skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Why is passing on the cost of transportation [minimum wages] to the consumer considered the optimum solution?

I don't, but I think it's more politically achievable and a lot more optimal than the status quo.

> What we're clearly seeing is a well functioning market driving down the cost of driver labor to the minimum possible price ....This is good for consumers....If the problem is that some of these drivers aren't making enough to survive, then wouldn't a more optimum solution be to simply give them a little bit of money?

One concern I have with ideas like that is the policy could end up just being a subsidy to business owners, since they could turn around and pocket much of their existing labor costs (at least for low-wage workers) by passing that responsibility to the government.
Congrats on a great product. I developed an SAAS calendar service - https://www.chronoflocalendar.com - which alas has not proved very successful, thus far. So is heartening to hear that it is possible to make a living out of calendar software. There is hope for me yet!
More like we should remove holistic admissions and put entrance exams for the top schools. This is the closest we can come to enforcing a "merit" based system. We should extend this to people of any age so as to not fall into the Asian trap of "what school you go to determines your path in life".
Re: your second example, once upon a time you could write something very similar in Rust:

do 5.times {
// ...
}

Where do was just sugar for calling functions that took a closure as the last argument:

fn foo(a: A, ..., z: Z, cl: ||) { ... }

foo(a, ..., z, || {
...
})

do foo(a, ..., z) {
...
}
It's obviously not mounting the NTFS filesystem directly, since it's already in use by Windows, so this is irrelevant to how NTFS is normally mounted in linux.
I just can't find this happening. Windows primary selling point to the masses is application support. Whether it's games, office software, meidcal software, etc, many people use Windows for this reason. If Windows became just a UI, it would have to compete with Ubuntu/Fedora/etc, which are usable and more importantly to consumers, free.
It's never said explicitly and I couldn't find a question about it, but everyone talks as if we'll need solar input to power this. I assume this means the machine doesn't produce enough fuel to power itself?

At any rate, amazing product. Can I (eventually) buy one of those machines or donate somewhere to make my area CO2 free?
That's not true. If anything, it's closer to having 99% of the features.
Re: “unchecked”: I was speaking more from an economic perspective, rather than a technical one. If there is a new CO2 sourced product with a long lifetime and the carbon does not return to the atmosphere for a long period, and it is in high global demand, it could open the door to the issues I’m trying to highlight in the original comment.
>> When 4.8 is installed, 4.7 is going away.

That's not true at all. You can run any version of the framework side-by-side all the way back.
I remember making a calendar ... What week-nr does the first day of the year have? ... If that one was easy, now tell me the formula for when certain holidays occur.
Show HN: ts-prune – Find unused exports in a TypeScript project
As somebody paying for Spotify, I agree. As somebody who had a MP3 collection on his disk in the 2000s, I disagree. Without doubt, my wifi connection should make it easy and fast to synchronize music between my laptop and smartphone. Nevertheless, "moving to the cloud" favours a centralized setup. Thankfully we see more decentralization on the horizon.
The effective difference is that when an ineligible student is admitted as a result of a "donation", the funds are used to further the education of the students who earned their spot. Whether it's new facilities, new research projects, or reduced tuition, all students benefit from a donation to the university itself.

I would rather attend a school with a $500 million endowment and a handful of idiots running around than a school with a $400 million endowment where everyone who is there deserved to be there.
Powershell has fantastic integration with the system. In additional to be able to interact with .net and com directly, it is now the primary interface for administering server versions of windows.
Haha, often true. We're a critical bunch :p
Linux 5.1
Adobe Alternatives for Digital Artist
The VB6 runtime is still installed on Windows 10, but no one (should) considers that a viable Framework to target in 2019.

Maybe a better analogy is that .NET Framework 1.x and .NET Framework 2-4.x are side-by-side installed still in Windows 10. If you wanted you could still target .NET 1.0 and it will run in an entirely different runtime (.NET 1.x and 2.x are hugely different). .NET was designed for that sort of side-by-side deployment, they just haven't done it in a while.

Yet I've not met a developer that still sees .NET 1.x as a viable Framework recently. Do you want .NET 4.8 applications to just break? What do you expect here? The "current framework" is always a combination of marketing and support and this article seems pretty clear that all marketing and support effort will be on .NET 5, and .NET 4.8 is "done".
Mike was harsh on himself. Neither you nor I get to define Mike's personal standards.

As for the author, I think (speculation) he would have gotten over it if his racing career had not been cut short due to injury.
>Needless to say, the institution originating the loan ends up disconnected from the risk once it is sold to other financial institutions.

In many cases, isn't this already the case with the largest consumer loans (mortgages)? If the buyer understands the risks of the consolidated loans, what's the beef? If the bank is hiding the risks, that's another issue - I agree.
Nice article, well written and a good read. Always nice to see a technical post on something many of us use daily. Extra points for them being honest about how they treat incoming files :-) “...such as perform OCR, parse content to extract search tokens, or generate web previews for Office documents...”
Did you mean to ask this in the currently #1 thread that links here?
No.

RPN and postfix notation refer to the same core idea. From Wikipedia: "Reverse Polish notation (RPN), also known as Polish postfix notation or simply postfix notation, is a mathematical notation in which operators follow their operands, in contrast to Polish notation (PN), in which operators precede their operands."

Can you please explain why you wrote "Reverse polish notation is an entirely different usage"? With a citation, preferably.
If the financial system were a software system, it would be in dire need of a refactoring.

Complexity makes systems brittle and exploitable. Also, most of the complexity adds no value. For example, do we still need debt? Wouldn't it be better for a company to just create and sell shares if they wanted to raise funding?

In a healthy economic environment, loaning money doesn't make any sense. When you make a loan, you limit your upside potential but you're still exposed to the full downside risk (e.g. if the debtor goes bankrupt). The only real use case for debt is to create speculative bubbles... You manipulate markets to inflate asset prices so that people need to borrow more money so that the interest payment on the loan taken for that asset is more profitable than any real investment return that the asset could have generated organically.
Don't you just need to open a window and wait a few seconds to desaturate a room where too many people breathe ?
>they are not the reason why there is still actual poverty and malnutrition in the western world.

Why is there poverty and malnutrition in the western world if not because of capitalism? Neoliberal capitalism has been the dominant economic system in the west since the 80s.
I’m not sure if you’re playing devil’s advocate, but I’ll provide you with an earnest answer.

On the face of it, your logic holds. However, the reality is that we don’t really know how complex social/ environmental /financial systems will react in the face of climate change so your predictions, and your examples: Florida, polar bears are a very limited subset of possibilities.

As just one clusterfuck example with which I am familiar, but which is not much considered:

1. Increasing crop production volatility...
2. Leads to banks pulling credit lines to farmers
3. Which leads to 75% decline in crop production
4. Which leads to massive displacement of people
5. Which leads to...(something outside of my field of expertise but probably not good).

I’d prefer to avoid the above scenario, even though I’m not sure it’s possible.

Within our complex global system which is growth dependent for social stability, I wonder if applying the breaks will lead to devastating social breakdown.

Doomed if we do, doomed if we don’t.

This talk at Cambridge helped me think a little more about the issue:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR1C0DVEcZwaif9i6vxQs75...
The implication I took from this was that it's not good enough now, but they anticipate it being good enough by the point this is released.
Well of course not. It does not defy the laws of thermodynamics.
In fact, before the current for ... in ... syntax, this is how foreach looping used to be done:

do some_array.each |item| {
...
}
No one is faulting you for posting a summary, but for calling the article a huge waste of words.
Thanks for this saying this. It's time to move beyond Haber-Bosch. It's been a tremendous force for good, but in the quote un quote developed world it is time employ farming practices that don't definitionally exceed the carrying capacity of the land.
Only seven states have laws mandating gasahol. Gas stations in all other states are just using it for profit.
No, you cannot extract free energy from air.
I thought that i5s+ were all quad core or better, is this not the case?
> You claim that you have secret proof

Evidence. Not proof. And it's not secret. Just not something I'm inclined to share here.

> which you refuse to share, but that sounds more like a troll or a bullshitter than somebody with actual evidence. I wonder why.

Because of (1) my privacy and (2) the fact that you're attacking me like this. You're welcome to see me as a troll if you'd prefer that.
It's also possible people have reading comprehension problems.
If you want to move out of osx, but wsl is not good enough, then... why not just Linux?
Instead of weeding your grass, mix it with clover, which fertilizes and helps fill in spots where weeds might otherwise grow. Also, let some "weeds" grow. Monoculture lawns aren't great for nature.
It's impossible to use native widgets with Qt. React Native for Windows will make it possible to write applications in the React style (PropTypes and automatic propagation of updates), but using native Windows widgets.

While Qt emulates something like WinForms quite well, I don't think it emulates WPF widgets at all, which I speculate this wraps.

Given that WPF is the primary GUI toolkit on Windows, the only reason to accept Qt, is if you're making something like a WinForms application that you need to run on all platforms.

Sounds like it will bring React apps a lot closer to their Windows underpinnings:

> Sometimes an app needs access to a platform API that React Native doesn't have a corresponding module for yet. Maybe you want to reuse some existing .NET code without having to reimplement it in JavaScript, or write some high performance, multi-threaded code for image processing, a database, or any number of advanced extensions.

> React Native was designed such that it is possible for you to write real native code and have access to the full power of the platform. This is a more advanced feature and we don't expect it to be part of the usual development process, however it is essential that it exists. If React Native doesn't support a native feature that you need, you should be able to build it yourself.

Source: https://github.com/microsoft/react-native-windows/blob/maste...
> gave up on Windows a long time ago, as did many people I know

My impression is just as anecdotal as yours, but it's exactly the opposite. Windows seems to me to be gaining amongst developers, due to a combination of push and pull factors (respectively: Apple's declining hardware and Microsoft's improving software).

I'm a case in point: a few years ago I wouldn't have considered running Windows, but I was driven to trying it in 2018 by Apple no longer making any notebook hardware I was willing to use. Admittedly I'm now largely on Linux, but it's a close call between the two and I could be tempted back.
Cutting the weeds doesn't seem anything like tilling; in fact, cutting them and leaving the rest there as mulch seems fairly close to no-till.
NYC minimum wage only recently became 15/hr
Are you asking if this is a perpetual motion machine?

Edit: Or close enough to perpetual motion that it only requires the occasional replacement of nanotubes and other materials
Using Altair for most of my visualization in Python
The bell tolls for thee.

Life will survive, but we will not if we destroy the ecosystem that supports us. What will you eat when the soil produces no crops? What will you drink when the water is toxic? What will you breath when the air is no longer suited for your lungs?

The only reason people pay their mortgages to earn you compound interest is because they have hope for their future and their children's future. The future does not invent itself. We do that, one day at a time.

This is no laughing matter.
I played Fire Emblem Heroes and Dragalia (Nintendo games). I considered spending money once or twice, but did the math and concluded that the value was too low. And that seems to be the case for a lot of these games. If you think about the probability of the lotteries, it takes some serious cash to get marginal returns valuable enough to matter. A slight boost is going to cost $100 and it doesn’t really matter. The top tier players are an order of magnitude more powerful, but that costs thousands of dollars. And, on top of that, this gap can be crossed with about a year of play, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I’m fine being top 95% rather than top 99%. In both games I have reached a point where I not only am fully capable, but am fully capable with tons of resources that would otherwise cost lots of money and I simply haven’t used because the value props of events people are lured into are deceptively low.

I like these games, because they offer a small amount of tasks to do and a super long term scale sense of progression to plan out. It’s not pay to win, it’s pay to win quickly. You can beat everything freely without much trouble (or course other games won’t be so generous perhaps. I would guess idle heroes to be more of a financial grind)
Maybe they need to quickly scale up because of VC backing and thus a requirement for a high return on the investment?
The Linux ABI won.

Emulating the Linux ABI is difficult (because it's full of crap).

At some point you get tired of emulating the garbage -- it's a large, underdocumented, and fairly fast moving target.

Next step: reverse this and make Windows run on Linux.
> One concern I have with ideas like that is the policy could end up just being a subsidy to business owners, since they could turn around and pocket much of their existing labor costs (at least for low-wage workers) by passing that responsibility to the government.

They only get to pocket the money if they lack effective competition. Uber can't charge higher fares while paying lower wages and not expect Lyft or someone else to eat their lunch.
I called tech support for Ameren UE the other day to complain that their payment page is down. The rep asked me why I wasn't using IE. I said the page had worked for at least six months in chrome, and she got mad at me. So, a regression to IE-only, at this modern date. Monopolies are at least as pathetic as government agencies.
Wouldn't producing the necessary fuel to fuel itself lead to an infinite energy source, essentially making this a perpetual energy machine?
I expect a proposal of this nature to pop up relatively soon. If I had to guess, I'd say the reason they're not doing this now is because they only want to choose one option for the MVP, and they've decided that they prefer this option to that option, and that the chosen option fortunately does not preclude the future option.

Also, I would expect `await` to have mandatory braces, just as `match`, `if`, `for`, etc. do.
That's just... crazy.
Indeed, the divisions can be more nuanced too - old money vs new is also a thing.
I’ve written them myself & used sync.pool. I’d carefully test where you are using them though as I’ve had an instance where an implementation went from lots better to lots worse than the naive allocation due to escape analysis getting better across a golang version upgrade.
If you make a loan, you're still entitled to repayment plus interest--equity can just go to zero. Creditors get repaid out of bankruptcy before shareholders do. Not to mention, a business might not want to hand over ownership if it can get money by other means. There are reasons on both sides why debt might be preferable to equity.
TIL that HN people like tuna less than no-vax. Probably you should taste a proper one, not that awful mess that sell in 90% of the world.
Definitely agree on the statement "Why use Go". It seems Microsoft has made C# into a one-stop-shop for most developer needs. Web? Do what React enables you to do in C# with Blazor. Console? C# deploys to all major platforms. App? Xamarin has tons of tools for that, and now Xamarin will be given the same attention as all other C# frameworks, besides most people defer to Web nowadays.

The IDE support of VSCode and integration with tons of other languages and tools make most other languages in this day and age seem superfluous, and I assume they are taking WebAssembly as far as it can go as I've seen talks where they mention support for low-level hardware. If they can just minimize the size of the binaries and files, we will soon see C# taking the place of C++ in terms of writing portable low-level code. I don't think it will ever take over C as it will never reach that performance level and that's a requirement, but C++ has been feeling very bloated as of late, and is becoming more of a pain to work with. If I have the option of ditching C++ in favor of C or C#, I'll do so and my decision will only boil down to performance.

I'm interested in what route they'll take as it doesn't seem they are trying to compete against any language in particular, but amalgamating what makes those languages nice to use into one, and they're doing a commendable job at it.
What Is a DAG?
And they are doing MAC-then-Encrypt in 2019.

The author may be a great person and an excellent software developer, but they are an amateur in applied cryptography.

Use with caution.
I think concerns that it depends on syntax highlighting are exaggerated. Compare `.await` to the `?` operator, both of which indicate a change in control flow. `?` does have the advantage of being a symbol which looks visually distinct even without syntax highlighting – but `.await` is much longer and thus harder to overlook entirely. Also, in practice `.await` will often be immediately followed by `?`, since async operations tend to be fallible. Since using `?` directly on a field of something is very uncommon, `.await?` acts sort of like its own unique syntactic construct with a unique visual shape, helping it stand out further.

That's assuming that you know the syntax already. If you're learning the syntax for the first time without the benefit of syntax highlighting, `.await` might be more confusing than it would otherwise be – but I think the point about `.await?`, combined with the familiarity of `await` as a special operation from other languages (as well as it just being a verb rather than a noun), would strongly hint that something different from a field access is going on. If not... well, you can always learn what it does from the documentation, since it'll be one of the first things explained in any kind of async tutorial. I'm a big believer in the concept of "strangeness budget" and avoiding unnecessary syntactic unfamiliarity, but I think the strangeness is very strongly mitigated here. In any case, most people will learn the syntax with the benefit of syntax highlighting, and IMO taking advantage of that is much more defensible than depending on syntax highlighting for readability more generally.

From a historical perspective, in the debate leading up to the switch from `try!()` to `?`, people were worried that `?` would be lost in the noise within long chains, an issue that others said would be mitigated by syntax highlighting. As it turned out, syntax highlighting does help, but `?` is also pretty distinctive without it. I think `.await` will pan out similarly.

More generally, I think that once people get used to the idea of `.await` and it stops being this new weird-looking thing, the mere-exposure effect[1] will subside and people will stop seeing confusion with field access as such a big problem. Well, people already using Rust, at any rate. Ironically, once you get past unfamiliarity, the reverse bias comes into effect, where it becomes unintuitive to think how other people first learning the language will find something weird. But from that perspective, there are a lot of weird things in Rust's syntax already. Adding more is not a good thing, but it's also not as bad as it might seem if everything in Rust seems familiar except this one thing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect
I hope Prometheus becomes successful. As an interesting side effect - its success may render the need for electric vehicles less acute and maybe even not so critical at all. Especially given the not so environment friendly battery manufacturing process.

In a sense, Prometheus is a competitor to Tesla.
Would you change your position if at some point there exist a technology that modifies consent with a certain success rate so a bad actor in a free market can reliably make a significant number of people act against their interests but out of their own "free will".

Is this a matter of competence or a matter of principle?

If I can talk to some people and without threats or deceit convince a good number of them to hand me over all their savings (using a zeroday in wetware for example), does the government has a right / responsibility to stop me?

I expect ad-tech and other persuasion techniques will only become more effective. At what point do we declare regular people unable to consent similar to the way we say children and few other groups can't legally consent?
Microsoft offers software tools to secure elections
Down for me. Unable to send messages.
Well sure, it would not be a perpetuum mobile. It would take CO2 from the air to turn into fuel, and once it runs out, there is no more fuel to be made. It creates a little CO2 by burning fuel for itself, but if that is less than the amount used for fuel production (that's the scenario where it could power itself), that would be less than it needs to generate the fuel to continue the cycle.

An oil pump can pump enough oil to fuel itself (we don't need solar to power our gasoline industry). And we can eat a plant and have enough energy to cultivate more plants to eat. I would not be surprised if it works the same here.

Edit: I guess the flaw in the logic is that, where there is a lot of energy stored in oil and plants (and plants get it from soil and the sun or so, again something external), this process is the reverse of burning. So if reverse burning costs less fuel than burning, we'd have a perpetuum mobile. Is that it? I'm sorry that this wasn't immediately obvious to me (if that is even the answer), since there are so many other fuel creating and self supporting processes...
>In a healthy economic environment, loaning money doesn't make any sense.

Given how healthy the economy is right now, and how low interest rates are right now, the market clearly disagrees