skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
When the correlation is close to 0 it's often because of a feedback loop.

For example - in economy with central bank trying to hit inflation target - interest rates and inflation will have near 0 correlation (interest rates change but inflation remains constant). That's because central bank adjusts interest rates to counter other variables so that inflation remains near the target.

Other example (my favorite, it was mindblowing when my teacher showed it to us on econometrics as a warning :) ) - gas pedal and speed of a car driving on a hilly road. Driver wants to drive near the speed limit, so he adjusts the gas pedal to keep the speed constant. Simplistic conclusion would be - speed is constant despite the gas pedal position changing therefore they are unrelated :)
> We've had so many generations of Web frameworks, but presumably it's still not a solved problem, because we keep moving to new ones

I do not think that it is not a solved problem. I think, in most cases, there is a propensity to wanting to believe it is not a solved problem, because building things from nothing is a lot of fun.

The cool thing about being a software engineer is that you can go back as far as 0 and 1 with comparably reasonable effort and tools that are at your disposal, for free. You get to build anything you want, exactly as you want. Of course mostly it will not go back as far as machine code, but hey look, there is a new js front-end framework.

And sure, in parts this is all part of the learning experience. But I the amount of productivity that has been lost and will be lost due to the technology being reinvented (or shall I say: rediscovered), has to be absolutely mind boggling.

We all like to play, but engineers are pretty fucking expensive and the number of web applications that could absolutely not have been build in good old Rails or PHP by people who know their tools inside out is probably approaching the low zeros.
No, everyone with the item is a seeder in ipfs. Pinning means the node won't delete it.
Whenever you run something from a terminal, you block and wait for its termination, so this is entirely normal.

If you want two applications, you start two applications: First a window, then run it. Once the application terminates, the window returns to being a terminal.

Basically, you create a window, and then decide its content. It's actually incredibly logical and intuitive to use if you have ever used a terminal.
Is there a way to view the repo without signing up?
>Why do they still do this?

This is the game-as-played, vs the game-as-we-wish-it-were-played. If you don't want a player to engage in this, don't accept it in any of the players, like the plaintiff.
Yeah I did. It seems to be coming along.
It might just be my soft spot for Racket, but I find this delightful. Elixir Radar is somewhat the same thing via e-mail but it's not as neat and tidy as this. You can skim this and get so much value out of it immediately.
> these questions need to be hard lined pretty soon

I’d argue that they’re a long way from being an issue.

Firstly, current AI are far less ‘intelligent’ than almost any animal. Even a mosquito has more brain power, and we don’t think twice about killing mosquitoes.

Secondly, even if an AI had similar intelligence to a human, there is no reason to believe it would be a moral creature, capable of making moral judgments, and being judged as such. Our morality evolved over thousands, probably millions, of years (or if you prefer, it was granted by some divine power). Either way, intelligence and morality aren’t synonymous.
You're overthinking. Fault is a legal construct to help decide liability. What we really care about is if we're dead or not. Insurance is there to take care of the rest.

Since drivers under the influence are less likely to die in an accident because most drugs either relax the muscles or delay reflexes enough to keep the body relaxed during an accident, preventing a lot of potential injury, it's an important nuance to consider. If the people most likely to drive drunk are the least likely to adopt self driving cars, there is an absolute floor to how much safer they can be.
back then the indie scene was super interesting. https://experimentalgameplay.com/ was full of gems and igf had plenty interesting concepts too with lot less focus on trying to make them marketable.
Mono-Repo vs. One-per-Service
If there's money to be made from subverting something, someone will do it.
Basically, it's a matter of being able to force the issue. Distros are largely volunteer effort and are already a lot of work. Forcing library devs to cooperate would be a gargantuan task and just rejecting the changes would kill most distros (basically no libraries do this). Instead the distro devs just try to fix the compatibility problems themselves but they occasionally miss stuff.
> I think you're falling into the trap of "past solutions didn't work, therefore the problem is intractable", which is a special case of the "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" fallacy. Sometimes a new tool comes out that fixes the problems of past tools.

Where's the breakthrough then? What's the magic that allows bazel to succeed where dozens of similar efforts have failed? Sometimes a new tool does fix the problems of past tools, but that's almost always due to some new insight.
I hit the comment limit earlier but thank you for writing in detail about what's actually going on behind the scenes so I can take care to not let the problem affect me much.

That said, and despite your yourself having mentioned that there is no excuse for the shortcomings, I feel like this decision in particular is just plain inexcusable anyway because if you're going to write portable document, at least use some form of UTF encoding rather than indexing into glyphs (or on top of !)
Actually you could've built Alexa/Siri etc back in 1997 with DragonDictate and a whole bunch of scripting.

And in many areas it would've been just as good as what we have today.
Yes and no. It's a different mindset. In many cases Linux can run CLI software from the 1960s just fine but the desktop moves fast and breaks things often.

The legacy support in Windows is admirable but does bloat the OS and create security and performance issues, for example. I suppose one could always fire up a VM with a 10-year-old version of Ubuntu to run older software, but it is indeed a hassle.

The correct answer depends where your priorities lie.
Awesome! Based on the title I though the game didn't receive any updates for about 10 years or so. Apparently that thought is incorrect: https://steamdb.info/sub/1045/history/
The price to stay in the house you own is almost never close to zero, you still have to pay the bills, the repairs and the property taxes. If the house you live in becomes bigger than your salary can afford (let’s say you built a McMansion when you used to earn $200-300,000 per year) then you’ll have a really, really hard time staying afloat when you suddenly become unemployed and you can’t even find a job for the next 12 months, if not more. The bills will keep piling up, you’d sell the house and move away to greener pastures where they still have decent jobs but you find out that that would entail a 50-to-80% cut on the value of the house (the most probably reason for you losing your job is because the economy sucks, during which time no-one sane will pay close-to-parity money for a house), your marriage will most probably be in the doldrums, too (imho financial-caused stress is one of the biggest reasons for divorce) and you wished that younger you hadn’t put all his eggs in this one big house which right now drives you into the ground.
You Are Not A Product – So stop treating yourself like one
I'm pretty sure that some 3rd party vendors, like itch.io, take way less than 30%
this article by the same author is also very interesting:

https://nevalalee.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/the-kitsch-of-sur...
> And then I want to put rich things into my comments section like graphics and tables and such.

Swift Playgrounds has rich comments, but they are still inlined with code.
Day-to-day Linux system updates won't change major version numbers of libs in most distros, though. These breaking changes only seem to occur in major releases in my experience.
LISP is a family of languages (much like BASIC). So Emacs Lisp is still a LISP.

I don't even know why you're bring Vim into the discussion when it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. It doesn't invalidate the statement I made; I just makes your reply look a little snobby because you seem concerned that someone might compare Emacs and Emacs Lisp to Vim and Vim Script (I clearly wasn't given the complete lack of reference to Vim in my post).

To be honest I thought we had gotten past those tedious flamewars in the 90s.
Willingness to do that because the government wasn't representing them.

The only job of government.

Don't make it sound unreasonable.
No workey
Ruby is fantastic for DSLs; however I fear it's becoming Betamax to Python's VHS.
Racket isn't perfect but it's the best example I know of. In DrRacket you can have image literals.
> I'd wager the true next generation programming languages will be ultra minimalistic languages, retaining only the essentials while not losing on legibility.

This is a fashionable idea, but I don't like it. Minimalistic languages rely on encodings, which are always far more expensive than using native features. Minimalism is fine in theoretical/academic settings -- fewer proofs to worry about -- but it's not great when performance matters.
>This means you will have a regressive taxation scheme, where poor people have to pay a larger percentage of their income as tax, and rich people a very small percentage.

Well, overlooking the obvious straw man argument, and ignoring that this has been successfully implemented already, in some of the most diverse poverty vs. wealth distribution countries in the world (India and Sri Lanka) .. this would only be the case if expenditure taxes weren't scaled to target the higher-end luxury items, but instead applied flat across society. Clearly, this is not the case with income tax - and it wouldn't be the case, necessarily, with an expenditure tax. Luxury items would be taxed at higher rates than basic life-survival items. Such a tax would be progressively or proportionally applied across society, such that the wealthy simply pay more for their luxuries, while the poor pay less for their essentials.

In a properly designed expenditure-tax system, people still get wealthy by hard work or inheritance/exploitation - but when they try to spend that wealth, they are equalised by the expenditure tax compared to the less wealthy.

And in this case its not theft, like income tax, because people still will have the choice on whether to spend their money, however it is earned, on luxury items (high tax rate) or survival items (low tax rate). The point is, they have the choice, and ~50% of their life is not spent just working for the state, as is the case with income tax repression.

The only issue, is that it is 'difficult to administer' - but I see no reason to make tax bureaucrats lives easier. We already have sales tax in many states - eradicating income tax would mean freeing resources up to expand the scope of those sales taxes into a broader taxation on expenditure.

Income tax results in people making the conscious decision to not make more money - because, after all, most of it will go to the government. Expenditure tax encourages people to save, and invest wisely in their local economy, and thus gives state managers the ability to direct those investments according to reduced tax rates around the commodities/services for which the state wants to promote growth.

The current mess is repressive. People consciously don't work to improve their conditions in life, when half of that life is given over, immediately, to the government. This causes a lot of resentment over society, and promotes criminal tax avoidance all over the scale.
> containerize something that has plugins

I don't really see the problem there, I see the plugins as essentially just data (i.e. stored in a mounted volume), for which updating and versioning is in the domain of the application itself or maybe some standardized library it uses.

desktop widgets: essentially the same thing, it's a plugin to the desktop environment and can be stored as a volume mount on the DE container.

dbus is probably something that would require an evolution on the container side, or alternatively it would need to be all abstracted into network interfaces. another possible way to look at it is to have a layer between kernel and containerized userland that is responsible for manipulating all the physical host things in the traditional way, and the examples you give are exactly that. maybe this sort of thing should continue to be distributed tightly together with the kernel.
Yes, and that fits perfectly with: Grundgesetz = Weimar-debugged.
It's often a decision of the publishers, not the devs.
Well, at this point, `store` (=), `equal` (==), `equiform` (===) are even more readable, meaningful and accurate. Of course other terms such as `equivalent`, `equiquantal` `equireference`, `equieffective` and more are also possible.

Don't forget people read whole words, so they most likely don't spend much time on "==" recognition than they would with "equivalent". And with text completion, token length is an irrelevant metric on productivity as well.

Any non literal symbol used in code is an incentive to use more of them and turn code bases into harder to maintain "smart" obfuscated trick stacks.

On an historical perspective, how much people using "=" know where it comes from (nothing is more equal than two parallel lines), compared to how many people are able to make a good guess of the etymology of "equivalent" (same value)? Add to this observation that in the mid-time with the raise of non-euclidian geometry and topology the former insight is far less relevant nowaday.
Really trying to understand what difference it makes that she is a VP
This is some oversimplified bullshit.
Dependent type systems are one way to verify logical constraints in code, but not the only way. Look at Dafny for a good example of how checked invariants can be integrated into an ordinary imperative language. Or ESC/Java for the same approach but integrated into Java. The basic technique goes back at least to Dijkstra’s predicate transformers and nowadays the verification is mostly automatic with SMT solvers.
Anecdotal, but:

When I moved from Stockholm to SF and told my friends, the first question every single one of them asked was "But how will you find somewhere to live?"

Because if you've only ever lived in Sweden and experienced its rent-controlled market, it's really hard to envision a different system, an actual free rent market, so all of my friends were really surprised that my answer was "I'm just gonna open craigslist and pick something."
Modern Fortran is really nice when it comes to matrix arithmetic. I really wish it were more widespread and there were more libraries for data loading into the language. Having written a lot of CV/Robotics related code in Python and C++, I find that often there are errors in coding which you may not catch till runtime. For instance matrix dimension mismatch will not be caught in OpenCV or in Python till you actually execute the code. On the other hand, these things can be hard coded into Fortran 2003 and the compiler will perform the checks before you shoot yourself in the foot.
> Valve hasn't released a game in years

They've recently (this year or the last) released Artifact, a card game, which apparently didn't do very well.
> The younger generation that support socialism are “people who don’t know history”, he said.

Gee, I wonder if he remembers Oklahoma was a bastion of American socialism until the red scare (and Trump's mentor, the insane, "sue everyone" fascist Roy Cohn) excommunicated and banished anyone who wasn't for the nouveau "libertarianism" anarcho-capitalism (socialism/regulatory capture for the rich, austerity/neglect for everyone else).
This is probably why the 'Year of the Linux Desktop' never arrived. The introduction of Macs probably crippled the Linux desktop market. Without Macs companies like System76 would probably have been more successful as more developers demand a good quality Unix compatible machine.
Workey! TY kind individual.
Still it feels a bit far from "Dominance".
Things I'd like to see

- Tiered abstraction levels. I want to write high-level functional code when I can, which expands to more complex code under the hood. When I want to I can instead manually expand the logic, perhaps the only time I need to code imperatively. Think a project today that has high level haskell or python code but implements bits in C where necessary. For the highest level bits, things like formal verification, safe concurrency, code contracts etc should be much simpler to use. For the low level bits, I'd just take responsibility for correctness (memory safety, formal correctness, concurrency) myself (like "unsafe" in Rust/C#). Perhaps the number of abstraction levels should be more than 2.

- Integration of tools: 1) Today a compiler, editor and VCS are 3 different tools, and their lowest common denominator today is text files. I'd like to see a system that version controls a syntax tree for a whole project, and allows semantic diffing. A build server could trivially do incremental builds, moving a symbol doesn't break history, reliably running only impacted tests for a 10h test suite is possible. This doesn't necessarily mean everything needs to be one big tool - but the lowest common denominator of tools could move from UTF-8 files to a binary representation of the whole syntax tree. Having a more complex binary representation would have drawbacks but also other benefits like trivial inclusion of a picture in a comment that can be previewed with a mouse hover in the editor, or displayed inline. 2) Better integration with documentation and issue tracking. Same as the AST representation: we need to be able to link documentation, pictures, links to issues etc from code in a way that doesn't rot if we change directory paths, issue trackers and so on. A broken link to a document in a comment should be a build error like any other error.
Wow, you have such a cool user name, bro. I bet you’re a really cool dude. It’s, like, so Darwinian. I can’t wait for the day when you finally ascend to become ruler. You’re so well suited with the gifts bestowed upon you by netural selection. Eugenics is cool.
Assigning any credibility to a statement based on the identity of its source is indeed the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

Whether you say "it must be true", or "it is likely to be true" does not matter. Credibility must only come from the statement itself and the evidence to support it.

However, while it is a logical fallacy, it is reasonable to temporarily hold beliefs for or against the truthfulness of a statement while no or insufficient evidence is present. As long as belief is not mistaken for proof, nothing is wrong about having such gut-feeling.
Like e = mc^2?
I used to “cloud save” my Borderlands 2 save files by symlinking the save game folder to a Dropbox folder
>> Oh, you need to do more than "nothing special" in Prolog to get anything that is mildly useful.

This is really not my experience. I've been coding in Prolog for 10 years and done a bunch of useful stuff, if I say so myself (my latest baby: https://github.com/stassa/metasplain). Constraint (logic) programming is cool and useful, but it's not necessary. It's just a particular logic programming paradigm. Actually, although I do find it very nice and pure, in a declarative sense, I don't think I could code all my stuff in CLP.

I can't say I understand your parser combination notation. The syntactic sugar of DCGs means that if you can read BNF, you can read a DCG. Simple syntax that doesn't get in your way when you're trying to do complicated things is a hallmark of Prolog in general.

Cuts are also not necessary- DCGs are one kind of Prolog program where I almost never use cuts. One reason for that is that you usually want your grammars to be nondeterministic, so that you can use them as generators. DCGs basically just process lists, so it's not usually that hard to ensure a grammar doesn't overgenerate. You really don't have much use of cuts with DCGs, unless you use them to write arbitrary Prolog programs, rather than parsers (which you can do, since DCGs are syntacitc sugar for ordinary Prolog- but I generally don't).

The online grammar outputting intermediary results you're describing, I think you're talking about something like this (not tested):

s --> a, b.
a --> [a], {writeln('Found an a')}.
b --> [b], {writeln('Found a b')}.

The curly braces, {}, embed arbitrary Prolog code in the body of a rule (which btw makes DCGs Turing-complete, I guess) that is executed as soon as it's found in the body of the grammar. You can go a long way with it.

The "parser tree" you describe would probably need some coding around the grammars, i.e. you'd have to write special code to combine a few parsers. Or maybe not, I'm not sure because I haven't tried to do what you say. What do you use something like that for?
Right, almost all stereo depth calculation is matching without object detection. Maybe doing both simultaneously counts? ;-)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.09738
Fortran 2018
Interesting. What server side tech stacks are often used by young developers in the recent hackathon? Are there a few dominant ones or many choices?
> Unfortunately, there's no good way to have a font have sets of ligatures per <whatever you're working with right now>.

If your IDE (or text editor) can highlight and indent languages differently then it can certainly switch font or toggle a font property to select a ligature variant set.
It is a quote from Guggenheim Partners’ Alan Schwartz.

The so called peasant revolts were quite regular occurrence in Europe.

But it isn't the first article in FT about the wealthy realizing that revolution is coming for them.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/cartier-boss-says-thought-...
Sure you can. Services like Alexa are just glorified paperweights and aren't reflective of real world capabilities.

If you want to build your own Jarvis, don't listen to anyone else just get stuck in. You'll be surprised just how far you can get with it.
This fallacy is usually taught as appeal to irrelevant authority. It concerns relying on those who purport to be experts but lack any actual expertise.

"The ad verecundiam fallacy concerns appeals to authority or expertise. Fundamentally, the fallacy involves accepting as evidence for a proposition the pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority."

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (9):
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

Here we have a researcher who is an expert in the thing he's talking about. There are still absolutely reasons to be guarded-- the matter is not fully decided, it's just one study. Maybe this is an example of an ongoing controversy, and we're selectively ignoring other experts?

But it is different to extend a cautious benefit of the doubt here than it would be to take, say, Paul Rudd's word on the topic as final.
Missing a runtime... missing dll... missing direct3d or different version of it, compatibility for certain version of Windows. It is all the same everywhere.
It's a terrible comparison, that's for sure. The figure they quote (1 per 86 million miles) is for all vehicles (including bicycles). Only 37% of those deaths came from passenger vehicles.

Additionally, the Tesla cohort is really modern high-safety passenger vehicles IMO. A < 5 year old passenger vehicle with stability control, etc could easily be statistically as safe as a Tesla.
IMHO, Newsweek has really lowered their journalistic standards.