skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Everything that happens in your Facebook app is saved directly into the Facebook infrastructure. They don't leak it to other companies, they just own it themselves.

For those other apps, they leak the tracking to 3rd party services. That's what those trackers are.
It might make allocation a bit faster, but is this really where performance was lost?

I guess for the runtime it is more expensive to copy the stack contents (so nearly 2K) and e.g. update pointers in it (a simple memcpy might not be enough).
Operating Maps gives Google a ton of information about where people go, where they work, live, what businesses they patronize, etc. Data they can turn around and use for advertising purposes. It's not like they've been running Maps out of the goodness of their hearts.
> Look, when a lot of female readers have expressed discomfort with The Book of the New Sun, we need to at least take that into consideration and respect that viewpoint even if we ourselves like the book.

I do take it into consideration and I do respect the perspective that informs the viewpoint, even if I think the viewpoint is incorrect. I am not trying to argue with anyone's "expressed discomfort", I am disagreeing with your subtle suggestion that Wolfe is sexist because he wrote a sexist character.

> But that’s what Wolfe intended!" is just going to come across to those female readers as mansplaining.

I'm sorry but "mansplaining" is not an argument. I'm not saying that the phenomenon of mansplaining doesn't exist (a man condescendingly explaining something to a woman that she already understands), but a discussion of meaning in literature does not qualify as "mansplaining" just because I am a man who disagrees with a woman. Additionally, there are plenty of women who will make the same argument, so unless you're suggesting that my opinion is only invalid because I'm a man, I fail to see how mansplaining is at all relevant. I am happy to engage in specific examples of the text which someone might point to as evidence for a flaw in my reasoning, but summarizing my response with a flippant "mansplaining" dismissal is very disingenuous.

> And that is a pretty commonly encountered position in lit circles.

And also overwhelmingly rejected as an absurd way to view literature based on countless examples.
Totally. One of the things that people seem to forget is if you bought a house for 50% less just a few years ago, you have a insanely significant amount more for your retirement. This is not including the bump in property taxes that hurt quite a bit too!
A day in the life of a software engineer and startup founder
If you were your own manager for your own code, you'd do it to. I'm unaware of any data showing managed software development is buggier than programmers working by themselves, and my experience is it is less buggy.

Programmers by default tend to want to work on the fun stuff in a program, and neglect the unfun pedestrian stuff. This is where managers step in to improve things.
It’s less about the domain than the impact of the code.

Bad code can kill your company or go unnoticed, depending on where it is and what it’s doing.
Women involved in 100% of Unwanted Pregnancies.
It depends on the real world effects of pushing software out. If the side effects are minor and its perfectionism, then sure, push it out ugly.

If it's a safety control mechanism for a car or airplane, then perfectionism needs to be applauded over faster time-to-market. If it's another chat application and changes can be easily rolled back, then push it out warts and all.
I use snaps at work and they are damn slow at opening, insomnia takes a got 30 seconds to open and viscose takes 5-10.

I7 4/8 16gb and ssd. Laptop isn't a slouch
Wow, their interview question (in the hands of the wrong interviewee) could have caused a data breach.
Coda: Hacker News is unable to discuss the difficult subject that Hacker news is unable to discuss difficult subjects

https://web.archive.org/web/20190418221606/https://news.ycom...
Literally every single time Facebook announces something like this, they always announce low numbers and then repeatedly revise them upwards.

Is there no penalty to them for basically lying to everyone in their initial announcement? Doing it once can be explained as they sincerely thought their original number was correct, but they have a history of doing this and there's no chance I believe now that they aren't doing this on purpose.
stares in C++; stares in Perl

But seriously, I think C++ and Perl have taught us that if you give programmers the logical equivalent of a Swiss Army Knife, they will use/abuse absolutely every single bit of it to write their programs.

I used to be a big fan of "more than one way to do it", but these days, I'd gladly take "one reasonably clear way to do it that not everyone likes but 'everyone' can live with".
There's your problem — you're releasing too early. :-)
I don't know about laser-scanning drones but for street-level imagery Mapillary and OpenStreetCam do the job. That is, if they have users around the area you're interested in.
This. MCAS was the wrong thing to build. The wrong thing, correctly built, is still wrong, no matter how perfect the formal verification.
I think Robert Martin doesn't fully grasp the field of formal methods and program semantics, which has evolved a lot since the early 1980s. Paraphrasing Alan Perlis, beware of the Turing tar pit, where everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy.

So one trick is to work on DSLs with restricted semantics that are good enough for your domain. That makes proofs plus other formal techniques, and hence security guarantees, much much easier.

But if you insist on Turing complete languages, as I explained above, you can e.g. build abstract interpreters or data flow analyses that are able to prove really sophisticated things. I have implemented a C abstract interpreter for an industrial client that among many other things detected whether you were making potential out of bounds accesses to arrays, or potentially using uninitialized pointers. Of course it erred on the safe side. But it was really precise (few false positives). Not a walk in the park as it relies on Galois connections. See the seminal Cousot & Cousot 1977 paper [1].

[1] https://www.di.ens.fr/~cousot/COUSOTpapers/POPL77.shtml
While I understand what you're trying to say; Software updater isn't available pre-install. The context of the quoted post seems to be based on the pre-install experience of choosing which version to install without previous knowledge of Ubuntu's versioning system.

It should be noted that while the website typically steers you towards LTS; that's only if you find your own way there and aren't linked to a specific image by someone else. I think it's entirely understandable why some people might get confused.

NinjaEdit: Also of note is people brand new to linux probably won't know anything about Ubuntu being based on Debian or what that even means, so the idea of Stable, Testing, Unstable is a wildly new idea to them.
while it's possible to hit your head hard while skiing, it may be possible to go an entire lifetime without that happening (as is the case for myself and most people I know who ski)..
Node_modules fetch readmes, images, tests etc. The actual assets that are loaded to your code are less than half of every module, sometimes 10-30%
> Since the NES-processor is clocked (roughly 70%) faster than a stock C64 there can be slowdowns during gameplay

Well, it's impressive that it works without being always painfully slow, then. How is this done?
Yes I've seen that[1] but I think it's premature to extrapolate general conclusions about server engineering from a low-level network driver. Chris Lattner has noted that Swift will take longer to optimize for cases like low-level systems programming because unlike most languages it was initially designed for generality.[2]

What's interesting about Swift on the server is that the super lightweight runtime and lack of a tracing garbage collector hold the potential of much more consistent latency with low memory overhead. And as for reference counting overhead, application-level code is much more likely to be able to take advantage of Swift's preferred functional-esque "value type semantics", which don't suffer from that.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18788069

[2] https://developers.slashdot.org/story/17/01/23/085232/slashd...
Hey, in the wild! I've long advocated for companies to use actual bugs (that have been fixed) in testing candidates. Heck, as your anecdote suggests, they might find the candidate provides a fix better than their ninja rockstar did, and in this way could serve as part of a performance review for existing employees. ;)
Why do you think I'm projecting far more than I need to?

If you don't find it interesting, just downvote it, ignore it and move on. I think you're reading into it and projecting far more than you need to

You are always welcome to downvote my comment, ignore it, and move on, but you seem to think it's worth disagreeing with me in more words, so here we are.

I think it's reasonable to comment on why I disagree with or dislike a post, especially since I was quite specific about both criticisms and suggestions around what I thought the author was trying to discuss.

Not everything has to have a point or engage in privilege-self-flagellation.

I'm not asking the author to self-flagellate over privilege. Here's what I suggested verbatim: "If the author had left the money out, it would have been a great post about searching for motivation, which we all struggle with, but I think the money aspect undermines the point." Is that unfair? You don't have to agree with me, but that doesn't sound like a request to self-flagellate.
We don't say thank you enough :(
Thanks Ubuntu!
There are more women than men on Earth.
I'm curious with what aspect of the wall you disagree with.

What would you consider a more effective conversational policy? Conforming to the same political beliefs?
The article states that MCAS was implemented "on the hush-hush," which makes me wonder if it could even be subject to the same level of quality control as other features of the software.

It might have had to bypass some of the more stringent parts of Boeing's development process to avoid appearing in documentation that the customer or the FAA might see.
Yes.

I'm making slow progress on one personal project that I use on a daily basis. It's small by the standards of bigcorp code but the value to me is large. Other than that I tinker around a little bit, start things with different languages or libraries.

Also I work remote so technically I write all of my code at home :P
I worked for Wipro... I’ll just leave it at that
Oh if you don't have a manifesto you should start
If you come from a non-technical background, where many physical discoveries of varying difficulty all seem impossible, it's an obviously misleading headline.
[Buy it now] Whoops! :X

(Now accepting donations.)
I'm supposed to get my master's degree in physics this summer (only a thesis remains), and this thread is not doing me any good. Good thing I can program, I guess.
I'm (hopefully) on the tail-end of dealing with mental health issues. I was dealing with burnout, depression, substance abuse, trauma, psychosis, and severe anxiety. Right about then I started this backyard project to create a chemical-free, sustainable, and diverse "forest garden". Currently, about two years later that Eco-system is starting to explode with more bugs, fungus, and birds.

I found solitude, peace, and healing in the process of working with nature. I worked hard to revitalize the natural environment around me, and through that process I want to believe that nature found a way to heal me too.

Also, I had a therapist and a supporting partner who helped me through the tough times.

Anyways, I can't recommend enough getting your hands in the dirt, appreciating all forms of nature, and learning about the various Eco-systems that are needed for nature to thrive.
Finally someone I agree with that has weighed the practicality and reality of the situation, instead of trying to create magical solutions that don't exist today.

Outside of cultural interest, people are ignoring the fact of volume of players in the NFL and physical composition of the players.

The NFL has more roster spots than the NBA, NHL, MLB, etc. 22 players are required to play both sides of football. That means they need to employ far more people.

Also, many of these football athletic people wouldn't be good at other sports. An O-Lineman cannot be expected to play basketball or baseball or soccer. They are 6'7 300 lbs of immovable mass, that's what they are built for. This provides entirely different types of athletic individuals to enter into the lottery. Without any data, I would expect the NFL to have the most diverse forms of "athleticism" from any sport, including something like MMA.

Eliminating football entirely doesn't seem like the solution or even realistic to any degree. Instead, let's pay these college players and remove the facade. Make the risks known to the players and let them take that on if they want to.

We can also then address the other solutions that people have suggested because both can exist at the same time.
The only thing more powerful than money is the network effect.
I'm kinda surprised that anyone still believes this, although politicians do say it all the time.

What actually happens is that people pay a tax. The tax goes towards covering people who are currently receiving payouts. The collected tax does not cover the payouts and has not for quite a while. In other words, you're not "paying in" to anything, other than that if you pay the tax for 3 years, you're eligible to receive benefits.

And the payouts are a really bad investment if you are a Gen Xer or younger. You're going to get a lot less out than you put in.

It was a really great deal for the WW2 gen, as they paid in hardly anything and got decades of payouts.
Brain Stimulation Gives New Hope for Treating Psychiatric Disorders
I think a fundamental concept that is relatively ignored in press (mainstream or non-fringe at least) is in business priorities.

As the essay points out, Boeing made decisions based on market (financial) factors all along the way. Of course they did - almost all companies do. Because it's so common, we forget it's not a RULE that cost, shareholder value, profit, etc. must be the final judgement.

Certainly any company that might prioritize safety (as in the case of a people-carrier) or some other non financial focus may not be as attractive to investors, in some cases - particularly where human life is concerned - maybe that's ok.

I know this is a bit sensational of me to suggest, but Walmart could make an airplane. They have the funds to do so if they wanted (they would just buy a company; that's the quick way to get rolling). And if the Walmart airline charged half of what other airlines charged, you can be sure a whole lot of people would fly it. And sure, after enough flights, the fatalities per flight would become uncomfortable to most flyers.

The point is, it's a very long game. If people are not willing to consider the long game, they are basically gambling. I fly a lot. I almost always choose my flights based on cost/convenience. I didn't previously avoid 737 MAXs. (I would now, but they're all grounded anyway.) That said, if I know an airline cuts every corner to lower the price and increase the profits, I will certainly choose the next more expensive airline that doesn't behave so poorly. In this case it's the manufacturer, and the consumer has much less choice where that is involved.

But let's get back to the point. If Boeing were to fall behind Airbus in the 737/A320 race, would that really be such a terrible thing? Would the cost be human life, or might it be some stock price level? As an investor, do you really care about your shareholder value more than human life?

I like to fly. It can actually be fun. And I really like to visit lots of places in the world, eat lots of awesome food, and experience different cultures. I don't want to die because of some shareholder value goal (fuck you). I will die, and maybe it's tomorrow, but it shouldn't be for a stupid reason unless I choose it (here, hold my beer.)
Amazon to close its online store in China
Two Winning Pwn2Own JIT Vulnerabilities in Mozilla Firefox
At a previous employer that policy was continually causing problems and I'd been able to fly under their radar since all they did was issue hardware to myself and my minions†. Eventually IT staff came around needing the root password for my dev machine and things got awkward very quickly when I explained they didn't have internal clearance to log into it, much less view any data, and they'd have to go ask a senior vice president for direct approval in writing.

They were some of the best IT people I've worked with, but they'd just run into a situation where they were the people who needed permission and they had to create exceptions on the fly. There's always going to be a place where the process breaks down and either you give the IT people room to adjust their policies or you make them sit on their hands and pretend nothing is going on.

† Not my terminology.
I don't work in this field. Do you have to publish the findings from this analysis? Is it possible that no such analysis was done because the MCAS system had to be kept quiet?
PID controls do exactly what you are objecting to.
Some very interesting takes I was unaware of.
Etymologies of Easter
I don't think it's that simple. C++ has a lot of features whose syntax have little consistency.

Ruby has a lot of features but they all feel reasonably thought out. The language still feels quite elegant.
Safety over Scale: Meet the Ride-Hailing Startups Taking on Uber and Lyft
> You don't need to manually count, just make sure all the circles are the correct colors.

I guess this takes me a while, and seems significantly more error-prone to me than the corresponding re-count when they are sorted. Granted, it's pretty easy when the Skittles are sorted as they are in these images. But how quickly can you scan this image: https://imgur.com/a/KpddGdH and check whether there are any errors? And how confident are you in that visual check?

You are right that this approach may be good enough to find a duplicate, which was the primary objective of the experiment. But I had hoped that this might also serve as a useful dataset for future student exercises, in probability, or even in just this sort of computer vision project... but I wanted to have accurate ground truth, so to speak. Inspecting your spreadsheet, it looks like this algorithm is still less than 95% accurate, even if we only evaluate the "clean" images with Uncounted=0.
My little contribution to deliberate practice: When I write something to learn a specific function or macro in Lisp, I find several ways to program the same thing, and then compile and rank them against each other.

For example, the Fibonacci sequence or factorial using simple iteration, recursion, etc in a few different styles. Then after compiling the function, I look at speed, binary size, execution memory usage, readability of the initial code, etc.

The side effect is that I end up learning what techniques work better for a given metric, in the hopes it eventually becomes an instinct.
> Bugs can arise where programs intersect in the real world.

Well, the context is flight control software for airplanes. If that code is bug-free but doesn't intersect the real world, that's rather useless. And if it intersects the real world but therefore is not bug-free, that's not a great argument for proofs of formal correctness.

But all of that is kind of beside the point. The MCAS specification was the wrong thing. Proving the implementation correct is useless. (You asked what is a bug in a spec? MCAS shows you the answer. Only taking input from one sensor is the wrong thing. Repeatedly applying nose-down is the wrong thing. It seems like I'm missing one or two more.)
Architecting solutions is hard. In this case, you need knowledge of motors, flight controls, sensor fusion, etc.

It’s easy to find edge cases when they present themself (tragically here). But most electrical-mechanical-software assemblies have similar issues.
Well, great code is inefficient if the impact of bad code is minimal. If you are shipping an animated emoji you should be sloppier with your code than if you are building flight control software. Overengineering software is like over-specing building materials by 10x and spending way more money on a building than it needs.
Of course, but the solution for the vast majority of companies and projects isn't "never release code that isn't perfect."
I was asked to provide an eyewitness identification for a crime I witnessed being committed and reported to the police. I had about a minute-long conversation with one of the perpetrators.

When the detective came to my home with a black and white photo lineup, she had a series of photos of people who looked very similar to one another. She explained that lineups were intentionally set up with people who look alike, to ensure that I was dead sure of who I was identifying.
Long story short, I declined to make an identification because even after talking to someone and looking straight at him for a full minute, I wasn’t sure enough to become an eyewitness and potentially be wrong about it.
Sigh, even more misleading headlines from a security scanner company.

No, the images do not "have 500 vulnerabilities", counting CVEs on packages in the container tells you little useful about practical vulnerabilities of containers based on it.
I have frequently seen standards, guidelines, and "process" prevent improvements to code. Since change is considered risky, it takes more time and effort to document improvement than the individual change is worth.

But software improves, when it does, by a series of small changes, each by itself hardly worth doing, but in sum producing a wholly better product.

It is the process that turned lizards into birds.
Well, I'm here, aren't I? :-)

HN has almost nothing in common with Instagram and Facebook.
I think you vastly underestimate the scale of an aircraft in whole. Your code is one thing, but the many systems it interacts with, the systems they interact with, and the possible outcomes, is almost unfathomable to a human.

And even in simple cases where the number of possible situations is calculable, you probably haven't covered all possibilities.
Like 180 or so? Where I live, the major cost of owning stuff is storage, so something light and compact is worth a premium, which I am paying here in terms of reduced longevity compared to a better machine. I bought with the expectation that if it fell into disuse for any period of time, I would give it away rather than store it, and the expectation of a 12 month service life.

If I enjoyed selling things more, I probably would have gone for something more expensive anyhow, but I think the light weight is worth a lot in my situation.