skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think it's a significant danger.

But on the other hand our current table storage has some architectural issues that are hard to fix in an upward compatible manner (causing a number of issues around vacuum and write amplification due to hint bits etc). And even if there were an easy-ish incremental upgrade path, it's hard to e.g. move to an UNDO based MVCC implementation without regressing some workload (& introduce bugs) - allowing that development to happen in parallel and the adoption be by choice, that's much more realistic.

Additionally, the best type of table storage is also very workload dependent. E.g. for some analytics (or even just long term storage) it's quite useful to have a columnar store, but for lots of transactional workloads that's not appropriate. (Note that the current tableam interface would allow for some simple columnar store, but that'd still need a good bit of planner and executor smarts to be useful for anything but higher storage density.)

So I think on balance it's probably worth it.
Post on dslreports.com, might get some good answers.
> By the way, 200M is less than 2500 requests/second which is easily doable.

They are probably not spready uniformly throughout the day...
https://www.digitalocean.com/products/block-storage/
labels should always be to the right of the checkbox/radio controls. never nest them.
nesting is ok for other form controls in some instances, but you'll run into issues with various screen readers if you apply the for attribute while nesting.
on that note, always nest when possible; the ux benefits make it crazy not to take advantage of it.
What duty does the majority have to respect the feelings of the minority? Google recently posted that less than one percent of their population was non binary.

If there was a concern that impacted every non binary Googler and they all spoke out passionately, it might not register as a major voice, but it still seems important to listen.

Should we only concern ourselves with what the majority thinks? Isn't that the groupthink I see everyone talking about? Or should we take time to listen to these minority viewpoints and ensure we are building an environment where they feel welcome?
The financial sector provides the work of analyzing economic need to better allocate capital. It is real work, that adds real value to the economy. The problem with the financial sector is that barriers to entry, created to "protect retail investors" and "mitigate systemic risk", result in the vast majority being excluded from the industry and a small elite capturing the majority of profits.

Any development that threatens to disrupt the regulated financial sector is dealt with harshly by regulatory agencies, as in the case of the token sale market and the SEC's enforcement actions against token sale organizers.
There are nations that have very tiny GDPs (and AWS is very expensive) so that's not saying much, and I didn't say AWS was flawless, I said that AWS was a hell of a lot better than anything you could come up with unless you're literally at Amazon scale (and we both know you arent), and nearly none of your software's problems are AWS's fault.

Using AWS has been a legitimate excuse for an outage or service delivery issue a dozen times since 2011. The end. Write your apps to be more resilient if you've had more than that many outages at those times (and honestly even those outages weren't complete).
Appears? Where are you reading this to come to that conclusion?

Page 11 of the preliminary report, 05:40:35 "stab trim cut-out".

Page 26, five manual trim up inputs before that time. Manual trim is electric trim instigated with yoke toggle switch.

What is not certain (to me) is if continuous nose up toggle for sure would have inhibited the automatic nose down from MCAS shown at 05:40:45. It really looks like pitch trim still needed to come up more in order to relieve the control column force to bring it back to neutral.

Why didn't they continue to manually trim (electric) after 05:40:35 to relieve yoke back pressure and also to improve climb rate and also reduce speed? I suspect they actually got ahead of themselves, setting trim stab cutoff too soon, not realizing how much more insideous the MCAS upset case is compared to runaway stabilizer trim.

And that is the problem with no training. They had no way to iterate various scenarios of working and failed MCAS behaviors.
This address does nothing to make me feel better about flying on any future Boeing plane. They promise to fix the MCAS system in the current crop, but say nothing about the organizational choices and structures that allowed this to happen in the first place.

Allowing the company to produce a plane, equipped with a non-redundant system with control over the vertical attitude of the plane, and doing so in a way that intentionally minimizes the perceived impact and required training to operate a plane with this system is the true mistake here.

This is a failure of the both the FAA, Boeing, and pretty much every player along the chain.
This has been a 50 year problem in the making, and whether it's for better or worse should be more carefully studied.

Through WW2 and the proliferating age of defense contractors, the government (mostly defense department, but also civilian agencies) stood almost on equal footing with contractors in their ability to design, scope, and evaluate big projects.

You would see scientists and in-house advisers at these departments able to expertly evaluate proposals/designs by contractors with sufficient background knowledge and tools to do so. They even worked closely with contractors to lay out the requirements and designs for systems, or products.

But, through the decades, a couple factors eroded this equal footing of the government / regulatory experts:

-- Shrinking of government budgets for (or unwillingness of the public to stomach) the ranks of Washington "bureaucrats" who represented this expert class of people (what harm is there in cutting "fat" from public servants who don't seem to produce anything tangible?)

-- More attractive pay, career potential, prestige, etc. of working in the private sector

-- Political distaste for being seen as working too closely with contractors

So what happened is that gradually but surely, government lost the tools to do these things themselves, and by sheer need to still have things approved, shifted the work onto industry.

What can you do when industry comes to you with new complicated designs for things, and you have no one who can assess (and no budget to pay for assessments of) whether those designs are safe? You ask the person proposing to critique themselves, and in many cases, they seem to know more than you anyway.

Of course, what in part probably led to our current situation.

As a society, my question is, how do we make it possible to choose to do these things in the way that produces the right outcome? For a start, I think we need to stop asking everyone to make uninformed votes about things we don't understand, yet rely on every day.
Algernon does a bit more than plain Nginx or Apache. 24.4 MiB also includes bloat. See:
https://github.com/golang/go/issues/27266
https://github.com/golang/go/issues/2559

Hopefully we can get smaller binaries by Go 1.13.
All Roads Lead to the Cloud; Some Thoughts about Future Systems
It’s not close, this is the right answer.
I had a two letter tumblr URL that got two serious corporate requests for purchase, including one from a huge European telecommunications company. I always counter offered a crazy high number to test their budget. Both times they thanked me for the response and moved on.

I had a couple tumblr employees following me, cool people. I even had the founder “like” a couple of my posts. My sense was that there wasn’t an avenue open to poach a day-one user like me. This was all pre-yahoo.

Eventually, when I was done with the site more or less, I put out a feeler for a buyer and made a quick buck. That buyer I think tried to sell it themselves and it ended up shuttered.

Good times. Tumblr had a fun niche art community at the time and my “tumblr fame” helped me network with some interesting people.
Removing SSH should be the goal though. If you follow the old Visible Ops book you also "Electrify the Fence" and introduce accountability, etc. If your goal is to see what a process is doing introduce tracing. If you need to add a "println()" then push that out as a change because the environment is changing from your altering of it. Because the tool doesn't exist yet that you need to SSH into a box doesn't mean it shouldn't - you have to instrument the tooling to prevent you from needing this adhoc ability. Admittedly it scares me still but ideally the end game is to never need to or have the ability to do so through a tool which has all the things you are looking for without allowing a human to be too human and miss a semi-colon.
How is it closed? It's now better than ever with the new cross-platform .NET Core with all kinds of runtime and language advancements.
The whole point of Firefox _is_ to make network requests. All of the features above aren't leaking your user data or fingerprinting you, they're assisting you in what the applications purpose is... to make network requests. Not to mention firefox is an open-source project, so you could go look at all the network communication it makes when it starts up. All of these options are configurable anyways.

I think you're looking in the wrong direction. Try the closed-source (or partial closed source) operating systems you interact with on a daily basis: Windows, Android, macOS, iOS- that's where you'll find the "fingerprinted and tracked every single time you open" sort of thing you speak of. :)
Note this is the Express - the source of too many articles about planet Niburu coming to destroy the Earth.
well you are missing the point.

the tech details are irrelevant in posts like this. no one, but no one, is throwing down knowledge and insight that anyone and their mama doesn’t know or can’t easily acquire. people just don’t give away their secret sauce that easily.

the 2 points are

a. a recruiting signal. it lets candidates know “we are like you”. we care about the tech stack and what we do. we care about elegant and “good” solutions.

b. it gives company devs a public sounding board. a chance to have a bigger voice than in house obscurity.

if you think these blogs are really about the tech, well then yes they are quite boring.
I owned a Volkswagen. Why wouldn’t regulatory capture be a thing everywhere?
Carbon dioxide extraction company Carbon Engineering receives $68M investment
I always create and use Firefox profiles with a custom user.js preference file. Here's a great one: https://github.com/pyllyukko/user.js
For additional fun, try piping random characters into perl:

$ chars='A-Za-z0-9!"#$%&'\''()*+,-./:;<=>?@[\]^_`{|}~'
$ </dev/urandom tr -dc $chars | head -c 10 | tee random.pl | perl

Usually you'll encounter a syntax error, but sometimes it does execute without errors. Usually the successful ones are successful only because Perl finds an errant octothorpe and skips over all the other literal line noise after it.

Regardless, fun to know that

L8vw>@ksSU

is a valid - useless, but valid - Perl program.
>I'm never clear on why I'm supposed to be upset about model legislation. [...] Moreover, especially on technical matters, it seems likely that private-sourced model legislation would be a superior starting point than whatever leg' staff would come up with themselves.

The problem is that the legislation will address issues of a specific group of stakeholders, those that participated in the process, to the detriment of others who did not. Even when other parties comment, by the time the bulk of the framework is in place, momentum is against the new voices in the process. This bias is consistent in industry model legislation - but there are other forms of model legislation that don't suffer the same risk.

Since funding is a prerequisite of concerted professional co-ordination, this means as we move to a situation where model legislation is more dominant, we're systemically favoring groups that are already very resourced. In essence we're only democratizing legislation to incumbents, which means we aren't democratizing it at all.

This sounds very theoretical, but it's anything but. I've gone through records of various industry groups as they put together legislative agendas. Once you see how self serving the language and framework is, the risks become very clear. This isn't to say that industry shouldn't comment on legislation or provide input on
How much money does pocket actually generate? It blows my mind that mozilla would pull a java and have us install a figurative toolbar.
Not quite ;) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle
Even after you have fallen victim to the very thing you are arguing isn't a problem - you still don't see it as a problem? It is a very big problem that these articles are being destructively modified. They are whipping up people that are already so freaked out that they think the President is both Hitler and a Russian agent, and people like you are left wondering what the big deal is when you look at the results of stealth edits.

-- a young man wearing a self-assured smirk and a red “Make America Great Again”
++ a young man wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat

-- More video shows Phillips wiping away tears in reaction to the harassment.
++ More video shows Phillips wiping away tears after the incident.

You can be sure that a huge number of tweets and facebook posts, by politicians and journalists/pundits promoting the story, frequently found in the sidebar of articles like this - got memory holed as well.
You have it backwards, apache or nginx size is not for the novelty. Go is just a pig and its size grows every new release, and the size isn't really for being statically linked or debugging symbols, because it's huge even when those options are disabled.

Right now a "hello world" application in Go has comparable size to an OS with full GUI.
You wouldn't happen to be the Matthew D. Green at Johns Hopkins, would you? If so, you blogged about something I did in Android a few years ago. Hint: I designed and implemented eCryptfs and EXT4/F2FS fscrypt. Small world.

Anyway, I expect that Tesla's supercharging network will go the way of Betamax or 25519. Just because you're first and/or you're better doesn't necessarily mean that you win. With the entire automotive industry (minus Tesla) adopting CCS, Tesla clearly has an uphill battle on its hands. But I'll admit that anything can happen, and I'm terrible at predicting the future.
>The report does not actually indicate which "manually" the pilots meant, with the switches or with the trim wheel.

This isn't consistent with any coherent reading of the transcript:

> At 05:41:46, the Captain asked the First-Officer if the trim is functional. The First-Officer has replied that the trim was not working and asked if he could try it manually.

They've already hit the stab cutout at this point. Now maybe they're think this is like the older 737s and the cutout cut the autopilot and not the full electrical, BUT if you think the question he was asking was whether or not he could try the thumb switch, what exactly would he have been trying prior to that that "wasn't working"?

There is no other trim to try before the thumb switches such that you'd refer to the thumb switches as "trying it manually" when $OTHER_THING was not working. In the transcript, given what's being said, it's clearly the wheel crank that's meant. It doesn't even make sense otherwise.
I read that statement as the share price being the only thing on their minds. (Did not explicitly exonerate the pilots.)
This has been a 50 year problem in the making, and whether it's for better or worse should be more carefully studied. Because here's my understanding of the history:

Through WW2 and the proliferating age of defense contractors, the government (mostly defense department, but also civilian agencies) stood almost on equal footing with contractors in their ability to design, scope, and evaluate big projects.

You would see scientists and in-house advisers at these departments able to expertly evaluate proposals/designs by contractors with sufficient background knowledge and tools to do so. They even worked closely with contractors to lay out the requirements and designs for systems, or products.

But, through the decades, a couple factors eroded this equal footing of the government / regulatory experts:

-- Shrinking of government budgets for (or unwillingness of the public to stomach) the ranks of Washington "bureaucrats" who represented this expert class of people (what harm is there in cutting "fat" from public servants who don't seem to produce anything tangible?)

-- More attractive pay, career potential, prestige, etc. of working in the private sector

-- Political distaste for being seen as working too closely with contractors

So what happened is that gradually but surely, government lost the tools to do these things themselves, and by sheer need to still have things approved, shifted the work onto industry.

What can you do when industry comes to you with new complicated designs for things, and you have no one who can assess (and no budget to pay for assessments of) whether those designs are safe? You ask the person proposing to critique themselves, and in many cases, they seem to know more than you anyway.

Of course, what in part probably led to our current situation.

As I said in the beginning, the pros and cons of operating a system in this way should be looked at.

As a society, my question is, how do we make it possible to choose to do these things in the way that produces the right outcome? For a start, I think we need to stop asking everyone to make uninformed votes about certain detailed things we don't understand, yet rely on every day. That definitely produces bad consequences for many issues.
Trying to understand how disabling javascript is related to accessibility needs. Mind helping me out?
> Compare the cost of just one of those reactors...

It's very likely the cost and various other pieces of information about US Navy nuclear reactors is classified, but estimations exist. I found in [1] that a submarine reactor costs about $100MM and a carrier one about $200MM. The S6G reactor that equips the Los Angeles class submarines (very popular, 62 built, 32 still active [2]) appears to have a power output of 165 MW thermal, and about 30 MW electric. This makes it roughly $3MM per MW, not counting the fact that much more of the thermal power could be converted to electricity if that was desired.

> to the cost of a fully installed windmill in Iowa.

What I could find online [3] is that the cost of utility scale wind turbines ranges between $1.3MM and $2.2MM per MW. This is the same order of magnitude as the $3MM/MW for submarine nuclear reactors.

>Nuclear is MUCH more expensive in terms of capital outlay

Sure, but the question was if this capital outlay is because of some inherent technological difficulties, or because of regulations. Since naval nuclear reactors don't appear to be expensive, the natural hypothesis is that the capital outlays are driven primarily by regulations.

> prohibitively expensive in terms of operating costs
A naval reactor is either refueled only once during its lifetime or not at all. The main operating cost is the final dismantling. The running cost is virtually zero.

>The government would have to pay for it.

Bill Gates decided to just spend his money on this, and he found China as a willing partner. He figured he didn't need government assistance. Money wise he was probably right. But the DOE killed his project in October for national security reasons [4]: "TerraPower, the company I started 10 years ago, uses an approach called a traveling wave reactor that is safe, prevents proliferation, and produces very little waste. We had hoped to build a pilot project in China, but recent policy changes here in the U.S. have made that unlikely. We may be able to build it in the United States if the funding and regulatory changes that I mentioned earlier happen.
The world needs to be working on lots of solutions to stop climate change. Advanced nuclear is one, and I hope to persuade U.S. leaders to get into the game."

The government doesn't have to pay for it, but it would be nice for it not to stand in the way of people who are willing to pay for it themselves.

[1]http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%2...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles-class_submarine
[3] http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost
[4] https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2...
They're also not all full page loads either. Their stats show only 66M of those 200M are pageviews.
We just switched to Aurora Postgres, and I agree wholeheartedly. The main DB client is a web app with ~4000 txns/second, and we instantly got a ~30% performance boost. We also got much more consistent performance for our slower queries thanks to Aurora's fast, custom storage engine.
> No voting method can entirely escape both of these problems. But newer methods like STAR voting balance them against each other and manage to minimize both.

First you need to demonstrate that it's a problem in reality, there are very few times in history where it has been a real issue. Alternative to IRV are usually much more complex which is a terrible tradeoff for an almost entirely imaginary problem. Star voting has the same problem as star rating systems, almost everyone will score either a 5 or a 1.
Thank you for putting into words something that’s been difficult for me to articulate!
What to Look for When Choosing a VPN Provider
How about network partitions across availability zones? Happens all the time for us, so much in fact that we had to build a tool to test connectivity across AZs just to correlate outages and find the smoking gun.
React Native tutorial
I was pretty with it until 4 and 5. The premise that certain groups of people without housing "can't survive without the kind of assistance that money can't buy" is condescending and elitist at best.
Maybe, but in some similar cases, it's marked as "won't fix": https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1502188

If you configure Firefox to not automatically update, and then use, say, a package manager to update it, automatic updates will get re-enabled.
Good to know, thanks. I'll get a new anonymous card.
Such nostalgia! As my first job out of college, I worked at Matrox at the time helping to write the 3D OpenGL drivers. I pretty much joined the company because I wanted to make Quake run faster. We played Quake just about every night there in order to "beta test". Good times!
You have to split the title, which is marketing mumbo jumbo, from the article, which is fundamentally talking about decision making.

Smart decision making and persistent work is the X and Y axis of achievement.

Decision making (which broadly includes subjects like efficiency, policy, systems, problem solving, and design thinking) is the heart of efficiency gains for large organizations (not necessarily individuals, although there really shouldn't be a separation between the two).

Generally speaking, decision making falls into 2 categories - prioritization and policy. Prioritization is deciding what best to do out of the given options, and while policy (systems building) is building ecosystems that enable activity or work output.

2nd order thinking is the necessary requirement for policy/systems building. However, there's a lot more skills needed to enact good policy decisions, so this is just scratching the surface on the subject.
Add a ‘Dark Mode’ to Any React Project
In terms of hiding an emitter, the relevant quantity is the beam solid angle in the far field. This is wavelength dependent which implies temperature dependence if we're talking thermal radiation.

The lower the temperature, the longer the wavelength and the wider the beam (given fixed emitter geometry). So there's a tradeoff between hiding your Dyson sphere vs extracting the most energy from the source.