skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> "...just with a singular player which might just be too big to fail"

while i agree with the overall sentiment that google is pulling a microsoft, i don't see how this line is true. if google went away tomorrow, how would it lead to an economic downturn?

it would suck if you're all in on google in some way, but most of their products have competitors and substitutes, so you could switch. maybe android losing some core services that aren't immediately replaceable might cripple phones for some folks. the engineers could certainly find new jobs, and a bunch would go on to create new companies from the things they're working on now while soaking up all the idle wealth around the world looking for any return at all.

i rarely use google for anything, so maybe i'm missing the obvious.
Show HN: Script server – web UI for your scripts
To Cut Emissions, China’s Global Infrastructure Plan May Need a Greener Path
Why do you find $PIPESTATUS useful? It is in theory, but in practice I've never found a situation where I wouldn't just want to fail the whole pipe if one part of it failed, which is what "set -o pipefail" is for.

It's good practice to start your scripts with "set -euo pipefail" and then list exceptions to that scoped with "set +..." as needed. That's the "unofficial bash strict mode"[1].

I don't use the IFS recommendation in that article. I prefer to just keep one set of shell inanities in my head, and being used to the non-default IFS behavior doesn't help when debugging other people's shellscripts.

1. http://redsymbol.net/articles/unofficial-bash-strict-mode/
Quite a few repos point people towards Gitter instead.
Please have an alternative then!
> Why doesn't Google treat all websites that load under 100ms at par with an AMP site?

Because then it wouldn't be a wedge anymore.
I would hazard they deliberately seek out situations in which they can continue to use their native tongue, in which they are already fluent; particulary in terms of employment and social activities.

betaby above, an immigrant, suggests this to be the case.
> This could change, and I'd love to see that, but without improved "programmability" FPGAs will remain niche. I haven't followed the latest developments very closely, but Xilinx seems to be moving in this direction with Everest through the addition of vector cores.

As a disclaimer, I've never personally worked with FPGAs, but a lot of my coworkers have, and I'm mostly parroting their views. And those views are...

FPGAs are a dead-end technology. For a while, they were considered the "obvious" next frontier of HPC, just once we got the programming model sorted out. And they stalled at that phase for over a decade, until CUDA came out and everyone realized just how much better GPGPUs were at providing the necessary HPC speedup while requiring far less development time.

So how do you fix FPGAs? Well, you start substituting actual hardware logic instead of emulating everything with LUTs. And as you do this, you start to end up at coarse-grained reconfigurable arrays instead.
This is a bit strange to me. It has been possible to write refcounted pointers in C++ since ages. And everybody has them in their own private library. Of Course, this introduces compatibility issues because everyone's smart pointer is different, so it is really nice that it eventually ended up in the standard library. However, it seems really hard to argue that it only now is possible to use smart points.
But the per-process gc is pretty slow, and stw pauses are still proportional to the size of the working set in that process. If you have a multi-gb data-set you have to choose between a single process with long pauses, or spreading the data across multiple processes and paying for copying, locking and cache contention. Not to mention the extra code complexity of speading operations on single data-structure across multiple asynchronous sections. In many cases, for large working sets you're still better off with one the JVM GCs.
If the public doesn't believe it can get rich investing in new stocks, then they won't buy new stocks.

What really drives IPOs is the demand. If Uber turns into an epic fail it will be that much harder for the next big IPO. It will draw in regulators, etc.

Ultimately one hand has to wash the other.
I had a dream to move back to the Bay Area and put a mill and lathe and surface grinder and all the other good stuff in a garage for tinkering after my PhD, but it seems any job that would pay enough for me to afford such things would probably not leave me the free time to enjoy having the shop.
Can you comment on the advantages of this implementation comparing to the one used in Inkscape or other popular software?
hyperloop btfo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_derailment
> You still wouldn't say "a" if you meant there was only one hill.

You wouldn’t say “a” if you wanted to explicitly convey that every hiker climbed the same hill. But you can perfectly well say “Every hiker climbed a hill” if you know that every hiker climbed the same hill. To deny this basically amounts to denying the existence of specific indefinites: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%2...
Domain Randomization for Sim2Real Transfer
OT doesn’t have to depend on central servers, but it is much simpler and less resource-intensive to do it that way. This is what Etherpad, Google Wave and Google Docs do.

As you say, both OT and CRDT come with a “tax” in that you must structure your application’ edits in a way that they can interpret. However, this is easier with OT for the text editing case, as OT uses position based addressing, whereas CRDT is identifier based (I’m assuming this is where the canonical IME issue mentioned comes from - somebody please correct me if I’m wrong).
Agreed. Another satisfied LineageOS (Nexus 6P) user here. Huge thanks to any devs that might be reading this. Our intimate private data is not a commodity!
Throughput numbers seem misleading as well for cross-language comparisons?

Each language has its own conventions for how much to rely on stacks versus specialized memory pools versus garbage collection. For example, in Go, you often have a stack per request, and can use it for some per-request data as an alternative to GC. That's going to change required throughput for an equivalent amount of work. As will differences in escape analysis.

I don't know how much that matters, but it seems like this makes cross-language comparisons pretty subjective. You need to decide what an equivalent app would be in each language. Are you comparing idiomatic or optimized code and what does that really mean? External validity seems pretty limited.
Are you trying to point this out as being a good thing? I don’t know the answer because I don’t click AMP links, but I don’t have a problem with GDPR nonsense anyway because I’m not in Europe.
There is nothing that wrong with Java 8, honestly.

Have we done better since? Debatable, but maybe.
But there certainly hasn't been a quantum leap. Two step forwards and one step back, more like (and sometimes the reverse).

Just the title shows you how much maturity the article can muster, and the rest doesn't really hold up better.
If you use it for more than 120 days outside your home country your phone operator is allowed to query this and charge you.
>Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory theorizes that we have an unlimited memory capacity

How is a memory stored on a neuron or series of neurons?

And, given that, why would the amount of memory not be capped by number of neurons and synapses?
A city for the rich, built poorly: The construction of Hudson Yards
Sure. This hasn't happened yet in all the years I've been doing this. Maybe it's because I don't use data on this card, only calls.
Microsoft's Azure DevOps already has everything corporate customers could want though - AD integration, CI/CD (even hosted MacOS build agents!), choice of TFVC or Git, task boards, testing stuff...
I think those are fair points; mileage will depend on your end-goals. We want to know how our traffic relates to real-world ad deliverability, real users in our funnel, etc. I'd agree with "Also, the concept of Visitors and Users that GA uses isn't transparent to me." but I'd add that whatever they do, is more accurate than what we could get from raw logs, as it relates to relatable business metrics.
Could that be a property of command line things in general? Is that why GUIs are so popular with non-professionals that don't want to take the time to learn to use a system properly? There is so much in terms of data manipulation that you can do with basic tools, but people will open op Excel to find a graphical button they need instead of using, I don't know, maybe `man -K` or `apt search` to find the right tool.

For years I've been trying to figure out what exactly the difference is. Terminals are seen as difficult and outdated, yet the more nerdy you get, the more likely it is that you end up using (and the more time you will spend in) a terminal. There has to be a reason terminals haven't replaced GUIs altogether, and GUIs haven't replaced terminals altogether, despite the near-complete overlap in things you can do with them. The only thing that really needs a mouse/touchscreen is when you have something spatial like photo editing, but conversely, the extreme end of the power user tools almost always use a terminal and can't really work with a GUI.
Lesson from Tim Cook: You Don't Need a CS Degree If You Can Copy Others' Code
This is important too, I've seen (and been a part of) so many team discussions and planning where it constantly goes back and forth and is mired in indecision. These conversations also often deteriorate in every parties 'nice to haves' or some less informed opinions taking equal weight as the people who are far more authoritative on the subject.

This is why small multidisciplinary teams work well. Where multiple diverse opinions come from different domains but there's clear leader in each domain.

From there it can get reviewed by other teams or layers so ideas get challenged and prodded until it gets made better.

Rather having one big group of people talking and having the loudest people the most time.

Proper delegation to smaller teams, ownership, feedback loops, and being deferential to domain experts can all help resolve this problem. Which also means hiring good people you can trust.
Considering the severe downvotes for your question: Nothing. It didn't make a difference when Google announced penalties for slow loading sites and nothing would make a difference now.

Hence why web developers of HN are so angry at AMP - it bans them from building sites filled with 20MB of JavaScript bloat. If you read through HN history, you'll see hundreds of comments belittling anytone that complained about webpage size and slow loading - usually defending it with a "noone has time to optimize things and build without these huge libraries" argument.
Thank you, I've edited the article to cite this.
As a user, I hate that AMP means that Google search results give me Google URLs instead of what I’m actually looking for.

As a developer, I hate that AMP is just another one of Google’s tentacles with which I have to contend.
Most companies prevent VOIP numbers from signing up as it is a very common fraud vector.
Sigh. You're barking up the wrong tree. OK, I'll append a third reason: maybe the speaker was confident. Yes, I guess technically just because he knows some piece of information, that doesn't mean he has to convey that information to you. Maybe because, for whatever reason, there being a single hill was not a conclusion he intended you to draw from the statement. Which means you shouldn't be drawing that conclusion. Are we good now? I think I'll rest my case here; if you think your conclusion is just as correct as the alternative then please do go around responding with that assumption as you hear people speak; I wish you (and the people you're speaking to) the best of luck.
This is way better than any iPhone ad for an informed customer. Until Librem 5 becomes a reality, that is.
I'm not making a claim about the typical experience, I'm saying that it's a near-universal that the children acquire the language faster. To me, that suggests that immersion is unlikely to be the main factor. Even if children are typically more immersed, I doubt this is the case anywhere near as often as it's the case that the children do it faster.
Workplace by Facebook: Gets a Revamp with Quicker and Easier Navigation
Relevant discussion from a couple of days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19845776
> A rail line would never dare have two high speed trains that close to each other.

Maybe not every minute, but the bullet train runs every 10 minutes during peak hour with up to 1300 passengers. I don't think that capacity is adequate for measuring 'faster' here.
Jerry (YC S17) Is Hiring Senior Software Dev, Data Engineer (Toronto/Remote)
>since when do we air quote measurements?

Ever since the process name stopped being indicative of the minimum metal pitch, or any aspect of the process itself.
No, it's akin to large governments swooping in and regulating industries when they start hurting people en masse. Web developers weren't professional enough to make the web fast. AMP isn't the right solution, but the community itself was incapable of policing itself so it was just a question of time before it happened.

Before that, people were massively moving to the apps because the web got too slow and unusable on mobile.
Great idea, congrats on the approval. I have a few questions after reading the article.

Broadly, what did you have to change to get SEC approval?

Have you considered supporting some sort of crowdfunding private model as well - like angel investing for the masses, before a company goes public?

Will you be available in all the big trading brokers for retail investors? I use freetrade (uk broker) and would love to see your stocks there.

Have you considered listings being asked to reward investors with long term dividends or bonds? I know this is usually up to the company, but the exchange could perhaps encourage it. Tech stocks often focus on growth but it’d be nice if there were more emphasis on sustainable long term growth. For most investors voting rights are pretty academic and a very blunt instrument.
Oh my. Vendor central is such a pita one can't help thinking they do it on purpose. (Also, I had to write several puppeteer based scripts for different reporting web apps that don't expose an API and vendor central was definetly the most painful to write)
> Your comment is a classic example of a "strong opinion"

What can I say, I practice what I preach ;)

I'd like to point out that your comment has many characteristics of a "strong opinion" as well, which I appreciate. For example, strong statements "i.e - I assure you: The failure is not on the part of the people who exhibit this behavior" and research based evidence. It will be of use to me in formulating a judgement on my own strongly expressed opinion. If you had instead said something like "The failure is not on the part of the people who exhibit this behavior... but this is based solely on my own personal experience and might not apply here", it would have been a much less convincing argument leading to dead-locking opinions at best.

With respect to your point about The Fool's Choice, I would think that in an ideal world, stating what one thinks about a technical matter should not be damaging to a relationship at all (unless truly fragile egos are involved). One should be free to state strong opinions in the best interest of the organization, but not be afraid to back down in the face of contradicting evidence. It should also not be about 'getting what I want', but 'getting what's best for the organization'.
It certainly does seem that way, especially with python. I wouldn’t be opposed to a fun tutorial in a different language.
Also not trying to be pedantic (is anyway) but ... should always have three .’s. (I learned that recently)
I'm not so sure why everyone is on-board with blaming Oracle out of the gate.

From one of the OP's comments, "Oracle support told him, step by step, to encrypt the database, which happened ages ago and is the root of all of this."

That wallet is the responsibility of whomever created it. Just because it's empty now, doesn't mean it's always been empty. In addition to that, what if the person who initially encrypted everything with TDE, used a local only wallet? This would explain why the ewallet.p12 file is empty. Oracle recommends that you store your master key in the ewallet.p12 file and not the cwallet.sso file, which is the auto-open file, but only on the workstation it was created on.

There could have been multiple failures here with multiple parties and not just Oracle.
I'm fine with people being patronizing towards whiny, entitled users who think they have a right to use any website they want on their terms.

If you don't like someone running log analysis on their traffic then don't go to their website, nobody forced you to.
I disagree, having a single password is a risk even if all encryption is done locally.

Why not use an M-of-N / 2-of-3 encryption scheme where the user can optionally have Keybase protect one of those keys via a 2nd factor. The user would keep the 3rd in the form of a yubikey or simply written down and physically secured.

This could improve both usability and security and Keybase itself still doesn't have access to your data.
I'm pretty certain that these are OT: Etherpad, Docs, Wave. I've done quite a bit of investigation into these too and I'm convinced that OT is the mathematically inferior, but practically superior model (it is far easier to reason about, which is important because not everyone on your team might read compsci books).

You can abstract OT/CRDT behind a step-locked view model, which should be fine for in-process. IME can be solved in this view model, too, by halting updates to the CRDT/OT between IME entries.

The problem is that, with xi, this would necessitate implementing that view model in each front-end, so there's certainly the "CRDT tax" there. xi is a bit of an oddball.
Buy Facebook Page Reviews
I don't accept this excuse. Google engineers are smart people. It's not like they are not aware of what they are building.
Ask HN: Has anyone tried using ML to design novel processor architectures?
> I can't but think Brunner was depressed. His books make grim reading sometimes. Perhaps less depressed than David Lindsay but overall he thinks humans are weak, and unlikely to find politically stable paths out of trouble.

I think this is a British sensibility, brought on by the experiences from 1914 through the 1950s. Two horrible wars, the collapse of an empire, the loss of economic dominance.
You've spent too long in the bubble. People outside of norcal can understand computers too. Many of them even work for the federal government outside of policy roles.

Not everyone is looking to uproot their lives, move to a crowded, overpriced city and sell their soul to adtech, all for a few more dollars, ya know?
My rule of thumb is to never take career or personal finance advice from mass media articles.

As someone who has been in various roles in SF tech scene for a few years now, I've never thought of "data scientist" as a "sexy" job at all. You are basically a data analyst spending more than half your time cleaning data and waiting for queries to finish running.

Same goes for product managers...very few, if any, have authority over the actual "product vision" and spend most of their time writing tickets, project managing, in meetings.
Chrome, Safari and Edge still support it - 87% according to caniuse.com
In the perspective of someone who writes Julia, which can also call directly any Python method (and R, Fortran, C and C++), that's a nice stopgap, but you really want a true native ecosystem. Not only there is more mental effort dealing with two languages at the same time (which might lead to people just use Python in the first place), the whole purpose of Swift for Tensorflow is having a language with first class differentiation support, which is pointless when the ecosystem is fragmented in multiple languages.

And there is the risk that the community simply ends up considering that good enough and just make wrappers (since it needs a lot of work to create something nearly as good from scratch). Thankfully that didn't happen with the Julia community, and the key is probably making the creation of the tools much easier so they can catch up to mature but constantly evolving environments.
> I think an under researched area is the application of deep learning to compilers. What could be done there for parallelism?

I don't think it's under-researched, because we already know that it's only ever going to do a lousy job. The problem of autoparallelization is mostly stymied by difficulty in computing the legality of transformations, and secondarily by the problem of tuning parameters [1]. We've realized that it's easier to just get the users to tell us about these things, sidestepping the problem for the most part.

> We are still kind of stuck in programming models developed back when core frequencies were scaling geometrically.

The programming model for parallelism is dataflow. We already know that: the tricky thing of parallelism is communication, so annotating all of the edges of communication makes the scheduling problem much, much easier.

[1] Theoretically, machine learning is good at tuning parameters. In practice, you get good results with the dumbest algorithms already, and the available headroom for performance is generally swamped by the fact that small changes such as function size can dramatically alter the performance characteristics of code elsewhere in the application.
We have plenty of gas turbine powered cars. Granted, the turbines are stationary and the energy is stored in the cars in batteries. :)
So penalize sites for load time / bloat. Simple as.
There is a book "A Road Back from Schizophrenia: A Memoir"[1]. Arnhild Lauveng came back from schizophrenia, got a degree in psychology and wrote the book, describing how it feels to have a schizophrenia. She describes doctors too. A bad ones and also those, who helped her to get back from schizophrenia.

I believe you would like that book, her experiences are like yours.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Road-Back-Schizophrenia-Memoir/dp/161...
> There's nothing necessarily toxic about being unequivocal.

In terms of logical necessity, no.

In practical terms, that's less clear.

> In some situations, people have experience and know better.

The problem is that the people you deal with aren't robots; being unequivocal even then can both make it harder to get people to accept your conclusions and be toxic to relationships.

Projecting your own certainty that you know better than everyone else is often counterproductive in convincing people that you do, in fact, know better on the issue at hand.
It's very much still alive, it recently got added to Edge for example: https://caniuse.com/#feat=ping

It got removed from the W3C spec, but it's still in WHATWG which is generally considered the canonical spec anyway.
I don't know, but how is it different from an onclick/onmouseover handler or a redirect uri from a privacy perspective?
Whether it's the same type/degree of security as airports, which likely adds very little over basic scanning, it wouldn't take a lot for calls to have long distance train travel institute the same level of security as is common at concerts, government buildings, some libraries/museums, etc.
>If you read through HN history, you'll see hundreds of comments belittling anytone that complained about webpage size and slow loading - usually defending it with a "noone has time to optimize things and build without these huge libraries" argument.

Any examples? My limited reading experience here has been the opposite.