skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The PDF is a little short on details. It sounds like webamsters would all have to cooperate with allowing crawls from an "OWI" bot.

One of the challenges of creating a "web index" is first creating indexes of each website. "Crawling" to discover every page of a website, as well as all links to external sites, is labour-intensive and relatively inefficient. Part of that is because there is no 100% reliable way to know, before we begin accessing a website, each and every URL for each and every page of the site. There are inconsistent efforts such "site index" pages or the "sitemap" protocol (introduced by Google), but we cannot rely on all websites to create a comprehensive list of pages and to share it.

However, I believe there is a way to generate such a list from something that almost all websites do create: logs.

When Google crawls a website, it is often or maybe even always the case that the site generates logs of every HTTP request that googlebot makes.

If a website were to share publicly, in some standardised format, the portion of their log where googlebot has most recently crawled the site, we might see a URL for each and every page of the site that Google has requested.

Automating this procedure of sharing listings of those googlebot HTTP requests, the public could generate a "site index" directly from the source, via the information on googlebot requests in the logs.

Allowing crawls from a "new" bot would not be necessary.

Webmasters know what URLs they offer to Google. Google knows as well. The public, however, does not.

It is a public web. Absent mistakes by webmasters, any pages that Google is allowed to crawl are intended to be public.

Why should the public not have access to a list of all the pages of websites that Google crawls?

I don't know, but there must be reasons I have failed to consider.

What are the reasons the public not know what pages are publicly available via the web, except as made visible (or invisible) through a middleman like Google?

There are none.

Being able to see logs of all the googlebot requests would be one way to see what Google has in their index without actually accessing Google.
I think this article is quite old, so I can forgive the author for being out of touch with modern OO language practices. Nonetheless, I find myself disagreeing with almost all of his arguments.

When he talks about state for example, I assume he means mutable state. Everyone knows this is best avoided if possible. The vast majority of OO languages provide mechanisms to avoid mutability e.g. data classes or keywords to make references constant.

He also rails against private state specifically. I assume again that he means private mutable state. This is generally a bad idea and is accepted pretty uncontroversially as a bad idea. The principle of data hiding in general however is definitely not a bad idea. Being able to enforce scoping rules on classes/functions/members is not meant to facilitate creating 'black box' entities whose internal mutations are difficult to reason about, but is instead meant to provide guarantees about dependencies between different parts of a system, i.e. Separation of Concerns.

Regarding 'everything is an object', in many cases this is perfectly acceptable as it guarantees some sort of basic interface that all entities conform to e.g. being able to ask an entity to provide a hash code, or to carry out a comparison check with some other entity. Some modern languages like Kotlin even eschew the concept of primitives altogether and just make everything an object.

Finally, regarding his point about OO languages having data type definitions all over the place, I must be misunderstanding something here... Why on Earth would you want all your data type definitions in one place?

Anyway, just wanted to give my $0.02 lest anyone get the impression that these are 'knockout punches' against any and all OO languages.
I like Nicky Case's interactive systems. It's a way of bringing practical considerations to discussions which are usually more moral, and usually "more heat than light".
It seems like it's useful for surfacing two kinds of disagreement: differences in the models people hold of the world, and differences in moral foundations about how to feel about that.

Models can be wrong, etc. but where disagreeing with someone's moral argument makes you 'bad', disagreeing with a practical argument is 'dumb'.
We are conflating problems with non representative training data and the demographics of ai practitioners.
> Clearly, not all infinite sequences can be summed. So e.g., 1, -1, 1, -1, … has no sum.

Your geometric series is not a summation of the steps or positions, but rather the time required to complete each step. Therefore your example is characterized by an identical geometric series to the model I used in my previous comment.

More generally, Zeno’s paradox can be succinctly resolved by citing the monotone convergence theorem. Every bounded, monotonically decreasing function converges. The time required to complete the infinite series of half steps converges, because (again, with the definition of a metric) the time required to complete each individual step decreases commensurate with the change in distance.
accurate touch tpying :-)
Lots of gratis open source products are widely used. Sometimes because inventors are not salespeople. Sometimes because the target market has little money. I'm sure there are many other reasons too. The market is not identical to the civilization
I pretty much agree with your statements, but I'd like to take a stab at:

>> Reason 2. It was thought to make code reuse easier.
> I would like an evidence that it's not.

Mainstream OOP approaches achieve better cohesion by coupling data structures to functions. In the worst case you end up with essentially modules that contain "global variables" local to that module. In other words the only reason to have your instance variables is to remove the need to pass those variable to the functions as parameters.

This hurts the ability to write generic code. In fact you see this problem all the time in OO code. You have a base class and a bunch of basically unrelated child classes. It's not so much that the child ISA base, it's more that the child ACTS_AS_A base. But then, you run into all sorts of problems because one child (because it is using very different data structures) requires specialised code.

There are ways of getting around this, but often those ways end up encouraging you to implement an alphabet soup of design patterns that interact with each other -- causing more coupling rather than less. All for the want of a generic function.

IMHO OO is actually a poor vehicle for achieving code reuse. In fact, aiming towards this goal is usually one of the root causes I find in really poor OO designs. What OO is really good at is separating concerns and building highly cohesive code. This sometimes comes at the cost of increased coupling which inherently reduces reusability. I don't actually think that's a bad thing when used appropriately, but the old school "OO creates reusable code" is just a bad idea IMHO. It's the kind of thing that several of us threw out the window in the 90's along with large inheritance hierarchies -- nice idea, but didn't work out in practice.
This is a decently clever Churchillian quip. At the very least, it does not deserve downvotes.
Note that the link is to something that is an audio spectrum analyzer/visualizer and not an equalizer. It's even called "Analyser" in the code. At first I was amazed that an equalizer could be implemented into a URL, I was wondering how one would input the gains for the frequency bands, but alas it just displays the volume at each frequency.
z=y/3 should be z=-y/3
Ok, we've changed to that from https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/620410-aa-a321-takes-off....
I live in Minneapolis Minnesota. We have raccoons, opossums, squirrels, rabbits. That's all I have seen for small ground critters that aren't living in parks.
Symbolic AI and ML/DL AI are two entirely different technologies with different capabilities and applications, that both happen to be called "AI" for mostly cultural reasons. The success of one is probably unrelated to the success or failure of another. In most ways, symbolic AI has "faded" simply in that we now take most of its capabilities for granted; e.g., it never strikes you as odd that Google Maps can use your phone CPU to instantly plot a course for a cross-country roadtrip if you so desire, but that sort of thing was a major research project way back when.

In contrast, ML/DL AI is still shiny and new and we have a much less clear grasp of what its ultimate capabilities are, which makes it a ripe target for research.
Isn't the act of sharing these logs vulnerable to a similar problem to site maps?

Not everyone will do it and those that do may not do it to 100% completeness: people may not keep their http logs in good order, for example.
Studies on Brain Renewal and Enhancement
> This tends to underestimate other systemic disadvantages that prevent women and minorities from staying in the field, such as harassment, unfair compensation, and imbalances of power.

I worked at a place that made a push to hire minorities (it would seem). However, these minorities would leave faster then they could be hired. If a minority "opened their mouth" they would likely be terminated - only white men were allowed to have an opinion or be passionate. Other minorities would just leave after a few months and the white male leadership would always make happy excuses for why that person left (e.g. "Oh she didn't like X" or "he didn't really think Y worked for him"). In the mean time I sat there and watched as white new hires were coddled and treated well while minorities were gossiped about in the most horrible way if they made what appeared to be even a simple mistake. I say "what appeared to be a mistake" because in these gossip sessions (that conveniently only happened when only white people where in the room) it didn't seem that anyone ever asked the minority anything about the apparent mistake. It was almost like they were trying to convince themselves that the person was unqualified and didn't want to take the chance that they could be wrong - so they didn't inquire in the least.
I've had several trees fall this year, on or around my house. Wet year, and windy too. If they're near your house, you need to invest in making sure they're healthy trees! I'm thinking of planting new trees further back from the house, near the creek.
I think its being conflated because the author thinks they are one in the same and is trying to make the point that they are. I happen to agree with her. However, thank you for the classic white male deflection defense.
Interesting. I'm in India, I think Apple pre-emptively replaced the iPod to prevent it from blowing up (I appreciate it); where as the other benefits from class action suit could be US specific.
Preventing spread of misinformation is good, but preventing the spread of "information" in a context where people are already sensitized could be worse. It depends on whether people will assume censorship/blackout means something negative, and whether the communications tool is actually needed to organize the responsive violence. It depends on the specific culture/society.
Valuable reasoned contribution. Bravo.

Of course, this reasoning is limited to carbon effects only. There are other important ecological concerns that trees might address that solar would not.
It took them 2019 to figure this out?
I keep waiting for symbolic AI to really get traction in the area of software verification. Either a great language/ compiler that can really prove it has no bugs, or a testing approach that takes a binary and proves that it has no bugs of a certain kind. What we've been getting, though, is evidence that the space of possibilities quickly outpaces our capacity to search it, and so logical methods don't compare well to statistical approaches. I would never close the door on it though, since programming is basically thinking symbolically. It's possible that as the industry gets more concerned with privacy and security that the class of applications that need this kind of provability will drive adoption at the current state of the art.
Hmm I just saw the video and the test was distressing as it completely blew up on the pad but without crew of course.
Skunks, there must be skunks. They are really thriving in (y)our neck of the woods due to milder winters.
> I refuse to carry a portable phone. I never have one and unless things change, I never will. I do use portable phones, lots of different ones. If I needed to call someone right now, I would ask one of you, “Could you please make a call for me?”

I don't understand how RMS can find this behavior of his non-noteworthy. He claims to boycott things but admits to having a critical reliance on other people not boycotting. For someone deeply committed to extend ideals, the moral flexibility here is huge.

It'd be one thing if he advocate a network of swapping burner phones or something, but he's acting like an antivaxxer relying on the herd to indulge and accommodate his desire to get the benefits without paying the costs.
Isn't the whole point of integrating people together to create a melting pot where you end up with a homogenous society? If you create "perfect" neighbourhoods with a mix of all races then you'll end up losing individual identities over a few generations. Children will mix at school, couples will form and you get mixed families, and within a couple of generations, you're roughly homogenous.

The way to end racial discrimination is to end racial identities. Humans are always going to prefer people similar to themselves, so you need to make everyone similar.
Is it just me, or do these web articles written in plain <p> and <h*> tags just have some magical command over your attention as carrying some authority, like the author is so focused on his content that he doesn't a single mental cycle to waste on any more than the bare minimum UI to convey it?
Noted, but this article offers a different perspective!
Why would a post written before 2000 include a quote from an interview done in 2008?
In Brazil the deforestation in mostly for agricultural active and live stock. I'm curious to know how much the land would have to cost so the country made as much tax with the planted land as with other activities.
Logitech harmony universal remotes
Types errors represent such a small class of errors. It’s just puzzling to see what all the hype is about.
humans don't take "forever to train"

I was just being glib about that. "Forever" is just hyperbole, but the 10+ some odd years it takes to go from birth to useful for most intellectual tasks is a pretty long-time in relative terms.

Brains must already have a lot of shortcuts built-in.

Oh absolutely. My point is just that there's no reason for us to not pursue "shortcuts" - as opposed to trying to build an ANN that's big enough to essentially replicate the actual mechanics of a real brain.

To extend this overall point though... it may be that as we learn newer/better algorithms and techniques we find out that you can actually make an ANN that would, for example, learn to do logical reasoning. And it might do so without need to use anywhere near the number of neurons and synapses that a real brain uses. But until such a time as it becomes apparent that this is likely, I think it's a good idea to continue researching "hybrid" systems that hard-wire in elements like various forms of symbolic/logical reasoning and anything else that we at least sorta/kinda understand.
It's interesting seeing GWT producing small javascript. I must admit I have been somewhat biased against it given prior experience. It used to be used for the AWS console all over the place, on the theory that it would be easier for the service devs to also write the console code. That got eventually overhauled to the far superior form it is now.

The Javascript that used to be produced was enormous, and of course on a per-service basis, and it had a big overhead on the parsing and running stakes. If any of you was using the console maybe 5 or so years ago, you'll know what I mean about the console loading experience (it was fine once the javascript got processed).
Have you checked out Gleam?

https://gleam.run
That's a good question to ask police and local government officials in places like Rotherham.
What Country has free speech anymore ?

Not Australia

Not Canada

Not UK

Not NZ

Definally not at ANY western univierties campus

Definally not on any WOKE LEFT WING platforms online

Heck people in AU+NZ are getting arrested for "offended" speech

Yet Ive never seen real solutions from RS , EFF or others in the free software community's to address this

The EFF and RS seem to be about their own socialist dream world that people code for free , world is anti capitalistic and they offer no viable way for companies to make money from software
Free speech is about the right to __articulate__ opinions and ideas. To articulate ideas and opinions, you have to think and formulate your thoughts.

What Facebook enables and optimizes for can hardly be called free speech. Articulation is not encouraged, merely the spreading of thoughts (both good and bad). Engagement has been optimized for advertising purposes. It led to banal agreement in the form of likes and reshares. There is hardly any discourse, people get silo-ed in echo chambers, and the extreme ends of the spectrum get magnified. Confirmation bias rules, and bad ideas aren't defeated by good ideas because they hardly come into contact.

So no, Facebook isn't enabling free speech, as much as they'd like to claim they are. At best they are a communication tool, nothing more.
Covariance Matrices
I think visualization has been shown to actually improve performances, which is not that much of a stretch, really (IIRC, a study on power lifters, I can't find it back, something Greg Nuckols wrote).

At virtually any level, performance is a function of one's physical condition and one's coordination. Even joggers will get better and more efficient at running simply by doing so repeatedly, regardless of their physical condition improvement (just like I get better at playing challenging video games, and it's not about the muscles in my thumbs). In other words, there are many non-physical factors to performance.

Visualization surely help to trains those. But yeah, not a superpower :(
So ACTUAL JOURNALISM , not LEFT WING ACTIVISM
Is that just for the seedlings and not the actual labor of planting them?

I've seen quotes for parts of developing countries where planting trees would cost $100 USD per thousands trees.

See FAQ point #11:
https://trees.org/faqs/
Please don't take HN threads into generic ideological flamewar. It's always the same, therefore uninteresting.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Agreed. I remember thinking "what don't I get? Why do we need getters and setters?". After some years (and discovering Python), I realized there's nothing to get, it's just ridiculous overengineering 95% of the time. Same goes for a lot of stuff in OO. I attribute it to the corporate mindset it seems to thrive in, but I could be wrong.
Please don't do nationalistic or ideological flamewar on HN, even if someone else started it. Also, please don't snark. This is in the site guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
When you bring an antenna close to a conductor, say a dipole next to a plate, the radiation resistance decreases. This is due to the currents induced in the plate, creating an image and reinforcing the currents in the dipole.

It’s really the ratio of radiation resistance to conductor resistance. You can shrink an antenna to infinitesimal size, made of perfect conductor, but as the radiation resistance decreases, it’s more difficult to impedance match. An infinitesimal antenna would have zero bandwidth. Sort of like Bode Fano criteria limiting bandwidth versus impedance.

There is a Chu theoretical limit which limits antenna efficiency and bandwidth given volume, hence 3D fractals and other stuff. Ain’t no free lunch. A lot of antenna research is who can get closest to the Chu limit. Sort of like coding and the Shannon capacity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu–Harrington_limit

There is still a lot of snake-oil in antennas, some of it fractal related.
> provide mechanisms to avoid mutability e.g. data classes or keywords to make references constant.

So, functional programming?

> guarantees some sort of basic interface that all entities conform to e.g. being able to ask an entity to provide a hash code, or to carry out a comparison check with some other entity.

Isn't that terrible? You want to provide a generic interface to calculate a hash or perform comparison: Now the thing has to be an object! If it's a primitive type, you better wrap it in an object now. If it's an existing class, you have to extend it. It becomes an object of a different class.

Or, instead, you could just have type classes to let the same apply to anything whatsoever, as long as it's a type, without the need for it to be an object. Heck, in some cases, the type could be a function instead.
Happy 30th B-Day, Game Boy: Here are six why you’re #1
It wouldn't!
I chalk it up to serendipity and confirmation bias. Our minds are constantly trying to link cause and effect, even when there is more noise than signal.
Before having success with Go, did you try or consider any other languages for your GraphQL server? What about other GraphQL libraries in Go?
Smart teams hire great engineers and trust them to get good with the stack at hand. Don't get hung up on how much experience you have with a particular stack when looking for jobs.

I've hired Rails developers for Django roles and seen them get productive within weeks.

If you've used Elixir on-and-off for four years you have more experience than the majority of engineers who might be considered for an Elixir role.
Facebook Has Assembled a Small Army of Fact-Checkers. Too Small
It's optimised for driving users to Google Web Search.

Good improvement suggestions. Don't hold your breath.
Probably going to be downvoted, but I do adult webcam stuff, mostly with private already established regular clients. My net profit can be as high as $1200 per week, $800 on the low side, for a few hours of “work”. I generally use it as a fall-back income when I’m in-between tech jobs but I do it if I’m employed or not to keep my paying client list fresh for when I need it. I could make a lot more, I have a “cam friend” who makes $5k/week regular but he does it full time and markets himself and such. I put the minimal amount of time & effort into it.
Links go both ways (is one way to put it) and the historical aspect I guess.
> In an OOPL I have to choose some base object in which I will define the ubiquitous data structure. All other objects that want to use this data structure must inherit this object.

So... that's not actually how it works though, right?
>Well, in my experience, in every almost every code-base (either from functional, or imperative programing), we end up with modules, witch are a set of function taking the same type as a parameter. This is very close to binding the functions and the types...

And the world is not so neatly divided between things that just are (data structures) and thing that do things (functions). Take a date for example. The fact that it is a Wednesday is a "just is" sort of thing but is typically implemented as a function.
Cell phones.
I just mean that (at least in Haskell) existential types provide information hiding & combine functions with data. In fact, they're implemented with dynamic dispatch, just as with OOP.

The problem is not that OO languages have these features; the problem is that they lack other features common to functional languages.