skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Fork & fs operations, certainly.... nothing to do with Windows itself.

Both of these operations are known to be very slow specifically in windows. The former's the reason why windows has always strongly favored thread-based concurrency (whereas unices tend to favor process-based concurrency)[0], the latter is well know of NTFS, it deals especially badly with lots of small files.

[0] even excluding making the entire thing blowing its gasket as Bruce Dawson triggers with appalling regularity, in fact in one of his posts he specifically notes in the introduction that windows is notorious for its slow file and process operations: https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2018/10/15/making-windows-...
Is it tho?
In comparison it is certainly reducing your freedom, that you are not allowed to set fire to the flat you own. Not at last because your flat might be in a house where other people have theirs.

Vaccination is seen very similar around here. Yes, you have a right to be in control of your own body. But so should be everybody else.

The state has to find a solution that values your personal freedom and balances it with the rights other people have.

Keep in mind this might also protect children from parents. You are not allowed to neglect your kids, and the state could take them away from you if you repeatedly neglect them. Not vaccinating your kid against a illness with that high of a mortality rate is a form of neglect.

You are forced to buckle your kida up in the car with a seatbelt. There is a huge chance this might save their life. There is a tiny chance it might kill them (trapped in a burning car etc). Yet it is mandatory for you to buckle them up.

Because thats what prevents thousands of dead kids each year.
At what scale are you going to run the process ? Is it going to be large scale refinery-like production facilities, or could it also be a small unit for storing power in a remote location with plenty of sun but no power lines ?
Epic and ILM’s John Knoll Tried to Recreate the Moon Landing
Is this legal? It obviously is, but how? I thought the GPL would require Microsoft to ship the Windows source code? I suppose it counts as a separate component.
On the Github repo is a roadmap for such a single file app.[1]

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/20287#issuecomment-...
Take a look at Fig. 1 (page three) in this PDF: https://www.osapublishing.org/DirectPDFAccess/9295D3CA-C8BD-... ("Human skin detection in the visible and near infrared").

The photographic process used is only sensitive to blue/near-UV light. People with dark skin absorb lots of blue/near-UV light. This is why their skin looks darker under this process than it actually is. The tattoos also absorb blue/near-UV light, but the (apparently extra-dark) skin masks the difference, as the contrast ratio between skin covered/not covered with a tattoo is lowered.
I really don't understand this article. Is reads like an AI was instructed to craft a piece with as many big words and buzzwords as possible. Maybe I'm just not the target audience, or too tired, dumb, or ignorant to understand it, but I kinda feel like I'm going crazy.

Like, what does this even mean?

> Virtualization of everything from data centres and local Mobile Edge Computing facilities

He says that explaining these things is not going to be included in the primer, but perhaps just a small blurb about what these features will enable or what benefits they will have?

Here's another example:

> effective, inclusive global arrangements for extraterritorial orchestrations of 5G architectures and services including access to forensics

I'm totally lost.
I just saw WSL 2 land and it addresses most of my complains about WSL. Well played. :)
uMatrix offers me complete control over the requests that get allowed or blocked, so there's no need for anything else.
This started as "Bash On Windows," got embiggened to WSL and now we're finally where it probably should have started; a tightly integrated VM running a genuine Linux kernel. This also obviates some of the shade that has been thrown at Microsoft's effort because this is no longer a reimplementation of the Linux kernel.

So both technical and political improvements. I have few complaints.
The concept of a 'full' voicemail is also backwards. It should be implemented as a circular buffer, if full, the oldest gets replaced.
My experience with AWS support for performance issues is similar. My ticket for an Aurora RDS performance issue ended up in a kind of purgatory where they continued to ask for more information and more tests on my side, continued, to infinity. Once one support engineer was satisfied with my results, the ticket would go dark for months, and when I would follow up, another (new) engineer would ask for a whole new round of tests, logs, etc., typically for the latest release.

After a few rounds of back-and-forth, I eventually gave up.

(I even gave them permission to copy test snapshot data, at their request, and sample queries to reproduce the issue. They could have done all the testing they wanted in-house. But that might have actually required them to spend time on their side to diagnose and fix something, I guess.)

It wasn't a critical issue, exactly, and we worked around it in code. I mostly just wanted to report a problem.
We just started a new project on .NET Framework 4.7.x, because not everything that we care about is available on .NET Core, not even with the upcoming .NET Core v3.0.

Lets see how .NET 5 will sort out the current state of affairs.

In any case, it is a welcome change to sort out the mess that the whole WinRT and .NET Core 1.x have brought out.
Why Boeing decided not to tell airlines a safety alert on Max didn’t work
Bulletin Of Atomic Scientists [1] disagrees with both your statements: nuclear annihilation is out of public mind, but it is not much less probable, and climate change is, among other things, a risk factor there. Global catastrophic risks are often interconnected.

[1] - https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/
Having done a lot of bike races you're even making deals with your teammates realistically.

It's an odd artifact of the sport awarding prizes to individuals when it is impossible most of the time to win without teamwork, and only one person on the team that works together can actually win.

I don't fault the racer in this story who reneged on his deal to win.
They did try a number of times to write kernels in C#-like languages. Singularity, Midori, etc.

This spawned a lot of interesting academic work that influenced languages such as Rust... trying to get high level features and safety without need for a runtime.
It does - but the other guy could have ignored the deal too. That happens a lot too
The same way the current implementation does. The news here is not that Windows can run Linux natively, that's been true since 2016.
Building a $2,000 lawnmower from $1,600 in parts only makes sense if your time has no value. Or if you tinker for the sheer pleasure of it.
Only partially, try to run any desktop application that depends on WCF or ODP.NET with it.
I'm guessing they concerned about just enabling Amazon cloud. Amazon has a way of taking stuff and not returning much.
Gambling has negative externalities suffered by families and friends of the addicts (and more people, if addiction drives the victim to crime). That's in addition to the fact that IMO at some point in addiction, you aren't really in a state of mind to give informed consent.

My current point of view is that once a problem becomes large-scale and systemic, to the point you can actually model it at population-scale, it needs top-down attention and top-down solutions. That usually means regulation - either new, modified, or existing but better enforced. In other words, once something grows to the point it wouldn't be out of place on a SimCity/Civilizations-style game dashboard, it needs SimCity/Civilization-style solutions. In yet different words, there ain't such thing as free will and informed consent if I can reliably predict that a population under influence X will have Y% incidence of $bad-thing.

See also: vaccines, smoking, air pollution, climate change, overfishing, and countless other things where people left to their own devices and their own local, small-scale perspective reliably and fully predictably end up doing stupid things.
So why do they ignore their feedback at every step? Why do they continue taking anti-user moves seemingly at every opportunity when there's a choice?

If what we see here is how you think Mozilla treats its users well, I'd hate to see what it would take to get you to agree they treat them badly.

I see nothing but naked contempt. YMMV.
I'm talking about the hate tax. It's not nationwide yet, but you see more and more people pushing for one every year.
Game of Crones
> "See?! Unions are bad! Look at all the inconvenience they're causing our poor, hapless customers!" The corporate lobbiests are likely to then take that rhetoric and push for regulations to prevent such groups of "contract" employees from being able to strike in the future.

They don't actually need any of that. All they have to do is to keep using basically the same pricing algorithm they already do.

If a bunch of drivers go on strike then any of the remaining ones automatically get paid more because the supply is lower (surge pricing). The higher pay attracts new drivers, or gets the ones who only drive during surge pricing to come out and work full shifts as long as the good money is there.

This is basically the same result for the company as conceding to the drivers' demands, except that it ends as soon as the striking drivers give up and reenter the labor pool.

The only way to get consistently higher wages is to maintain the higher fares and correspondingly the lower demand for drivers. In other words, some of the drivers have to stop working. Striking is just feigning solidarity as you hope it's somebody else who gets booted out of the job so you can earn more.

The only way drivers are going to get paid more is for enough of them to permanently stop accepting lower fares. But the trade off never actually goes away -- do you want higher fares or more hours? It can't be both unless some people stop driving, and if not enough other people quit the person who quits has to be you.
Best Books on Personal Finance
It would be nice if, instead of a company fighting a much larger company, the outcome of this was that it is illegal to lock down a device so that one can't install software of one's own choice on it.

This is so usually framed as Apple being unfair, but the law will make them more fair, however, which is the wrong way to look at this, I think.
California electricity is only 1% coal. 52% is natural gas and 40% is carbon-free. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California. Most growth is in renewables.
You can run UWP apps on all platforms using the Uno Platform.

https://platform.uno
A) Lyft is lying, based on nearly unanimous independent reporting of driver earnings.

B)The minimum wage is not high at all.

The minimum wage is necessary because driver's are responsible for all of the costs of maintaining their vehicles, gas, parking etc. Imagine if your pay as a programmer required you to also pay for your computer, the parts, the software, the electricity, renting a cubicle/desk/office to work at, etc.
Half the comments are critical. The discussions are going fine.
> Smokers and cigarette manufacturers seem to not have some negative third party by your definition

Sure they do. If rates of lung cancer go up because more people smoke, insurance rates for the populace at large will also go up, thereby driving down expendable income for many consumers and depressing economic growth. All of society is the third party when it comes to people making poor decisions about their health.

As an aside, I realize this reasoning can certainly be abused as a justification to make any number of questionable but possibly legitimate behaviors illegal, but it doesn't make it less true in specific cases.
> The original four-line snippet is pretty darn clear in terms of intent, run-time cost, and potential errors or side effects.

I think this is sort of an inherent problem of simple examples. CPS is pretty awesome, but it's not really worth it until you get into "Cheney on the MTA" problems with recursion and/or parallelism, but to show that in a simple tutorial would probably confuse a lot of people.
Leaving aside the questions of cost-effectiveness/carbon neutrality/etc of e.g. corn ethanol, but can your tech potentially also make existing biofuels more efficient?
Tank tracks have problems at a small scale that aren't immediately apparent at full scale.

The big one - especially for something "in the dirt" - is dirt/mud getting between the tracks and ground wheels/idlers. This can easily stop the drive system, requiring user maintenance. Then there's the issue with water rusting parts (shafts, screws, etc). Also, more moving parts equal more things to break. Finally, on a small scale, tracks have a tendency to be easily "thrown" from the wheels depending on how turning is accomplished and the terrain.

On a full sized tank or bulldozer, tracks still have these issues, but in the case of dirt, it can just power through the obstacles; dirt and mud may build up, and cause some rust, but the important bits are kept constantly lubricated. Any parts that do grind up the dirt just wear down instead of stopping (and eventually need replacement - very $$$$ replacement). If anyone cares to, hosing off the tracks with a water truck can also be done, but isn't likely to be done. Again, it all comes down to maintenance.

Also, full scale tracked vehicles rarely turn "en point", because their tracks can be thrown just as easily as on the smaller scale, but cause more damage and more repair $$$ needed to fix/replace (plus doing it in the field isn't easy, either). The proper way to turn such a vehicle is to not perform such maneuvers, or if you have to, make sure you're on relatively flat and soft ground (that you don't mind utterly destroying - beware your wife's rose garden), and do it fairly slowly. The side load on the tracks and idlers will still be just as high, but throwing the track isn't as great. Usually, though, you steer in a curve just like a car, except using differential speeds on each track. There will still be side loads and "skidding", but the loads are much, much less (also, this is why such machines, whether tracked or wheeled, are known as "skid steered" or "differential steering").
I like casual games, they’ve designed interesting systems that handle micro managing. But a game that plays itself isn’t much of a game.
Key pull quotes in this article specifically:

> There will be just one .NET going forward

> Additionally, we wanted to clearly communicate that .NET 5 is the future for the .NET platform.
How did you recover? (Not an academic question. My wife has CFS.)
I feel it's actually a bid to lure back developers that code on linux-based open source tools (pretty much everything) but use MacOS because desktop linux never was a thing.

So this starts to potentially make windows an alternative to macOS for developers. I moved to macOS because it was like having a linux/unix distribution that wasn't ugly, and just worked really well.

But I'm more than happy at the _idea_ that there's a viable alternative that allows me to still have high res displays and decent graphics and support, while allowing me to develop on a system that's a first-class citizen for most open source tools (which is Linux).
The points in this article seem like more of the vague handwaving, fluff and obfuscation that the opening paragraphs purport to encourage us to ignore:

> A number of basic features can be distilled out of the enormous swirling 5G maelstrom that go far beyond the focus on political trivializations, lobbying, trolling for spectrum, and marketing in the popular press.

Great. Tell me about them...

> These features represent a tectonic change far exceeding anything seen in the history of electronic communications - in the way networks and services are instantiated and provided.

And that sentence sounds exactly like the "trivialisations" and "marketing" just mentioned.

Then proceeds to list 9 "features", 7 of which are either new buzzwordy marketing language for something pre-existing or describe tech that's parallel or orthogonal to 5G (but in no way an actual "part" of 5G itself).

Actual 5G radio is casually/briefly listed as point #7
WCF, Remoting, Web Forms, ODP.NET, EF6 UI designers certainly not.

Yes, some of those items are legacy, but not everyone enjoys paying to rewrite stuff from scratch.
I've never understood why there isn't a fairly simple company out there manufacturing quality lithium ion cells for older tech. For instance, I have an original Sony PSP. There's nothing wrong with it. Except for the fact that it is impossible to find a battery for it and the original ones wore out long ago. I faced the same thing with my Neato Botvac when it's NiCad battery died, although I was lucky enough to be able to find an adapted LiIon battery to replace it (which also extended its operating time, enabled it to charge faster, etc. Nice upgrade!). My mom is having a very difficult time finding a new battery for her first-gen Dell XPS 13. Every time I go online to shop for a battery, it feels like a fight with 99% of the products on offer being dodgy. It's almost as bad as the bedding industry which is perplexingly corrupt and soaked neck-deep in black PR.
Google set to launch privacy tools to limit online tracking
Agreed. Flagged as it promise to reduce the noise, and only list the worst keywords to describe each aspect, and then proceed to add pundit noise like all other articles it dismissed in the intro.
Under the right circumstances, sure. But it hardly seems like these are exceptional circumstances. This would be like eating at a restaurant, then asking if they'll accept 50% of the bill "because I've already spent too much at restaurants this year."
* not needing to refuel

no, we're taking Soothing30MinuteRelaxingBreaksAt200MileIntervalsAwesomeHappy™ brought to you by Tesla™ instead
What are you talking about? The whole point of automated testing is to confront the empirical fact that all software tends to have bugs, so we shouldn't have much confidence that we got it right.

We can increase our confidence by trying a few examples, but only a little, since the scope for failure is so huge.

Hammering a system with thousands of edge-cases, interleavings, previous regressions, etc. can give us a bit more confidence; but takes a huge amount of time for a person to do manually. It's pretty easy to automate though, and there are a load of libraries and frameworks that make it even easier.

If we want even more confidence in a system, we can verify it against a machine-checkable specification. That's still too hard to automate in most cases.

In any particular situation we need to find an appropriate balance between the cost of increasing our confidence in the system (i.e. how much effort we're willing to spend on prove ourselves wrong) versus the cost of failure.

Automated tests (especially property checks) are so low-cost and high-yield that I find them always worth doing, unless the consequence of failure is near-zero.
Who said any choice was obvious?

(Also would love your take on the question in the last line of my comment. My gut as an outsider is that the best solution may be cultural not technical, except Rust is struggling to implement cultural projects now that the community is scaling fast. But you know what I don't.)
Will VS 2017 support NET 5 ? Will VS 2019 do it ? Or will I need to buy yet another VS upgrade to enjoy it in full ?
Side note:

There is a quite recent amendment to the Montreal treaty, the Kigali amendment (2016), which phased out the CFC replacements with strong greenhouse effects in favour of replacements without them. This alone will save us ~0.3° warming until 2100 (if the projections are right).

This is about the only positive news I've ever seen for this topic.

https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/... (eg page ES.23 & ES.24)

(I really love those charts.)
> W3C JSON-LD

https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/ (JSON-LD 1.0)

https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/ (JSON-LD 1.1)

> ld-signatures + lds-merkleproof2017 (normalize the data before signing it so that the signature is representation-independent (JSONLD, RDFa, RDF, n-triples))

https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/ld-signatures/

https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/lds-merkleproof2017/ (2017 Merkle Proof Linked Data Signature Suite)

> W3C DID Decentralized Identifiers

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-primer/

>> A Decentralized Identifier (DID) is a new type of identifier that is globally unique, resolveable with high availability, and cryptographically verifiable. DIDs are typically associated with cryptographic material, such as public keys, and service endpoints, for establishing secure communication channels. DIDs are useful for any application that benefits from self-administered, cryptographically verifiable identifiers such as personal identifiers, organizational identifiers, and identifiers for Internet of Things scenarios. For example, current commercial deployments of W3C Verifiable Credentials heavily utilize Decentralized Identifiers to identify people, organizations, and things and to achieve a number of security and privacy-protecting guarantees.

> W3C Verifiable Claims

https://github.com/w3c/verifiable-claims

https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/ (Data Model)

https://w3c.github.io/vc-use-cases/ (Use Cases: Education, Healthcare, Professional Credentials, Legal Identity,)

> Blockcerts.org

https://blockcerts.org/
> what's the point?

This is an utterly asinine question. The point is that most current fuel is not carbon neutral so this is an improvement over the status quo.
The world is bigger than just California, and I thought that SV startups target "world dominance" by default :)
Does anyone have a link to an explanation of why they moved to this approach in WSL 2?

Edit: more info here: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/commandline/announcing-wsl-2/
A Game of Thrones Leader Quiz Powered by Social Scientists
The current implementation is a shim over the NT kernel. This new one is a true Linux kernel.
Then we are doing it wrong, until the 3rd party libraries that we require, actually bother to make it right.
A) Visual Studio Code is OSS, so anyone can come help microsoft improve it, which in turn helps out their commercial Visual Studio Project

B) Gaining developer mindshare is very powerful. If you want another example of how powerful this is, just look at the dominance of Windows XP and Windows 7 in the developer market, which in turn, made a huge proliferation of software available for the windows eco system. They are basically getting developers to dogfood the OS and developer tools for them.

3) Microsoft can learn from how people use visual code and make the developer experience overall much more pleasant for their azure integrations. You get enough developers telling the C-Suite how awesome Azure is, pretty soon you are going to have companies switching off AWS to Azure because "it integrates so well with all the developer tooling I am already using"(<--- Which would be VS Code.)
I would caution people to not have a false sense of security ("generals tend to fight the last war" and all that). Two important places where banks, particularly central banks, currently do NOT look safer:

A. Bond market liquidity, especially in places where negative interest rates have been adopted [1][2].

B. In times of crisis, bail-ins can still happen [3].

These two issues go hand-in-hand and will probably cause a lot of trouble in the financial system going forward.

[1] https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/central-banks/...

[2] https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/products_services/socrate...

[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/bail-in