular, profitable to produce items.

This feels like an abuse of their position as a marketplace platform, but it isn't that different from grocery stores creating white label/off brand products.

Maybe it only becomes an issue when they promote their own items and bump original products down the search results. This is closer to the behavior that Spotify alleges Apple is doing.
wow this is amazing. clearly this lady was ahead of her time typing cheesecake into the "address bar" and expecting search results.
Microservices usually require data redundancy, which goes against the philosophy of the database that the author is affiliated with.
The Versatility of Function Declarations in Elixir
> I think you're wrong

Hmm! What about?

> Apple's behaviour in this instance is clearly an abuse of market power and I fully expect the European Commission to rule in Spotify's favour.

I'm not contesting that. I'm saying that I don't believe Apple is doing anything wrong. (The law and me may differ on that.)

> Apple [has] a dominant market position

Isn't the test for this substitutability in the event that the dominant force increases price? (This area is a total unknown to me so thanks for taking the time to explain!)

> to advantage their own streaming service and disadvantage Spotify

I think the he-said-she-said of the software updates thing is easily parked (unless you think it forms a substantive part of their complaint), so I will focus on the pricing issue. Again I'm drawing a distinction between the ethics of the situation and the law (although I assume that to some extent, the latter follows the former).

Spotify's P&L will have a bunch of rows in it for the costs associated with acquiring a paid user. Different channels have different costs. For example TV, radio, google/bing/alta vista PPC. Each of those will have a cost per install and some channels and keywords will convert better than others. For example if I look at the analysis frequently cited about iPhone vs. Android users, it's easy to believe that there is a greater propensity to pay money for apps on iOS vs. Android.

If Apple was the only place to get those users, I could understand totally the belief that this is unethical behaviour. But Spotify grew by four million paying subscribers in Q4 of last year, all of whom are evidence that they can grow their business by ~$500m of ARR without the app store.

So for me Apple charging Spotify 30% for their paying subscribers (who came to the App store because of a product and marketplace which Apple created, markets, and curates -- benefits which are at least conceptually worth paying for by app developers, even if some of them quibble the 30%). Is the argument that Spotify should not pay this 30% [but still benefit from all the great things which Apple foots the bill for]? And if Apple wasn't in music streaming, they'd be able to charge Spotify 30% Because that to me seems orthogonal to a common monopolistic argument: they are able to do significant harm to Apple (app store), which is a business unit, and remove all of the acquisition costs they'd ordinarily pay through hany channel.

Would it be acceptable legallyl/ethically if Apple effectively treated app store as an acquisition channel like any other, and the Music business unit paid the 30% to App store?
Airplanes don't have the right to a trial of their peers with presumption of innocence.

Two crashes within six months is very abnormal. Abnormalities are evidence of problems. Airline regulators are tasked with keeping people from dying, not with protecting manufacturers' feelings.
> Funny, but we saw a debate around monolithic codebases and the monolithic image in Smalltalk.

What reasons do you have for making that link? What are you refering to?

It's possible to load some code and snapshot as a Smalltalk image; then load some different code and snapshot as a different Smalltalk image.
GitKraken v5.0: Interactive rebase, GPG commit signing
Tools too early in the process can seize control of the imagination.

I agree completely; there is room for technique.

But I prefer to let the student find where that room is by discovering something about themselves first, rather than vague promises of freedom that comes after satisfying arbitrary minimums.

My preference as a teacher. A good student knows to overthrow my worldview when the time is right.
Actually, Art. 6 GDPR does leave doors open besides consent, e.g. if "processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child."

In that case, it's simply not consent, so instead of collecting void consent, which will get you into trouble, you should display a simple privacy notice that links to your privacy policy, where you explain your legitimate interests. That is what you have to do for first-party tracking, for session cookies than can be associated with a specific person, and even for log files that contain IP addresses.

If you offer a free digital newspaper, you may argue in court that your ad-funded offering could not exist without third-party advertising and analysis tools, and that your legitimate interest (secure funding via ads) aligns well with the interests of the data subject (read free news). National Data Protection Authorities have suggested that they consider valid consent necessary for third-party tracking, so it's a somewhat bold strategy, but in the end, the ECJ will have to decide.

Until the ePrivacy regulation arrives with some clarifications, we're effectively living in a limbo. Cases of blatant abuse aside, I doubt that we will see waves of draconian fines regarding third-party tracking until then.

Recommended reading: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...
My point is that all 737 Max pilots flying today are briefing on the issue and hyper-vigilant, while the Airbus pilots doze in their cockpits in peace.
I strongly agree. Even if Dwarf Fortress had the graphics of Rimworld (Which are aesthetically pleasing and visually distinct), its user-interface (The military system, the equipment system, any construction-related interaction with Z-levels, the fifty million jobs that dwarves can have) is insane.
This is precisely it. It's not that the EU legislation is too restrictive, it's that it doesn't go far enough. Sites like these shouldn't be compliant, users should be prompted with a simple yes/no consent form without any dark patterns.
Understanding Science: An Overview
Thirty three (33) can be written as the sum of three cubes
On my Samsung TV (and via casting) I have access to 6 streaming platforms: Netflix, HBO Nordic, Viaplay, TV 2 play, C-more (related to the French Canal+) and a local service for streaming managed by the national public library system (limited to loaning 3 movies per week)

Of those Netflix is famous for its complex distributed architecture and employs 100s (if not 1000s?) of the very best engineers in the world (at $400k+/year compensation). I haven't heard about ground-breaking architecture from the others and don't imagine they spend 10s of millions of $ every year on the software like Netflix does.

I'm not really seeing any difference in uptime or performance. In fact, if I want to stream a new movie, I will use Viaplay (I can rent new stuff there for $5), or the library streaming service (which has more interesting arthouse stuff).

So why is Netflix in any way a software success story, if competitors can do the same thing for 1/100th the cost?
Your claim is that with more economic resources these places would’ve been peaceful, civilized societies post-colonialism?
> It's also interesting how the NY Times, New Yorker and The Atlantic will write an essay afterwards that give "nuance" to the details of these types of events. Typically with a liberal bias.

I think you need to be more specific than liberal or conservative. They way those terms are used usually correlates highest to "live near a large city" or "lives in a rural area."

I think it is more useful to break it down further than that to get more understanding.
Reading the articles left me with the impression not that they were less effective, but that they couldn't prove efficacy. So they could win, or lose, but it was close.

It is also worth noting that one of the reasons why this happens in stage 3 despite having passed through a test in stage 2 that was meant to whittle this out is that improved expectations increase the strength of the placebo effect. Which makes the real effect harder to detect.
> You can write code for different services in different languages

But wouldn't that mean that the services must have no code whatsoever in common? And in that case, why would they be part of a monolith in the first place?
Yeah I generally try not to make waves that could cause us issues for App Store review, for obvious reasons. And I didn't really mind taking out the button since it wouldn't have generated revenue for us (we don't have an Amazon affiliate account). It just struck me as weird that Apple was trying to edit the web, so to speak.
Not only do they have positive lyrics, some even have comforting recipes[2]

https://youtu.be/xwksxDHNoAE
Exploding Chocolate Teacakes
Show HN: ZapChart – a fast way to create and share simple charts
Please don't editorialized in submission titles!

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I've done that a couple of times. It's a good pattern!

I worked on an e-commerce site a decade ago where the process types were:

1. Customer-facing web app

2. CMS for merchandising staff

3. Scheduled jobs worker

4. Feed handler for inventory updates

5. Distributed lock manager

6. Distributed cache manager

We had two binary artifacts - one for the CMS, one for everything else - and they were all built from a single codebase. The CMS was different because we compiled in masses of third-party framework code for the CMS.

Each process type ran with different config which enabled and configured the relevant subsystems on as needed. I'm not sure to what extent we even really needed to do that: the scheduled jobs and inventory feed workers could safely have run the customer app as well, as long as the front-end proxies never routed traffic to them.
Analysis of Brexit-Centric Twitter Activity
I'm fairly sure I agree with out that the law wouldn't achieve its purpose even if it was implemented "correctly", and it certainly doesn't achieve its purpose with how it's implemented by websites today. I considered adding a short sentence about that, but ended up not doing it. I'm just tired of the vast amount of misinformation out there, and people discussing as if the directive applies to all cookies and only to cookies.

I'm not entirely sure if a user account at an online store would require consent; in my view, cookies would be "strictly necessary" to provide the user experience a user expects which includes being able to create an account to save their shopping cart and view their order history, while using cookies to show tailored product suggestions wouldn't be. However, IANAL and I haven't even read through the text of the directive.

In any case, the vast majority of the times I see the cookie notice are times where there are exactly zero reason to use cookies (or other methods of persistent storage) other than tracking, such as blog posts and news articles. Every single one of those websites would be able to get rid of their annoying pop-ups if they just spied on their users a bit less.
They explain in the post that they did consider it but decided to avoid it due to the way the FFI and Gc interact (requiring the string to be copied)
No, my claim is that, if they hadn't been stripped bare as the colonizers were leaving, what followed would have had a better chance at being those things.

Burning someone's house to the ground, and then bailing leaves them in a rather more precarious state than simply sneaking out in the middle of the night. That's on the person with the match, not the folks who had to clean up after.

EDIT: To torture the metaphor further: Of course, if the people who are cleaning up the fire decide to go full-on Lord of the Flies with their cleanup and post-cleanup organization, that's on them.

My point is: It is beyond specious to suggest they would have done the same if the house hadn't been burnt down.
Most cookie warnings are beyond useless, in that they don't even try to actually comply with the GDPR.

The fact that your site uses cookies is irrelevant, and there's no need to tell anyone. However! If your site stores personal information (directly or via a partner), you need to have a valid reason.

The definitions of "personal information" and "valid reason" are, fortunately, not exhaustively enumerated in the GDRP. I say fortunately, because if they were exhaustively enumerated, Facebook would find a loophole, and the whole law would be worthless.

One of the 'valid reasons' for storing personal information, is a clear, freely given, consent from the user. This is the one that all the tracking companies want to get, because they think it allows them to do shady things if they can trick the user into pressing 'OK'. But if the user was tricked or coerced, the consent was not really clear or freely given. Hence the sort of court rulings that the article mentions.

So, if you store a cookie for your domain saying 'tracking_consent=false', this is probably not personally identifiable, so you can just do it. No reason for any banner.

But if you track the 'browser fingerprint' that Troy Hunt is talking about, without consent, you are probably in violation of the GDPR. Even if it's not a cookie. And you had a cookie banner.
> Also kudos to the authors to use mean instead of average in the graphs.

For benchmarks much better option would be geometric mean. Because the relation of the results values not the difference.

https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=5673