skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Yes. Absolutely.

You claim it's a relevant yet provide no reasoning as to why.

> It's 97% of their income. I think things would change a lot.

Sure, one major thing would change: the default search provider. People are quick to forget that Mozilla received no funding from google between 2014 and 2017. The only reason they signed a new contract with google in 2017/18 was because Yahoo went under. Without Google they would need to find a new search partner, and there are definitely other companies chomping at the bit.

> Nope. I'm actually wondering if anyone has some insight as to whether Google intends to stop funding them.

As far as I am aware, no, Google has no intention to end their contract with Mozilla. Also, you keep using the word "fund". That's not really what's happening here. The default search agreement is a business contract. It's in Google's business interests to be the default search provider on every possible platform; that includes Firefox. In fact, Mozilla actually holds most of the cards in this agreement. That's why google had to offer such a lucrative deal.

That said, I have no doubt in my mind that google would kill Mozilla without hesitation if they had the option. Luckily, they do not have that option.
This is probably done to hurt social media analytics companies. Without these numbers being known the only company that knows them is Facebook which means they can sell them...
How can you enforce fair capitalism?
Your imaging a direct 1:1 scenario where the phrase is said referencing a specific moment. The problem is this advice is also given generically in one to many contexts or in writing form where there is no temporal component.
If you're interested in the work that led to this, definitely check out Kenichi Asai's reflective languages. The code for his Black language with reflective semantics is reproduced here: [0]

More tangential but also cool: this talk[1] by William Byrd mentions reflective towers, but jumps into a discussion of what he terms "relational programming". It's a demo of his Barliman Smart editor system: [2]

[0] https://github.com/readevalprintlove/black

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyfBQmvr2Hc

[2] https://github.com/webyrd/Barliman
Who is the speaker?
The danger factor with "be yourself" seems to be similar to the danger factor of "what do you want". These are meant to be interpreted deeply, not shallowly.

Most people are neither themselves nor know what they want, in the sense that both concepts are frequently constructed for them and not actually derived from the knowledge or best interest of the person. The first order of business when implementing either is to make sure they actually belong to you in the first place.

I.e., if your parents have pushed you to be an artist your whole life and you're actually meh on it, and if you go through social motions without seeing much value in them, neither of these is "you". Which is not to say that either of these things is somehow wrong or bad, but you should reexamine them for yourself to either see their value and keep them or identify them as of low value and discard them.

This is all completely orthogonal to the idea that other people should tolerate your behavior merely on the basis of it being authentic. That simply doesn't follow.
Didn't Google try to disrupt the market with Fiber ?
> The touchbar is shit.

It really is. Way to go making it impossible to (un)mute and adjust the volume without opening my eyes.

And in exchange of what, really? The privilege of losing the physical Esc?
So let me think... Things I've used to store data in my lifetime:
Punch cards, Cassette,
Whatever that big, open, orange multi-platter with a plastic, removable cover I think on a VAX in ~1985 (anyone know?),
8" floppy,
5.25 floppy,
Spinning hard disk,
SSD,
Flash drives (many types),
3.5" 'floppy' or hard? SONY,
more I'm sure...
Personally I think that as soon as one of the promised satellite constellations becomes real enough to compete with Comcast/Time Warner/etc, we'll see new legislative barriers (bought and paid for) come into play.
I really wish that Ubuntu project took off
GPLv2 for a kernel isn't super infectious because your entire userspace can be proprietary. And you can also ship proprietary kernel modules as long as you make sure there's a minimim of logical separation. And even if you don't it hasn't been tested if the kernel plus a bundled kernel modue constitutes a derived work.

So you now basically have full control and can make nigh arbitrary modifications to both user and kernel space while only having to show the source of the kernel itself. Not super powerful in practice. Pretty deal for the kernel devs though.
> it explicitly violates the conditions that need to exist for equality of opportunity.

That is a pipe dream.
They need to have the skills to ask for a mentor and identify what they'll get out of it.
> A multi-billion dollar software company literally cannot buy consistent internet access.

Oh come on. If you are a billion dollar software company the solution is simple: order dark fiber to your offices and hire a dozen of network engineers to cover the entire US. Problem solved. If you only have a few locations, you would need only a couple of network engineers.
For those curious, what I ended up doing was switching to an iPhone. I decided that my boycott of Google was mainly about privacy, not openness, and I resigned to the fact that I'd rather be able to fully function within our digital society than have openness in my phone (I still use Linux on my desktop). I've been happy with my decision; but for what it's worth I'd still try out a mature, truly open mobile OS if one ever surfaced.
My App received 580 Upvotes on Product Hunt. This is how I did it
There are more places in the world than Somalia.

I doubt that anyone sailing in the Pacific ocean has to worry about this stuff.
Yeah. As a minor. Isn't everyone given a pass for crimes committed at that age? Why the indictment then?
> Also, perhaps even more importantly, you'd be starting from scratch in terms of app ecosystem

The "app ecosystem" on a free mobile OS would be shared with the "ecosystem" of free PC apps. Chromium does target, e.g. Debian GNU/Linux, as do quite a few proprietary apps relying on Flatpack. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to piggiback on this work for the mobile platform. Yes, UI is different, but not that different. Modern Linux apps already come with a touch-friendly UI, for example.
Obsolete for what?

I really like the aesthetics of the Atari 400/800 and not for the logo or the case design but just for the colours. The browns/yellows/oranges are quite inspiring for a bit of modern day UX.

I know they didn't sell these machines for people to steal the colour scheme from 40 years later, but I really like lots of aspects of the design including the colour or the units.

The retro tech scene I find a little weird. It is surprisingly strong and there are Youtube videos of someone changing the capacitors on these things and getting views in the millions. It is as if retro computing is the new model railway hobby or 'Airfix' of our times.
SSLlabs alternative open source to self host?
I use ssllabs often to check server ssl security, it is great and extensive. But i would like to run my own self hosted version. Theirs is not open source, so is there one that is as extensive ( and maintained ) as theirs and open source that anyone knows?
A few friends and myself chipped in some money for his legal defense, taking hin at his word when he said he was innocent.

Lesson learned, I suppose.
Assuming the free mobile OS was Linux-based. And if it's going to be, I don't see why one wouldn't just start with an Android OSP fork. Even if Google stopped maintaining the latter, it's a huge head start compared to the alternative.

That said, because of the way Google APIs have extended their tentacles into non-Google Android apps, many of them cease to function without Google Services installed. So you'd still have most of the app ecosystem problem.
Are you aware that people travel all the time, in sailboats, in the ocean, and most of them don't get attacked by pirates?

If I am in the Pacific ocean, sailing in my personal boat, I'm don't have to be worried about being literally attacked.

People do this all the time, and do not get attacked.

Yeah, if you enter a literal war zone, you might have to worry about that. But that is not most of the ocean.

Most of the ships in the ocean do not have to worry about literal pirates.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but yeah, lots of people become programmers with a bachelor's in physics and they've done programming classes, projects, etc. on the side. That path is totally fine if you eventually decide you want to go into the software world. (or who knows, maybe you'll reignite your crush with FAANG in the meantime!)
He was 23 when he was arrested in 2017, he certainly wasn't a minor when the events described in the indictment took place in 2014-2015.
I don't think capitalism is the main problem point. Denmark, Canada, Australia (and many more examples) all seem to do pretty well while having a Democratic and Capitalist society.

Unlimited Campaign Contributions and Lobbying are by very definition buying political influence (i.e. pay money to make politicians do what you want), which is the definition of corruption[1], and clearly is not how a democracy is supposed to function.

In a functioning Democracy citizens vote in politicians who share their views, so leaders are chosen based on what people want. When money comes into it, the whole thing gets screwed up. i.e. Comcast just pays millions (billions?) to make sure the politician in power votes for blocking community broadband. Even if the citizens vote out that leader and vote in a new one, Comcast will just pay the new person.

Thus it's corporate money that makes laws, not citizens through voting.

[1] After spending three years in 35 different countries in Africa, I've come to learn the developed world is just as corrupt as many African nations, we're just adverse to using that word because it sounds so dirty and uncivilized. I think it's important to call a thing what it is, lest we succumb to newspeak, so I call out corruption when I see it. Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean it's not corruption.
When Apache Groovy had dynamic types only, it was marketed as a complement to Java, but when Groovy 2 came along with static typing added, its backers started pitching it as a replacement for Java, even targeting Android. This endeavor was ultimately unsuccessful, though, and the programmer who wrote the static typing enhancements recently pulled out of Groovy's project management group at Apache. Groovy doesn't run on Android anywhere I know of, and converting large swaths of dynamic code to static using @CompileStatic doesn't work -- you need to repeatedly compile the code and add manual type conversions all over the place until it all runs OK.

Best use Groovy for dynamically typed scripty stuff only, and a JVM language built with static typing from the ground up for building the actual systems, such as Java, Scala, or Kotlin.
Prison is supposed to be a punishment for people to reform their lifes.

This guy was already on the good path already. I hope he gets a suspended sentence.
Commercial ISPs are already doing all the things you worry public broadband might cause.
Linux was started by a student and brought into the limelight by volunteers. While the current development is largely paid for by corporations the essence of the thing is still the same, Linux-the-kernel is free software and can be forked by anyone who so pleases. If those corporations all were to loose interest, go bankrupt or suddenly decide they want to change Linux into a DRM-infested monster which only listens to its corporate master it would be a simple thing to fork the thing and ditch the corporate version. What would be less simple is the answer to the question who would pay for future development and how drivers would be written if and when hardware manufacturers started acting up but it would not be impossible to go that way. OpenBSD is a good example of a system which is developed without too much corporate funding, the concept has been tried and tested and is known to work.
It's too easy to locate the transmitters.
This is such an eerie read for me.

I've been working alone on a project that I've been calling "intentional programming" -- the idea being that a user/programmer specifies what they want, then the system handles mapping it to the primitive-level, through what can be described as a tower of interpreters. Obviously, it has to be a collapsible tower, or the whole thing's just a crazy heavy-weight abstraction that'd make even simple calculations painfully expensive.

There're a lot of problems with the design presented in the paper that they'd need to solve yet to catch up to where I'm at. But, for something that's been my life's work so far, it's truly strange to read a significant chunk of it casually posted online.

It does leave me with a nagging question, though. So far as I can tell, the system that I'm making will broadly obsolete other programming regimes; it basically automates the process of mapping concept-to-code, in a provably optimal, reproducible way. So, I suspect that what I'm making will fully disrupt how we do programming entirely. That said, the paper's "Related Work" section shows that ideas in this direction have long-existed, for decades at least.

So, my question would be, why hasn't this replaced everything yet? Like, what haven't we replaced/generalized compilers with/to partial-evaluators?
Public defenders are far from sufficient in cases of above-minimal complexity. An interesting article on the subject: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/31/us/public-def...
Chamomile too. Just spray it on your pillow before bed and it totally sets you up for the first phase of your sleep routine.

Apparently, it doesn't just work for me! https://www.womenshealthmag.com/uk/health/sleep/a707967/this...
I'm currently working on developing a double category of hybrid systems with applications to parallel composition and model reduction in robotics. We should have a math paper up on the arxiv within a month, and a robotics paper up shortly thereafter.
- By letting big businesses fail

- By letting stock prices fall for stagnation and mistakes

- By not making regulations such as the one posted, allowing competition to thrive

- By putting in penalties on executives who presided over fraud, environment damage and harm

- By banning lobbying completely
Just to clarify, I don't think it's inherently a bad thing either. But these were the words given to me by physics grad students at the time.
Or buy a laptop stand.
I'm kind of surprised no one has said this, and I'm kind of a novice, so I'll probably get it wrong.

To me, the interesting thing about category theory is that it draws out the significance of relationships in a system. We often spend a lot of time thinking about the things, themselves, in a system.

- What are their properties?

- What do they mean?

- What is their identity?

In category theory, almost all the significance of individual things is erased. Instead, you often group things up into sets and other structures, and then call the whole set an object. Then you think about the existence of morphisms from one kind of object to another. A morphism is kind of like a function, in the sense that something goes in, and something else comes out. Except that we're not concerned about the properties of what's going in and coming out, so the function body doesn't really matter. A morphism is something more general than any specific function. It's more like a function declaration--specifying that something does exist without saying anything concrete about what it does.

So, you're operating on a level of abstraction that removes basically all unnecessary details about things and relationships, other than existence and some basic rules for how those relationships can be composed to form new ones. As it turns out, there's a whole lot you can say and prove about categories once you know a bit about their structure.

In my opinion, the real power is that any given system can often be "projected" into categories in a multitude of different ways, and depending on the structure of those categories, you can say apply proofs from category theory to say interesting things about that system.

Going further beyond that, category theory concerns itself with how categories relate to each other, by considering categories themselves as objects and relationships between them as morphisms.

Why does this matter to programmers?

Well, we often want to design systems that are predictable, no matter what the actual identity of the data that traverses them. This is abstraction, and we do it on many levels, all the time. We also want to chain together our abstractions. This combination of abstraction and composition is something category thoery is well suited to analyze.

I'm probably off here in some important ways, but this is my layperson's takeaway from spending some time trying to understand what all the fuss was about.
June 1994 (age 24 years)

According to his Wikipedia page.
One thing that Go does better here than I've seen in other (compiled) languages so far, is that you can literally just cd into GOROOT, do your changes and a build of your project will pick up on the changed stdlib and re-compile it on-the-fly. I pretty regularly do that as a debugging aide. Of course, it isn't just as simple with the compiler itself, you still have to re-build that one manually.
I wouldn't hold it against him that he pled guilty. The government has unlimited resources, and he didn't. Innocent people plead guilty every day.
It seems like our free market is working exactly as intended. It sorted itself out just like its proponents said it would. Sure most people have no broadband or are locked in with a monopolistic provider, but it was left to its own devices and now clearly provides the best service for everyone. This of course, includes bribing--I mean lobbying--politicians. What an amazing system.
It was a great phone when it came out. Using it now would be an exercise in frustration.
This marketing blunder does not touch the best of all time: Harvey's (a Canadian fast food chain) had a bold advertisement stating they only use "100% real processed cheese". But, at least Harvey's was not lying ;)
I don't know anything about this case but innocent people plead guilty all the time in the USA. It's a much safer choice than going to trial where the sentence may be much much longer.
Do you still also run the bed bug registry site?
And that requires programming.

When the software architects come to you with a plan about how they plan to implement something, are you going you to understand the technology well enough to know that there is a managed alternative or will you just set up another VM?

I was a dev lead at my previous company and they decided to “move to the cloud”. They brought in a whole bunch of consultants. I didn’t know the first thing about AWS back then. I showed the consultants my architectural plans. All of this was greenfield development. If they had known anything about development and understood anything I was talking about, there is no way they wouldn’t have suggested that we used managed services in place of things I was proposing hosting in VMs.

Are you also willing to give up hosting things on VMs entirely and using managed services when possible. Will you even know how AWS’s services can be used in place of self hosted applications?

This isn’t aimed at you in particular. But there is a lot more to implementing systems on AWS cost efficiently than automating VMs.

Too many sysadmins turned “Cloud Architects” can’t get their mind around being “cloud native”.

I haven’t even mentioned Kubernetes or Docker - because I haven’t used either yet.

The consultants manually set up a VPC with different subnets in different availability zones just like they would have done on prem. No CloudFormation, no separate accounts under an organization, etc.

They couldn’t talk about using AWS as developers, or setting up a CI/CD pipeline using AWS’s services.
Surely it still relies on some of the same mechanisms that allow you to flash custom bootloaders and ROMs?
I wouldn't automatically take this at face value.

Hutchins took a plea deal. It's well known that there is rampant abuse of the plea deal in the US justice system [1].

That's not to say he's totally innocent of everything but that him pleading guilty to this single count may not be as straight forward as the article would make it seem.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocen...
Apples and oranges. I just mentioned it because I saw another comment somewhere about engr. physics, and it reminded me of my friends' experiences in their program.
In any case, this sends a clear message that attending US cybersecurity conferences are now a huge risk for foreigners, which means there's a opportunity for either European or Canadian versions of these conferences or create a alternative to them. Been saying this for years and it's no different here.
OK, upon reflection, more like 8-10 meters. The ceiling height in the gymnasium. It was a long time ago, and what I mostly remember is the fear of falling. And the rope burns.
This is similar to the “wiseguys” structure Henry Hill describes in Goodfellas:

“Hundreds of guys depended on Paulie and he got a piece of everything they made. And it was tribute, just like in the old country, except they were doing it here in America. And all they got from Paulie was protection from other guys looking to rip them off. And that's what it's all about. That's what the FBI could never understand. That what Paulie and the organization does is offer protection for people who can't go to the cops. That's it. That's all. They're like the police department for wiseguys“
I agree it may make some difference... but I don't think it can all be attributed to a CDN change. Maybe they moved some buttons around the same time as the CDN update. Who knows.
The Pentagon should move away from giving contractors checklists to complete and start actively pentesting them before clearing them to do work.

"Security through bureaucracy" does not work.
Considering the discrepancy between the resources available to Google and the results achieved, I think it's safe to say that was a half-hearted attempt at most. There is part of me that thinks the whole thing was a PR stunt.
I think the "medieval" terminology is a little dated anyhow. I guess Harold Bloom's categorizations and listings and so on are a lot more authoritative now (they sure pop on a google search) and it doesn't look like he uses the term. I have no real opinion on how much any of that matters.

Memory is unreliable but I recall my high school class using a pretty good textbook that included Beowulf with both old English and modern translations, but also the chapter of The Hobbit where Bard shoots the dragon, which stylistically invited some interesting comparisons. It was a pretty good lesson for a high school kid who was also a fan of Tolkien, back before that was something you could be without reading any books.
I've heard from multiple engineers that have been put in a similar situation and hated it. It directly negatively impacted their self-esteem as developers and some of them quit at the soonest possible point.
I read this with great interest before noticing the retraction. Has there been any other research like this without the caveat?

> *Authors’ Note: The journal that published this study has since expressed concern about the data. We first became aware of this research in Kim Cameron’s book, Positive Leadership. Like many others, we were distressed to learn of the incorrect data in the Heaphy and Losada research and we immediately ceased our citations upon learning that the study wasn’t correct. But we do believe the basic assumption and premise that leaders should provide more positive than negative feedback is correct.
Claude Shannon’s “Creative Thinking” Speech (2017)