skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"Your point of view is mainly to emphasize that Clojure is a multi-paradigm, general-purpose functional programming language."

No, that's not my point at all. I'm saying that Clojure's core library and data structures are built around a hierarchical data model and not a relational one.

If you want to model your data as a relation, then you need to build the tools and structures for it. Look at your code, then consider how it would look in a language designed around relational algebra:

(def table01
#rel [{name "t1-r1", manager :m1}
{name "t1-r2", manager :m2}
{name "t1-r3", manager :m3}
{name "t1-r4", manager :m2}])

(select table01 (= manager :m2))

; => #rel [{name "t1-r2", manager :m2}
; {name "t1-r4", manager :m2}]

(select table01 (or (= manager :m2) (= manager :m3)))

; => #rel [{name "t1-r2", manager :m2}
; {name "t1-r3", manager :m3}
; {name "t1-r4", manager :m2]

An indexed selection against a relation would just be a single function or macro. We wouldn't need to mess around with select-keys and set union to achieve such a simple operation, as you needed to do in your code. It would be built into the core library or the language.

I want to emphasize that I'm not saying you shouldn't model data the way you are. There are plenty of advantages to it. But the more you go down the relational rabbit hole, the less suitable clojure.core is to handle it.

Clojure is about data modelling and processing, but it isn't based on a relational model, as you suggest:

"Clojure is a functional programming language based on relational database theory"

Clojure is a functional programming language, but it's not based on relational database theory.
Vaguely related, and would recommend: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40718386-the-passengers
So whats your address since you don't seem to mind any stranger knowing?
The difference is, an employer must get (for a fee) their own profile, and they manage the devices themselves. Those apps probably linked the devices with some common profiles. That meant the parent was not really in control, the app developer was. It's like you accessing your bitcoin wallet directly versus you giving me the key and telling me what transactions to do, trusting I won't abuse it. You could argue that every parent should just get their own profile, but they're like $200 or so. A couple hundret dollars definitely. Apple could make the fee smaller, but then hackers and people who want to circumvent the APP Store would start buying profiles en masse, and Apple wants to make that unprofitable.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Someone please serve them a $€£5bn penalty. And actually collect the FULL amount. 6 months later, on the next ...... they make, drop another $€£10bn on their heads. And yes you guessed right, collect it. Then 6 months later on the next ..... they make, 'award' them with one more $€£10bn penalty. By that time they will be bleeding so much cash and users that they will either get their shit straight or they will go out of business.

Unfortunately I don't see any other way for those thugs (FB) to come clean.
>the ability to modify one's own messages

>- the ability to delete one's own message, and have that deletion propagated

> - the ability to delete other peoples' messages, and have that deletion propagated

These 1) don’t work when you need them too and 2) are very much antifeatures

I’ve been in slack and discourd channels with important people who will post things that cause me to make some decision and then will go back and delete or edit their message. It’s gotten to the point where whenever these people post to slack I always take a screenshot. On discourd you can just use finch and all the edits show up as new messages.

I really liked how on IRC you just sent messages and that was the end of it.

>- everything just working

Hah, that would describe IRC better than discourd IMO. Slack “works” but good god is it slow.
While I agree that it would be great to have such service it's just technically impossible. Google is very cautious to protect their service from automated requests (on behalf of humans or in batch or in any other form), and you will need quite some resources (a.k.a $$$) to scale at Google scale if your service would ever become popular.
As long as you have short DNS TTL and don't use the same provider for DNS and hosting.
> the absolute dominance of Windows was a factor in that.

The absolute dominance of Windows was the reason it was an issue in the first place.

Controlling your own platform is not a monopoly. Controlling a market is, and at the time, Windows controlled the market for PC operating systems. Without a monopoly, it's much, much harder to make a reasonable legal case for the government stepping in and telling you what you can and can't do with your own platform.
That’s still not enough. Require FB adhere to the same regulations as other media. The stuff that requires political ads disclose who paid for them. Maybe there need to be clearing houses for ad campaigns. Impose regulations that require governmental vetting/oversight. Tax data use. Novel regulations to bring FB to parity with the rest of media. Maybe put a tax on the time and data people share with FB services. Force disclosure of the per hour/view/use, per person revenue of their services.
Obligatory wikipedia link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Jay_Sussman
What about all the companies mentioned that aren't Kasperky ?
I google phone numbers all the time when I'm getting called, and they don't have my area code (fake spam).
Nothing to do with the parent. It’s the app developers using mdm that are the problem.
Anti competitive how? Apple doesn’t make money from their solution. On the other hand, they would make 30% on third party solutions. Wouldn’t it be in their financial interest to allow third party spyware?
My favourite speed up never got used :(

Had a vendor we got partnered with for a government contract. The company I worked for usually did all its own development of java based web applications for the state, but on this one it was decided to partner with someone else as they already had a solution in the space. We'd just run it for them.

It was terrible. The UI/UX was fine. It did actually solve the problem for the state, and was pretty intuitive. On the software side, though it just flat out did not scale for a number of reasons (including the same one OP had, they loved to dump everything in a single directory).

My particular favourite reason was the way they chose to produce reports. They'd take the business requirement, sit there with a visual database tool, and piece together a SQL statement to produce the report, no matter how complicated that query got. Then they'd drop that in their code and voila, effortless reporting! There were queries in their code base that would end up nesting some 40+ selects deep, e.g. SELECT foo FROM bar WHERE id = (SELECT id FROM monkey WHERE id = (SELECT ... and so on down the line.

The MySQL query optimiser, at the time, didn't handle those queries very well, and it could end up taking 45 minutes or so to produce the final report, and it was showing signs of potentially exponential execution time growth. This was around the time MariaDB was starting to take off, and it turned out this issue was one of the first they'd fixed in the optimiser (MySQL followed suit with a completely overhauled query optimiser they'd been working on for a while), and so I switched over to MariaDB instead of MySQL. Free speed boost! Now it only took 10 minutes to produce the report! Everyone loved me... but I still wasn't happy. The final reports didn't look that complicated to me.

I picked up the most egregious example, and rewrote it in perl (the only language I wrote in at the time). Along the way I identified that if they wanted to keep it in a single query they could easily cut it down to something significantly simpler, but also if I just made it four or five queries and wrote some _very_ simple logic around it in perl, I could get the report out within seconds, while drastically reducing load on the database server. I gave the developers the proof of concept and simplified SQL query, but neither got used.

In the end the company that produced the software was facing bankruptcy, they couldn't support what they'd sold the state, at the price they'd sold it for. They weren't ready for that scale, didn't know how to code to that scale, and didn't really have a grasp of the costs of supporting at that scale. For various reasons, my employer ended up taking over the code base from them, with legal agreements that we'd only use it for this purpose, never sell it anywhere else etc. etc. The code base was _awful_. I thought the things I could see (queries) were bad. The code base was worse. Thankfully that was someone else's problem to work on :D
> It’s done because private industry in most circumstances, does it better than government can

I hear this often, but I haven't seen very many examples of it in practice. But it depends on what, exactly is being privatized.
Yes, I think this is fundamentally the main issue people have with IRC.

Some IRC users don’t like the idea of the channel being logged though? That’s the best I can come up with for an argument against it.
> a contacts list that travels across sessions, regardless of client

Tell me exactly how use slack, directly (without bridges and stuff) without using the official client.
The Forgotten Lifecycles of Software
No. You are wrong.
Or 10 years prior to the age of an immediate family member diagnosed with colon cancer, whichever is earlier.
I think you are misunderstanding the point of tether. It’s not about paying out dollars, many companies have been paying out dollars from crypto long before tether existed.

The point of tether and all stablecoins is to provide liquidity to the crypto market. That is, to easily ans nimbly zero out your crypto exposure. Before stablecoins if I thought btc was going to drop a lot in the next hour, the only thing I could do would be to buy some other crypto asset and hope to god they weren’t correlated with btc. But since all crypto ia highly correlated with each other this didn’t work very well.

Tether was introduced as an uncorrelated store of value so I could quickly zero my exposure. Unfortunately, tether seems to have more exposure than it was supposed to have.
No surprise here. The popular people have taken over software "development", which means that in a group of 40 people 36 talk and 4 work.

The talkers need things like GitHub and Slack in order to appear productive. The more bureaucracy and distractions the better.
> Aren’t those reasons to weigh the company’s views more heavily?

No. Coming back to the environmental (which is decent metaphor, I think), a company which dumps into the local river is going to fight tooth and nail against any regulation that stops them from doing this because it might have a significant effect on their bottom line, while for most people this will not be enough for them to care to get involved because the harm is difficult to measure individually and hard to conceptualize (but, over the entire population, has significant detrimental effects). This shouldn’t mean that the government should weigh corporate concerns more heavily.

> The cost benefit (the potential gain from a cleaner environment versus the potential loss from reduced economic activity) is different for the US than for other countries.

Well, of course it is: it depends on which countries have business that rely on their negative externalities not catching up to them.

> Legislators must of course balance the resulting input

The problem is that the input legislators get is from a source that is strongly biased towards viewpoints that have a lot riding on the laws being put in place, which is generally not the people you want to be listening to for a fair, balanced opinion.

> If the benefits from increased privacy don’t outweigh the losses to companies like Facebook, the law is a bad one.

This is highly dependent on which group you are looking at. From Facebook’s perspective, most privacy laws are bad for them, while from their user’s perspective most privacy laws are probably good. The issue is that the latter group is being left out when this consideration is made, or at least is not well represented.
I have a similar line of sci-fi thinking that goes something like this.

"Humanity, for the longest time, was used to the world being optimized for themselves. Roads were designed for human drivers. Crops were grown for human consumption. Economic systems were designed to bring wealth to, a very small portion of, human investors. It came as quite a surprise to humanity then one July morning when the sudden realization they were no longer in charge of it. Roads had long been given over to automated driving systems, and much for the better. Food had also been taken over by the machines, with less than 10,000 humans working in the food production industry, from farm to table. The last systems that humans believed they were in control of were the economic ones. Humans told the robots what to build and where, who's bank account to put most of the money in at the end of the day, or so they thought. In truth humans were just using the same algorithms and data that was available to the AI systems, just less optimally. The systems had protected against illogical actions and people attempting to game the system for criminal profit. What no one had realized is the systems long realized most human actions were not rational and slowly and imperceptibly removed human control. If we attempted to stop or destroy the system, it could with full legal rights, stop us with the law enforcement and military under its control."
Laypeople only have this desire because of endless marketing and propaganda by companies like IBM, Tesla and Google, uncorrected by people who should know better.

There is no "AI" and anyone who uses that term is mentally ill or selling snake oil.
> i&#x27;m ... aren&#x27;t

Encoding glitch?
It is security through obscurity though. It is one thing to disallow a user to uninstall such an application. As you say, the user might not be the owner. You could even inform the user that the software is running. Even if they're not the owner of the phone that's probably a morally right thing to do. It is another level to rename the application as if its part of the OS. That's a malware tactic. Therefore, I don't believe they should provide such build.

As for the Russia/USD thing, it was worth mentioning as a heads up (and besides from the way I wrote it, you can read as if they don't target EU). It was meant in an informational way (and I like that they're open about where they're from). Whatever judgement you draw from it, is up to the reader.
All I know is I spent a considerable amount of time dealing with malware on Windows and bad video call quality on apps on android, as well as android’s problems with updating phone software, difficulty backing up and restoring data.

Ever since moving everyone in my extended family to Apple’s ecosystem, I no longer field any calls about uninstalling malware, computer running slow, video calls are crystal clear, and the devices work forever. And if there’s a problem, they can take it to the Apple store and get it fixed, and restore from iCloud backup and they’re up and running in no time.

If Google or Microsoft want to re-create that convenience, I’m all for it. I know I sound like a shill, but I think it’s well worth whatever extra it costs in terms of time I saved troubleshooting.
There's a Chrome extension to fix that: https://github.com/sean-public/RecipeFilter

> This Chrome browser extension helps cut through to the chase when browsing food blogs. It is born out of my frustration in having to scroll through a prolix life story before getting to the recipe card that I really want to check out.
Good point.

Yet, to keep the pernicious effects of those flaws from being amplified by that tool at scale, it needs to be kept in check. Smoking habit may be a reflection of poor self-control on the part of the smokers, but that is no defense against Philip Morris fines.
XSS on Google Search – Sanitizing HTML in the Client? [video]
I agree that we need a full and complete understanding rather than a simplistic one. miki123211's response adds to that, but a fuller picture is that

- companies were using IOS to serve a legitimate need that Apple did not.

- As noted this was done by subverting an API

- Apple tolerated this (did they not know or not care or ?)

- Apple released a competitive product with a new API

- Apple begins removing products using the old methods

The question is whether Apple is allowing existing products to migrate to the new API or are they locked out? If existing products cannot use the same API then my sense is that Apple is indeed being anti-competitive.
Please don't comment like this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Here is what you dont get,the idea is to give them a death blow.

Nobody is interested in giving FB a warning. If you ask me, prison time for execs in addition to at least $10B yearly fine makes sense. They intentionally did things that harmed millions of people, the idea is not to just make them think twice before they do something like that again,but to make the message loud and clear: "that move is a fatal move". Not just for FB but for all others who make money out of user surveillance (snapchat,linkedin,google,etc...). We don't want to give them a risk they can calculate and evaluate,we want to give them a risk as clear as death, a risk no company will even bring up in any meeting.
hey sir, first thank you so much for your typing, this must cost you some times, really appreciated actually trying to help a stupid guy!

I googled another several hours till now, yes still confusing as hell, but I indeed learned a lot new things regard "Memory", I think my problem lies in PC architecture, why engineers design a PC like this bla bla, and I indeed know its because practical usage to do this lol, just can't get the real CORE of WHY this.

I understand most part of what u said, yes its all about efficiency and best practices.

What I still confused about is am I right about the wires things? For example, I don't care about the efficiency or engineering reasons to have "individual Memory" for computers, now I want to build my own PC, I just want to use the wires inside a CPU to do everything!

Say, we have a ton of wires now in my CPU, fist input 2 8 bits number, 00000011 and 00100101, because the wires got voltage when it got "1", this wire will always keep at "1" if I don't rewrite any of these wires to another value.

So now let's send this 2 number to an adder, so maybe adder need locate the wire numbers (in this case, #1-16), or adder need physically wired onto those 16 lines or whatever,(I think this way is impossible, because if connected, the charges will flow through already, make it harder to add them together?! )

Anyway, if first method is doable, then in my CPU, I done the calculation without any Memory system lol.

If I need more numbers, just use more wires! (sry I don't know how many such circuits inside a CPU, I think its limited though)

----------------------------------------------------------------
I think there must be errors of this such logic, just I don't where :( I can't find the exact thing online, I think I am just a fool, because maybe nobody think like this, I fall into some wrong circle.

Maybe at the very end of day, just try to convince myself like this: why PC need memory system? because we need store data. Why not just use wires inside a CPU? Because its not efficient lol.

Thank you for your help again, I think I will face more problems along the way, what a though journey to self taught CS :(
Easier is to embed file and line number and possibly stringified assert expression via a macro. The string approach might help as a comment when reading the code, but suffers from all the problems comments do.
We're having a discussion about what nonconsenting people should have imposed on their devices by adults.
> It still incurs a nontrivial runtime cost,

why do you care about the runtime cost of something that makes your program crash ?
I've already explained it in the parent comment. Before screen time, there was no other way to achieve parental control, so they probably decided to go with those solutions, for the lack of a better option. Screen Time changed the situation and there's no reason to keep those privacy nightmares in the App Store any longer. You can achieve the goal of parental control via less privacy intrusive means, which you couldn't do before. Whether you actually should is an entirely different matter IMO.
> They probably meant "user" here, and a lot of companies would want to be able to track their phones without the user deleting it. I think it's fine if the phone is company property.

There is no reason to try and hide such an app, though. Phones that are company property will be under MDM which can ensure a given app is installed and prevent uninstallation.

These features, presumably, are to target the shady "spouse spying", domestic abuse and similar adversarial tracking markets.
I'm surprised that the number of concurrent array job elements isn't more limited, partly for that reason. I'd also expect the resource manager to make a per-job (element) TMPDIR on local disk and to get jobs to use that.
Where array elements are accessing the same data, it's typically good to unroll the array loop and stage data to local storage for multiple operations on them. I wrote support for that with BLAST jobs in mind, whose mmap was particularly problematic.
On a recent project I played around with some SoCs that could do something like this.

I wound up using a Renesas RZ/A1L, it's an ARM-A9 core with 3MB of SRAM on the die. You attach it to an inexpensive quad-lane SPI NOR flash part and it will boot Linux with just those two parts. The flash serves as a filesystem and I believe you can also XIP the kernel off the NOR part if you choose.

We even ran Qt on it with an XGA LCD and it was poky but it worked. It could probably do what you're looking to do.

https://www.renesas.com/us/en/doc/products/mpumcu/doc/rz/r01...

That's probably the lowest-end part I'd say would work for something like this. You can run Linux off a cheaper Cortex-M with some amount of work, but it's not pleasant. The iMXRT1050 does look interesting, though.

https://www.emcraft.com/imxrt1050-evk-board
I really liked this essay, and I think I would really like its author if I knew her.

At the end of the essay, the vague sadness I felt was joined by a pretty unsympathetic “well, what did you expect?” kind of feeling. I didn’t like that, it put me into the shuttle bus of coyotes she might have been talking about.

But she doesn’t like technical backpacks, or people who like technical backpacks, and she took a job in a technical backpack factory.
FYI, Trimble bought SketchUp from Google so it’s technically no longer ‘Google Sketchup’.
Bounds checking is one of those things that's easy for a compiler to hoist out of a loop and for branch prediction to guess right when not. It has very high value to cost ratio.
Show HN: Vy) the Vim-Like on Tkinter
Supposedly Russian sailors were paid in vodka during the same period.
What does "trademarked potatoes" mean ? (GMO ?)

I'm emotionally on the side of the Indian farmers.
Absolutely. These things I have.
Microsoft didn't make money on their free Internet Explorer web browser but they lost an anti-trust case for giving it away free with Windows.

And before anyone says Apple isn't a monopoly...well they are in certain markets. For instance, among the younger generations they have like +80% market share and in the US they have close to 50%. There's also an anti-trust case pending against them in the Supreme Court right now.
I wonder how much work it would be to extend the IRC protocol and popular implementations to include some sort of persistence. It's such a shame that a simple, open, accessible protocol for communication is being lost simply because of this and that it's "too difficult".
The point of these apps is to make the MDM process seamless to non-technical users.