skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"unless you change registry settings (which you can't, because it can't boot)."

Yeah, I was a bit surprised by that also. Even when turned on the extra debugging info isn't exactly front and centre, why not keep it there.
The big issue I think we miss when people say "why are you using Dynamo, just use SQL" or "why are you using hadoop, a bash shell would be faster" or "why are you using containers and kubernetes, just host a raspberry pi in your closet":

The former examples are all managed! That's amazing for scaling teams.

(SQL can be managed with, say, RDS. Sure. But it's not the same level of managed as Dynamo (or Firebase or something like that). It still requires maintenance and tuning and upkeep. Maybe that's fine for you (remember: the point of this article was to tell you to THINK, not to just ignore any big tech products that come out). But don't discount the advantage of true serverless.)

My goal is to be totally unable to SSH into everything that powers my app. I'm not saying that I want a stack where I don't have to. I'm saying that I literally cannot, even if I wanted to real bad. That's why serverless is the future; not because of the massive scale it enables, but because fuck maintenance, fuck operations, fuck worrying about buffer overflow bugs in OpenSSL, I'll pay Amazon $N/month to do that for me, all that matters is the product.
> If you're at that high a level, you got there because you loved the game. So it's not really gruelling, it's what you would do anyhow if you weren't being paid for it.

I don't think this is true. To reach the highest level you need more than passion: you need dedication and discipline.

If you only practice when you feel like it then you're not going to practice as much as someone who has a set schedule they stick to no matter whether they're enjoying it or not.

Not only that but practice or training is much different from playing and often not at all enjoyable.

I would hope that all musicians love music, but practicing is usually very tiring and not fun. My current teacher always says that if you're practice feels completely painful and hopeless, you're probably doing it right.

One of my friends trained with one of the top players in the world in her sport. When she wanted to take it easy because she was on her period, the coach, also female, said she should keep going. That dedication could be the difference between being #1 and #2.
It's not "more services == more devops". It's like this: Only manage the nessessary data.

If i need to change one part of data, i don't migrate the whole data. I just need to change that only changed part.
"alleged" or "suspected" is actually perhaps a better example of the sort of not-always-correctly-interpreted-by-the-readership journalistic phrase PG intended to highlight, since "alleged" can both mean "this person is [probably going to be] on trial for this offence, so because it's so serious we're respecting the legal process by not asserting they did it even though there's substantial or even blindingly obvious proof" or "we're just reporting something someone once claimed and because it's so open to dispute we have no desire to get sued by making the claim our own"
I think PG is getting at a larger point, which I heavily agree with, that journalists very often use words that imply a lot of "story" that is not supported by "facts". For example, I just went on to the NYTimes Economy section right now, and the second article says "Short of Workers, US Farmers Crave More Immigrants". Crave? Really? Cable news is horrendous about this. They do stuff all the time that's like, "Senator XYZ blasts Trump". Blasts? And that's just headlines. But you see it all the time in subtle lines throughout an article, such as, "Facebook's employees have been raising a stir". Or like, "The new law is leaving homeowners in a lurch". These words have no quantifiable meaning, and typically it seems journalists pick words that have more average "emotional valence" than other words, even if the facts don't quite support that level of emotional valence. And that honestly is the part that annoys me the most about normal journalism.
The reason why it was so widely shared is because he posted the link to his live stream to 8chan. It was virtually guaranteed to be recorded and disseminated from there, regardless of how long it stayed up after.

Given the amount of content posted on FB, 30 minutes from being reported to being reviewed doesn't strike me as unreasonably long. I mean, it's comparable to police response times, and in those cases, minutes can literally mean human lives.
I don't think they were concerned about snapping the cable, but based on a simulation run last week by a Swedish pilot (who needed both arms locked around the column to keep it held back, towards the end), and the reports' notes of the pilot repeatedly instructing the co-pilot to help him trim up, the forces on the column were such that the pilot couldn't assist in cranking AND continue to pull back on the column at the same time.

Releasing the stick to assist with the wheel would have meant allowing the plane to nose-dive. This might have allowed them to crank in the stabilizer in time to recover, but they only had 7,000 feet above the ground to work with.
CRESTA | Palo Alto, CA | Full-Time | On-site or Remote | site: cresta.ai

Cresta’s mission is to make users experts on day on me of their jobs with the use of ML and NLP. Our company has deep roots in AI: our cofounders met during their PhDs at the Stanford AI lab. Cresta is chaired by Ben Horowitz and Sebastian Thrun.

Here are some of our openings:
- Fullstack Engineers
- Head of engineering
- Front-end engineer
- MI / AI / NLP engineer
- Data scientist
- Research scientist
- Backend architect

Please email me if you’re interested, or if you simply want to learn more about the company: bita@cresta.ai
(1) old article, and (2) not a true conclusion.

Pretrained language models are a thing, but often they are getting you from 48% to 49% accuracy or maybe 90% to 91%. That's cool, but it is not a route to commercialization, whereas you can take a system that does well on ImageNet, refine it a bit, and you've got clarif.ai
IMHO, the single-most underused HTML attribute. I get annoyed when I have to aim for the tiny box, instead of the nice long string of text next to it. Although, I can't count the number of times I was guilty of omitting it many moons ago.
> MCAS (or at least the nose down function) is specifically designed for an edge case

Yes, and it will only activate during that edge case if the AoA inputs are accurate. But they weren't. And so MCAS activated when it shouldn't have, and did things that the pilots could not recover from because they were things MCAS should never have done in the first place. That's the problem.
Power Allocation Between Redundant Systems on Autonomous Vehicles
If there were only one or two, but I think the Audi has at least 5 or 6 different and seperate ‘interfaces’ on and besides the steering wheel. To me, it seems like an overly complex UX.
The statement was about industrial scaling. Arguments based on fit and finish and market preference are sort of a different thing.
You should check out our credit card processing fees
Good example for which I’d highlight a particular thing to note: The kinds of systems that minimize failure probability at a large scale are often not the kinds of systems that minimize failure at a small scale.

At a large scale (e.g. hundreds or especially millions of hardware nodes) the most common faults will be due to individual nodes / services / whatever failing, so you want a complex fault tolerant system to deal with those faults.

At a small scale (e.g. stuff that can fit on one or several servers) the most common faults are from the system itself, not from individual nodes. Here, using a complex system will drive up the likelihood of failures, especially when you don’t have a large team to manage the system.
That is assuming that your compiler knows about such optimisations and can
apply them in non-recursive situations. As far as I know, Go doesn't apply
tail-call optimisation. Haskell probably does. Not sure about Rust.

Either way, depending on the compiler making one particular optimisation just
so that your code works seems rather fragile to me.
Processing Large Files – Java, Go and 'Hitting the Wall'
> they were only 7,000 feet above the ground

No, it's worse: the origin airport is at 7000ft elevation. They only had around 1000ft height AGL for all of the flight. So I agree that releasing the elevator at all seems surely suicidal.
That's a hell of a claim to back up. Any kind of argument for this idea? Ownership is meaningful. What is access—is my local McDonalds a public service?

This smells very similar to "access to affordable" housing and healthcare. Sounds great, but at the end of the day, people are still without health care and housing, so they clearly DON'T have access. Ownership is the only way to guarantee material access.
Visual Studio Code March 2019 Release (1.33)
Journey Through the .Net Internals – Sorting
This all boils down to "make cost benefit decisions".

The problem is that maybe cost benefit decisions are really hard. To understand the cost of map reduce, for example, I probably have to use it at least once. High cost just to understand something. And I have to understand the alternatives, so I'm trying those out too.

You know what's faster? Signaling. When large companies say "this approach works for us" it's really cheap and easy to say "Well that's probably good enough then".

Do you lose out on efficiencies by not fully understanding the problem? Duh. But probably not as much as understanding an entire domain for every technical decision you make.

The steps outlined, particularly 1,2,3,4, are really expensive for every single technical solution. Reading multiple technical papers for a db is probably more costly than just acquiring customers, hitting scaling limits for your uninformed choice, and moving to a new db based on a somewhat more in depth approach or hiring a consultant.

Let's assume that if you guessed a technical solution, the cost of 'guessing' is 0, and the cost of picking the wrong solution is 'low'. Should I waste time doing anything other than guessing? If the cost of 'do what google does' is 0, or near 0, and better average chance of working, why not pick it?

Unless the stakes are high, putting that kind of investment into every technical decision just seems needless. And they arguably have to be very high to offset the cost, and I would state that determining those costs upfront itself may be difficult and error prone.

For every mis-guess listed in that article, how many new customers did they acquire due to making the right 'guess' based on signaling from other companies? The companies clearly hadn't gone under from those bad decisions, so would it really have been the right call to have invested in such deep thinking about the problem early on?

Not sure I believe what I wrote entirely, just thinking out loud.
op here: I have been working on this series for some time. It was a really deep dive into Internals of .NET. Still, a couple of posts left but decided that it might be worth sharing as there are four posts at the moment.
They did a number of things badly, and were did in perhaps most of all by plummeting oil prices.

All nations balance some degree of socialism with free market competition. Name a country you'd consider successful. Chances are, it has public schooling, public roads, that kind of thing. Some elements of socialism.
Unless you're making the argument that it takes 10 years to roll out a bus system, such a policy can be written to phase in the congestion charge only when the public infrastructure is ready (NYC's congestion tax only kicks in 2021 AFAIK).

In any case, we're no longer arguing about the merits of congestion pricing, but are arguing about the implementation details, and that's a good place for the debate to be.
> That's the first I've heard that it's only for edge cases.

It's only supposed to activate in a specific edge case (high angle of attack, manual flight, no flaps, low airspeed). That's been discussed plenty online (including previous threads here at HN).

But that assumes that the angle of attack sensors are accurate. If the AoA sensors are inaccurate, as they were on this flight (more specifically the left one), MCAS can activate when it's not supposed to. That's what happened here.
At the very least it seems that some specific "differences training" on MCAS should have been included. I don't know at what point the differences are enough to require a new type designation.
> I like monads in Haskell, but I'm unconvinced that the additional complexity is worth it in Rust.

Haskell and Rust are different enough that this is definitely a concern. Lazy evaluation and GC used throughout, vs. eager evaluation in a language which uses affine typing and regions to avoid GC... I can see how general monads might not work very well, and the OP does touch on this a little bit.
I remember messing with ACPI and DSDT when I was into the hackintosh scene. Good times.
This is going to be even more incentive for technology companies to pull out of Europe/UK. The future of the internet is going to be tech savvy Europeans VPNing into the US or otherwise tech friendly locations to access all of the "real" content and services.
https://stackexchange.com/performance

https://nickcraver.com/blog/2016/02/17/stack-overflow-the-ar...

Lots of caching (redis, CloudFlare) and trying not to use the database unless absolutely necessary, I would expect.
Encapsulate your joins in a view:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createview.html
>Can anyone cite an example of a major-media news story that was actually factually wrong in a way that "open source fact checking" could have detected it?

The Supermicro """backdoor""" story of late last year, where Bloomberg alleged that the company had surreptitiously placed small microchips on nearly all their products on behalf of China without anyone noticing
How I Make $3K/Month Passive Income Helping People Play Video Games
Honestly, that second example is more complex. Now you're had to manually map one error onto another in order to propagate it. How big does MyError get when you have OtherError, AnotherError, FailureNum5, ChokedOnBanana. You're just doing busy work creating types and mapping them together. And this is just a simple toy example! You're quick to hand-wave that wasted effort.

What value is the enum value Other(OtherError) actually provide other than to satisfy the compiler? How far do we take this when there are more levels? OtherFailure(OtherMistake(Other(OtherError)))?

> Neither does in my case...

In each example you changed the implementation of type so that it is no longer compatible. You altered the signature of the method.

> But it wouldn't check the error types. It's a zero-cost abstraction.

It's funny that you say that as error returns have a non-zero runtime cost. Yet exceptions can actually be zero-cost at runtime (if they aren't thrown) as they can be implemented out of band. Only the most naive implementation propagates exceptions with multi-value returns.

Now I do understand why Rust is implemented this way but it's not because error returns are unequivocally better.

Good code with exceptions have very little code actually related to error handling. Throw often, catch infrequently, and use normal resource cleanup for exceptional cleanup as well. You can get far with a 2-3 well placed catch statements and that's it. No extra typing. No error propagation code.

If you think of error handling as happening where the error is raised as opposed to where it is handled it's hard to see the advantage of exceptions. Where the error is raised is not that important.
Only in aws,azure portable.
At some level this is one of the most "no shit, Sherlock" pieces I've ever read. On the other hand you see it happening absolutely everywhere so it very much needed to be said.

I don't know why it is but people seem much more interested in the tech than in the value they can create. Which is odd. Why? Because it's the second part where you get to exercise the most creativity and do the most interesting work. How do you think LinkedIn arrived at Kafka, for example?

What'a possibly more baffling is it's not just the devs who buy into the technology hype: often it's the so-called business types, and those in management and leadership positions, advocating and egging them on.
I've read a couple of these things (strongly recommended — aviation postmortems are a model for us all) and my impression is that "too large" or "slap" are foreign terms in their debugging culture.

Their priority list is, AFAICT: 1. Find out what happened. 2. Find out why. 3. Find out how to make sure it doesn't happen again. 4. See point 3. 5. See point 3.
I wrote a blog with this exact title from the standpoint of a SysAdmin/DevOps Engineer: https://www.sendthemtomir.com/blog/what-is-idempotence
Without a doubt, China, Russia, AND the US are most certainly engaged in large scale espionage and stealing each others intel and corporate R&D via any means necessary by nation-state backed hacking and etc.
To be clear the Air Force knows the owners of the 64 satellites that were launched in the "ride-share".

They're just having difficulty in identifying the satellites while they are in orbit because of the similarity of the signatures of many of the satellites
You're begging the question—you didn't quote a justification for the term, you quoted an argument that requires the same justification.

Taxis are absolutely antagonistic to public transit, as demonstrated by the ratio of human labor to humans transported. Cars are simply the most comfortable version of transit available to people who have the means. It is not available to those without the means. The idea that the taxi users are the same as bus users is simply being class-blind.
Does the combination of "private monopoly" and "reasonable standards" not bother you? With explicit laws, at least there are political checks and balances on those standards. But with an indirect arrangement where businesses self-censor under threat of further regulation, the standards to which they do so do not undergo the same review, nor can you challenge them in courts.
The only reason to use Hadoop is if you need a Shuffle phase, i.e. the intermediate data between Map and Reduce is too big to fit on one machine. If you have big input but small append-only output, use a work-queue (SQS or MySQL/PostGres will let you set this up in minutes), dump to files, and merge them with gzcat | uniq | gzip > output.txt.gz. If you have big input but a small volume of update-based processing (< ~1000 or so outputs/sec), have your workers update an RDBMS. If you have small input but big output, build up output file chunks and progressively write to S3 and delete them. If both your input & output fit on disk, use UNIX pipelines and command-line tools. If they fit in RAM, just load them with Pandas or equivalent and manipulate them in your favorite interactive programming language.
Thank you for the good stuff, I'll have a look.
and the recent snc-lavalin case in canada[0]

[...Quebec Premier François Legault said that SNC-Lavalin was one of ten publicly-traded companies headquartered in Quebec that the province considers to be "strategic" and therefore in need of protection from a takeover that would force the company to leave the province....]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin#SNC-Lavalin_affair...
Caching and a whole lot of it. Most of their pages could be served by a CDN.

How much do you think stack overflow is reading vs writing? How often do you even click a link from a stack overflow page once there?
> I think the GP is saying it's low level in the frame of reference of the data and relationships, which is true because you have to explicitly join everything together 'by hand' even though you could imagine abstractions that could be built on top, making this unnecessary.

Data abstractions in SQL are accomplished with views:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createview.html

Model your most common joins once into a view, then use the view instead of repeating the joins everywhere.
>This marks a victory for Airbus in a war without end.

>Back in September the European aerospace giant, which employs 15,000 people in the UK, was on the receiving end when it was found that billions of euros in low interest loans amounted to illegal subsidies.

>Boeing celebrated that moment as a comprehensive victory which would deal a mortal blow to Airbus and result in more US jobs.

>The reality is that neither of these companies can exist without government subsidies.

Both of these companies are strategic assets to the countries that have them. So no surprise here. I'm not even upset at it- it's realpolitik.
https://www.vox.com/2019/1/19/18189668/white-students-maga-g...

https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/maga-hat-wearing-teens-tau...
It is not possible to provide everyone with the best health care possible. For example, only a handful can get the services of the best heart surgeon.

Compromise is inevitable.
Another commenter pointed out that the captain is pulling back as hard as he possibly can on the yoke; releasing it to turn a trim wheel instead may have been just as deadly.
So was the memory expansion official?

I would guess not? But then IBM were supporting it???

OT. I now have visions of young engineers joining IBM with dreams of working on big iron, but ending up in the burbs fixing PC jrs.
>The US has no obligation to provide benefits and services to non-citizens.

The conversation is not about about benefits and services to non-citizens, but about whether enforcement is being targeted at specific immigrant populations based on white supremacist ideologies. It is about the false, widely circulated talking-point that this administration simply seeks to push people toward legal pathways.

>If the guest worker program wasn't being horribly abused it would be worthwhile.

This is a claim that requires justification. Any tiered labor system that does not guarantee a level legal playing field for all workers is abusable.
My old 2011 MacBook supports only 8GB officially - though the Intel chipset onboard will support 16GB - It's run happily with 16GB of RAM since 2012...
They're at 12,000-14,000 feet altitude at 05:43ish, when the co-pilot reports the non-functional manual trim. So ~6,000-7,000 height.

Still damn close to the ground to be comfortable letting the plane dive.
Good question. This is what makes these accidents so bad in my eyes: they weren't caused by a defect or flaw in the traditional sense, but rather by a system that seems to have been conceived solely to allow Boeing to skirt retraining/recertification requirements, to sell more planes.

Such a system should have been subject to extreme scrutiny, and honestly it beggars belief that the potential for these accidents wasn't seen. "This system can trim the nose down beyond the authority of the manual controls, based on readings from a single non-redundant sensor" should have been more than enough to get the gears turning, and it seems that the deeper one looks it only gets worse.
> when everyone has been busting ass for a long time and they just want to go home

This sounds like a smell. You should not be busting ass and have everyone feel like they just want to go home at the end of the sprint. You should be working productively every day without burning out. Perhaps the team is forced to make too many commitments? Kind of sounds like it from your other comments.
Funny enough, they are showing 50% of the excess profits going to financial services and real estate!
I agree that zip2 was not a great accomplishment aside from making money, but it certainly wasn’t copyright infringement.
How many of these clever VC say to themselfs "None of our companies will be the next FAANG/MAGA"..

Oh wait. They dont say that. They fund, and hope and pray!