skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The challenge is scale, if you aren't using a very flat and controlled (database like) rule system - so more like a knowledge store than a reasoning system - then you run into big problems of complexity real fast. But even worse is the brittleness. Everything is fine, until it suddenly isn't and then you discover you can't touch anything without everything blowing up.

On the other hand, if you have a system of case statements or if thens that is a bit opaque (or very opaque) refactoring them to use an expert system is a very good idea.

And, if you have a homebrew knowledge store then using a rule system is also a good idea - but now-a-days you might want to try building a knowledge graph instead, mostly because that's v.trendy.
I use an app that changes the colour to minimize blue progressively through the evening, and fade it back in over the course of the morning sunrise.

It looks great at night, but if you turn the lights on, you realize what looked normal in the dark is a really bizarre orange by day. And it totally works - doesn't burn out our eyes when I read in bed, and has significantly less impact on my ability to sleep.
All of that assumes that we would still be using old-fashioned phone calls.

Why, when analyzing some proposed future "improvement", do we assume that everything else will/must remain unchanged?

The general case with civilization and technology is that progress happens when multiple factors improve independently but happen to complement each other in tandem.

Society is already moving away from blind phone calls. People no longer seem to appreciate calls that aren't announced via text beforehand.

In the "future", everyone would/should have rich presence and status messages to see when one is asleep, busy, or available, and interact with them accordingly.
Ah, I see. Thanks for elaborating!

Yeah, true that it could be an obstacle. I wonder if the UX of any application for this could solve that by showing indicators of when the last data was fetched/sent, so users could know about possible stale-content.

I guess the problem of "everyone else sees the same thing as you do" is also a part of Git, where everyone keeps their own copy + a link to upstream. Seems to work well, wonder if we could possibly do the same with issues/PRs.
> my limited experience with SQLAlchemy felt pretty underwhelming in comparison

That's interesting, because I usually hear of people having the exact opposite experience. The appeal of SQLAlchemy is that it lets you work at any level arbitrarily—you can use its high-level operations and abstractions for the 80-90% of common cases, but then drop down to its lower level and write complex queries where needed (including CTEs, window functions, stored procedures, etc), without ever resorting to writing SQL by hand. Django's ORM, in comparison, is very limited in the types of queries you can write with it, and is difficult and unintuitive to optimize.

Edit: That said, the Django ORM has improved by leaps and bounds over the past few years. These days, I'd say it gives you a way to cover about 90% of cases in an efficient manner (even if it has a bit of a learning curve). But if you're consistently doing more complex queries, I think SQLAlchemy is vastly superior.
I disagree, and SQLi is not simply prevented by avoiding user input. There are many cases where you need to use user input for a SQL query and its a valid pattern, and can be done securely with Prepared Statements or Parameterization.

Using an ORM discourages you from writing SQL queries and it also automatically parameterized queries. This is a good thing! In fact, from experience, the single easiest way to mitigate a naive developer from introducing SQLi is requiring them to use an ORM. People should not be constructing SQL statements by hand today, its too easy to mess this up. SQLi shouldnt be a thing in 2019, but, it is.

My point is it is VERY MUCH not orthogonal, its very much related. Avoid naive SQLi, use an ORM. Directly related.
heres a random search result that is code that cites that paper for its own strip generation

https://github.com/zeux/meshoptimizer/blob/master/src/stripi...

source: went to https://sci-hub.tw/10.1109/VISUAL.1996.568125

then searched one of the author names + github

paper title and authors are
Optimizing Triangle Strips for Fast Rendering
Francine Evans Steven Skiena Amitabh Varshney
Sounds like you don't even have source control and a CI system.
The datasheet covers hardware + software (instruction encoding, I/O registers) and it's all in english here: https://datasheet.lcsc.com/szlcsc/PADAUK-Tech-PMS150C_C12912...
Oops dammit, I meant right foot, but got confused since it's the left pedal.
What is the reason for wanting to be an engineer? It can't be just pay?

I view software as one of the few creative disciplines where you can actually be creative. Most people wanting to do far more creative things tend not to realise their dreams - working in the arts, getting published as a novel writer etc. These creative types don't imagine software to be creative, or imagine it to be a cutting edge medium.

I don't meet many programmers that see it that way, they would prefer to get promoted away from writing code. With more money.

It also matters to me for my work to be in the final product, not in a design document that nobody follows. Again, people aren't generally desperate for that.

So why the reason to have 'engineer' status? This being at Squarespace which is a bit like mySpace to some extent and not really 'engineering' in quite the same way as normal 'engineering' in manufacturing.
Yep.

I used a Microsoft Trackball Optical for many years, and found it much easier on my hands. After some time I found that I was much more accurate with it as well, and about as fast as using a mouse. I played a lot of CS with that trackball, and I never once felt it held me back.

I did get made fun of a few times at LAN parties when I whipped that thing out, though!

I miss LAN parties :(
The syntactic approach subsumes the more semantic approach where the graph structure is made explicit. So, yeah, you can "compile" list structures to the binding graph and indeed you must.

Having more granular distinctions always helps in that it's easy to "forget" how things are different. It's also more primitive in that you have to actually do that step. It also leads to opportunities to do "wrong" things like anaphoric macros.

This is essentially a tradeoff where more power is offered to the author of the macro and less to the reader.

To make another comparison, we can take it one step further: a macro preprocessor which had access to the actual character stream can elect to do things not possible in lisp macros—e.g., distinguish on indentation or something to that effect—but also can recover all of the lisp macro techniques by merely parsing the character stream.

---

The heart of all of this, popping the stack up to my original comment, is that for lots of macros you don't really need to care at all about binding structure—or at least only minimally—and thus you can get lots of practical work done doing "just" syntactic transforms.

Once you are really working over a complex call graph—which is common in more complex DSLs like probabilistic programming languages—then CPS becomes really important as you want a way to split call graphs into pieces and a practical way of doing that is (value + continuation).

Worth noting, CPS transformations are a popular technique in more sophisticated lispy macro transforms, too.
Not having admin rights is absolutely the norm in corporate environments, and any business who entrusts anyone but IT with admin rights is going to be a bad investment bet, because everything they have is going to end up getting torched or leaked online.

That being said, you definitely have a more painful process for approval of software in that industry (and I'm not too surprised). Where I work, if a user requested VS Code, I'd load it up in our software distribution system, and remotely push it to their PC. I certainly wouldn't take their PC off their hands for a month and a half.

Usually if a user needs a system setting changed, it's a peeve for multiple people or applicable to a whole department. We can push out policy changes to groups of PCs or users which make changes to their PCs. Unremovable desktop shortcuts can be removed about a minute after someone sends me an email, but are generally there on multi-user PCs where a shortcut should be available to anyone who might log into it.
You shouldn't use your left foot for braking unless you're a sports driver. I just mispoke.
I never said sue. I said pull all the stops to make the project and the developer go away (or coopt it). Maybe that includes suing but probably not given how expensive lawsuits are.

Usually companies are intelligent enough to use tactics that has the greatest likelihood of success: mafioso tactics. The developer won't, in all likelihood receive a lawsuit. He'll be given an offer he can't refuse.
Yeah, I'm playing around with the idea of using the background image trick to profile the integrity hash speed of the visiting browser.

That little background image feature in CSS has given up quite a bit of data in similar situations (people used to use it to check browsing history of :visited links before browser started blocking that).
There shouldn't be collisions. I mean that really: if you see a collision it's so much more likely that your computer / program / source of randomness is faulty [as in this case] than that the two random numbers collided that it's not worth considering the collision case.
Before iPhone, Apple had ~160 Stores, and were expanding as quickly as they could, by 2007 they had nearly 200 Stores. And that was only serving ~30M [1] Mac users and less than 100M iPod users.

So how many stores did Apple add while having an extra 900M iPhone, 300M iPad, 70M Mac active users? 300. As of today Apple had roughly 500 Stores world wide.

Even if they had 1000 Stores worldwide serving their 1B+ Customers, the store to customer count is still insanely high.

Apple was actually expanding Apple Store as quickly as they could all the way to 2015. Given the quality and demand Apple requires it was still opening nearly 1 store per week. Then from 2015 onward there were only 60 Stores opened, most ( if not all ) of them were planned before 2015.

I still think giving Apple the brand image make over in Apple Retail were good, but it doesn't have to a trade off to Genius Bar and Stores Count.

[1]Speaking of Mac users, I have yet to see anyone to point out the number of Mac unit and Churn rate. Tim Cook said half of the Mac were sold to new comers, and they are mostly from China. That is roughly 10M. We would then expect Mac user base to grow at ~10M per year, assuming no one is leaving the ecosystem at a noticeable rate. Except it hasn't. Apple had ~55M Mac users in 2011, they said they were close to 100M users in early 2017. And only manage to hit the 100M in late 2018.

Or May be my analysis is wrong.
I forgot about dry cleaners.

A friend of a friend worked construction during summer vacation, and when excavating a site that was corner gas station and adjacent laundry, a few workers were overcome by fumes from the gasoline/diesel/dry cleaning muck that was a few feet underground. He quit that day!
I've bought three so far. Work, Home and one for an ex absolutely love them.
One thing that has disappointed me about science fiction in this regard is that, when the idea is considered, I've only ever seen that consideration from a dystopian perspective. I'm not aware of any serious attempts to look at it from a utopian perspective, treating our current view that privacy is a desirable thing as something that may eventually be as archaic as the presumption that a person's skin color tells you all you need to know about them. Could privacy dissolve enough that it becomes an equalizing force? Imagine if politicians, lawyers, advertisers, etc could no longer conceal the truth. (Any reader who has seen a good SF treatment of such, I'd love to hear about it).
To be more specific about what the other responses say:

Being "equivalent to a TM" and being "equivalent to the Python compiler" mean the exact same thing. Pretty much every widely used model of computation is equivalent in computing power to Turing machines. The notable exceptions are all weaker than Turing machines, such as arithmetic circuits.
That title is pure 1%er American.
Good suggestion.

I have decompiled the version in production. I will admit that reading it, is extremely frustrating as there are no objects and fields are named field1, field2, field3.
> All those, I believe, would be satisfied by using a urandom which is implemented the way I described.

Do you want all of your AES Keys to be generated from one 256-bit random number generator? Or would you feel more comfortable for each AES Key to be independent sources of entropy? Assume all AES Keys are 256-bits for the rest of this post, to keep all encryption targets at 256-bits of security.

If an attacker breaks urandom, they effectively gain the key-generation for all keys that were based on that entropy pool (at least, until its 'entropy fills back up').

So if you're a server handling say, 100-connections per second... and for round-numbers sake, lets say that /dev/urandom generates 256-bits of entropy every second. If you break /dev/urandom for a 1-second interval (ie: you figure out /dev/urandom's 256-bit key for that 1-second interval), you now know all keys to all 100-connections that happened within that second.

If all 100-connections grabbed their own independent sources of entropy (/dev/random), then it wouldn't be possible. Probably because 100-connections per second would block and your hardware wouldn't support it. :-)

But yeah, its a question of "what do you want your server to do when it runs out of entropy". Do you want to just use pseudo-randomness to "fill in the blanks", which increases your attack surface. (All AES-keys you generate within that time period will have weakened security from an entropy perspective). Or would you rather BLOCK, and simply not support that case? (waiting on /dev/random will cause the server to slow down)

Since 256-bits of entropy is such a huge amount of security (if done properly), I think I'm inclined to agree with you. But still, its an engineering choice that has to be made.
I use HESK for this purpose.
This almost sounds like a case where the city cheaped out (maybe the budget just wasn't there?), and went with a third tier supplier.

I noticed the article noted that units supplied from Cree, used in other areas of the country, are performing up to standards and not dying like the ones in Detroit from Leotek.

To me, it's one thing if you're a hobbyist or something looking to save some bucks so you buy cheap LEDs drop shipped from China via Ali Express, from some rando vendor and manufacturer. If one or more die, usually it's not a big deal.

But if you're building a product, or installing something commercially or at a government level, you should do yourself a favor and not go for the lowest cost. While I'm sure Cree LEDs are probably manufactured in China, too, they are likely made to a much different standard.

For all we know, Leotek is using relabeled parts that are marginal or failed to pass QA inspections at other manufacturers, but they got a great deal on barrels of rejected LEDs, and decided to go into the commercial light manufacturing business.

I honestly don't know who or what the company is. What I do know is the name "Cree" and their quality (which also comes with a hefty $$$ price/cost) - but "Leotek" sounds like a company you'd find in a random search on Alibaba.

Maybe that's an unfair assessment; sometimes when ordering a large volume of parts, you'll get entire batches that fail in the real world when they passed QA fine...
Unfortunately handling the model makes me unable to use the button, but it's a neat hack I'll keep in mind!
Yeah, I misspoke :P "left pedal" vs "left foot".
> I've always wondered in cases like these what they actually DO with the money after they fine huge companies like this... As in, how would they remedy the damage? Would they use it to go after companies that made money off of people's personal data or make them develop better privacy features or what else?

The answer is but a Google away: except for the CFPB, the money goes to the same place your tax checks go: into "the U.S. Treasury for general use."

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Where-Do-Those-Huge-Fe...:
Ebola outbreak threatens to escalate as violence rises
There are much better and more comfortable mice now. Logitech's MX line of wireless mice are more comfortable and precise. Their gaming mice are also better if you prefer wired.
Idk, but Microsoft cites these differences for the performance improvement.

Maybe things can be speed up/cached when you are one-to-mapping the syscalls to NT kernel.
Yeah. I dun goofed.
I don't know what's idiomatic in Go, but I would do whatever makes the code easiest to understand (if that could be an issue). Modern compilers are very good at optimising pass-by-value into a pointer, so write first then measure and then optimise where required.
Some of my highlights:

- The big move to on-device ML for things like speech recognition. This was especially demonstrated with an accessibility angle, showing global subtitles available for any application. And an assistant that allowed you to answer and reply to phone calls using TTS and back.

- Android Q big focus on privacy, promoting privacy to a top level menu item in settings, as well as adjustments in apps to provide ready-access to privacy features.

- Large focus on security, including calling out Gartner reports many times, having the most secure operating system in a number of tests, and most secure device (Pixel).

- Google Home products rebranded as Google Nest. Launch of Google Nest Hub Max ($229), with Camera allowing for Duo calling, and a nice hand gesture to silence the device when loud/noisy (no more shouting)

- Pixel 3a (XL) devices launched, at a lower price point of $399 ($479) with a decent set of features. No longer Verizon exclusive.

- Google wants to be "Helpful"
The majority of our company, especially on the engineering side, is remote employees. Honestly not a bad idea to ensure there is an employee hardware failure plan in place.
I guess if I do rewrite, I shall write about it as I go. If I fail it will make for a good story.
SymPy Gamma (https://gamma.sympy.org/input/?i=integrate+x%5E2) sort of fits as an alternative, though it's not very good at parsing general questions/expressions.
I am quite disappointed that both the article and the comments dont mention application security. USE AN ORM. Unless you are a hotshot SQL dev who knows the intricacies of every RDBMS, you should be delegating this to the ORM. Its there to prevent you from blowing your foot off by introducing SQLi vectors. Use an ORM, avoid SQLi.
Ledger-based authorizations as explained to 8 year olds
That live transcription built into Android Q that works on device and for any app is incredible. I can see so many uses for that myself, I cannot imagine how awesome something like that would be for people who have difficulty hearing.
It's funny how one gets stuck on things like that. In between my family's 286 and our first Pentium, we didn't upgrade. Consequently, there's a part of me that still believes the 386, with its awesome Turbo button, to be unattainable high-end technology.
Scaling and Benchmarking Self-Supervised Visual Representation Learning
My website: https://www.rasikjain.com

I have built this website with Hugo Static Generator. I found that Hugo has lot more variety of themes to choose and easier to understand the structure. I also like their templating engine. Set up is very easy and building and compiling the site is very fast.

I have also tried Gatsby before finalizing to go with Hugo. IMHO, Gatsby is equally good. However Gatsby is well suited for developers with bit of react knowledge and has limited set of theme selection. For performance, I like the pre-fetch functionality of Gatsby.

Here is my current setup.

1) Hugo Static Site

2) Code repository on Git

3) Automated build and hosted on Netlify (Simple and easy to use)
The Google Pixel 3a: A mid-range phone with a flagship camera for $399
> Or maybe you're saying that if we trace back costs into the economy, from the workers, to the grocery stores where they buy their food, to the farmers, etc. etc., it all eventually comes back to energy.

Yes. Of course, this is greatly simplified and I'm not entirely sure where to put capital costs in my theory. But I think I'm not too far off. And of course I'm purely talking about energy, not whether it is environmentally friendly or not.

> In that case the energy return on investment is going to be 1:1 in steady state, which indicates that's not a useful metric either.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If I pump up a barrel of oil from the ground, I end up with more energy than I started with. Otherwise I would not do this in this first place, because I could not make money.
So, he's just been sitting around for several years just waiting to "take action" ... doesn't really make sense. I'd also like to think that Jan Poeschko is smart enough to read a contract.
> Every human organization involves politics. And every non-profit organization requires a budget. The rest of that jargon is only semantics unless you're actually opposed to structure.

I think it's clear what kind of politics I mean and what kind of budgeting I mean. I am strongly (probably given the communist past of my homeland) opposed to any government having any part in it (since it is not absolutely necessary since no one will die), not against structure. Actually it should be decentralized alike Bitcoin.

> Also added: Your government doesn't change that quickly. Your current administration does. That's the part that illustrates what I'm saying—the people can change dramatically while the system may not. It's a bug in some contexts, but a feature in others.

Eh, no. I actually meant government, and that's the whole point. You're attributing stability to entities that don't have it. Last 100 (101 actually) years:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Czechoslovak_Republic

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Czechoslovak_Republic

--- Second world war ---

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Czechoslovak_coup_d%27%C3...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czecho...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

(and you could declare further changes as similarly significant, such as joining NATO, the European Union and then the Lisboa agreement, however these weren't actual changes of government but only de facto and partial so I don't list them)

> Sure. That would be a good start. Wikipedia is young, however. There is merit in something lasting long enough to be considered old.

Whole computing field is young ;-)

> (Also not sure why you're dictating what I'd "like" here)

Disregard that, it was an idiom from my native language meaning that there is really a lot of choice, so much that you might be overwhelmed (and hence dislike the large list of options)
On the flip side, when a change doesn't take long to implement because of a successful campaign waged against technical debt, it's important to communicate that to the stakeholder too, even though they won't ask. I implemented such a change on Friday afternoon and made sure to talk about why it went well at sprint review and at sprint retro.