skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would guess that the system32 issue is they wanted you to be able to merely switch your compiler flags to 64-bit, without having to audit your entire codebase and build system for hard-coded references to system32. But whatever the reason, I'm sure they could have implemented something of equal or lesser complexity that would have also made sense.
> The incentives are aligned properly here.

You sure about that? To me it seems like YouTube's incentives are to minimize the chances of advertiser irritation, while the incentives of the children would be to maximize their engagement while minimizing (the impact of) predation. Getting rid of children's channels entirely would be an acceptable outcome for YouTube, but I doubt the children in question would agree.
You just described healthcare data formats in a sentence.
> User Stories are supposed to be forecasts, not commitments.

Indeed the commitment is supposed to be with the sprint goals. I've seen this vital aspect of scrum getting overlooked too often.
Objective-C 2.0 came with 64-bit, IIRC, so 10.6 should be using it.
Ok. What’s wrong with that? Wouldn’t you want a file transfer to your own server happen when you are at home?

If you are worried about the privacy implications, when an app tells iOS that it wants to be notified when it is in a certain location. It doesn’t get your location until you are there. It doesn’t have the ability to continuously track you.
> "How could it possibly take that long? How do you not know how long it will take?"

Well, if they really said that, you can just dismiss the comment as incompetent. A witty retort may be in order if a non-technical manager is in earshot, e.g.:

"How long would it take for you to earn a green belt in karate?"

"Hmm, what does a green belt entail?"

"Exactly, you don't even know what you don't know, yet."
Whenever I've used scrum, the developers set the estimate and task breakdowns. We even had the developer _doing_ the work provide the estimate. It's not really fair to have someone else estimate your work, it doesn't breed commitment either. We did sanity check things - sometimes an estimate would seem big and everyone else would ask why. The answer was either we had missed something (typically), or (rarely) the estimator misunderstood the task and thought it was something bigger.

At the end of each sprint/cycle we shared estimate vs actual effort, to improve our ability to make a good estimate and set an overall velocity.

On my first Scrum/Agile project, there were complaints of overwork the first sprint. Then I pointed out that we were the ones setting our own estimates, setting the pace and causing our own problems.

After that, the estimates got reasonable. We stopped playing "Name that Tune" with our estimates and the project settled down.
That's a good point. Imagine Microsoft allowed third-party computer manufacturers to ship custom-built versions of Windows with modifications and third-party drivers that didn't have to be released in any publicly usable format. We'd have a real mess!

To be clear, I don't think this is a failing of open source. The problem is that Google allowed phone manufacturers to release practically anything they wanted based on the Android code base under the name "Android" and to ship with the common market (Google Play).

Frankly I don't think they should have allowed any modifications, making Android closer to how Firefox is distributed. (Anyone can edit the source code of Firefox, and even release a fully built binary based on that edited code, but you can't call it Firefox.) Maybe fewer manufacturers would have bought in at the outset, or maybe some would have tried to fork Android, but it's easy to forget what a desperate situation they were in. Outside of Apple and maybe Blackberry, the mobile OS market was in shambles because nobody was ready with high quality smartphone software. Android was a huge win and probably saved multiple companies from bankruptcy, and I think they would have eventually bought in to a more strictly defined OS out of necessity.
[1] was also all about compatibility. It's quite amazing the lengths Microsoft went through to preserve compatibility during the 32 to 64 bit transition, and how well it continues to work to this day. That all came at the expense of confusing the hell out of mere users or developers looking back years later.

It was important that programs compiled for a 32-bit windows could run without modifications on a 64-bit windows system. While some amount of 32-bit application recompiles or rewrites was inevitable, a surprising number of them could get by without modifications thanks to Microsoft's emulation & compatibility efforts.

"wow64", or windows on window64, is an emulator of sorts to run 32 bit programs in a 64-bit windows environment with various behavior changes designed to trick 32-bit applications into thinking they were really running on a 32-bit system. The syswow64\system32 thing is one such effort.

If I have a 32-bit program running I may have hard coded paths to files or libraries my program needs. If my program does a fopen("C:\Windows\System32\whatever", mode) expecting to find a dll and it's not there or cannot be opened because that's now where 64-bit dlls live, my program will blow up.

So, when running in wow64 mode, the path "C:\Windows\System32" resolves to "C:\Windows\SysWow64\System32" when running a 32-bit program on 64-bit Windows. When running a 64-bit program, it resolves to what you'd "expect", "C\Windows\System32". That's a strange name for a 64-bit system folder, as you note, but imagine if it were something like system64 -- then if I want to support both 32 & 64 bit systems, I'd need different paths and logic in my program (and it's installer, and in all my tests, and ...) to switch between the two areas for 32-bit and 64-bit systems. By having the folder use the same name (from the program's perspective) everything gets a lot simpler.

This same approach happens when you are looking at Program Files vs Program Files (x86), and in the registry, where HKLM\SOFTWARE\ is 64-bit, while HKLM\SOFTWARE\WOW6432Node\ is for 32-on-64.

This emulation is so complete that it is actually difficult for a 32-bit program with awareness of Microsoft's emulation to actually find the files in SysWow64\System32. If for example, I had an installer program that wants to install my software for both kinds of system, it is difficult if you don't follow best practices and use 2 MSI installers for each bitness and wrap them in a bootstrapping installer program.

I learned all this the hard way, by shipping a 32 & 64 bit windows library. We offer both 32 & 64 bit versions because it has to work with old 32-bit software, even to this day. It is quite confusing but if you squint hard, understand their reasoning and follow it through all the use cases it makes a decent amount of sense.
Unfortunately semvar isn’t law. Although people use it, it isn’t 100% reliable or implemented the same way every time. There isn’t an agreed upon semvar code analysis tool.

I personally think a standardized method of providing or writing change logs is the next iteration of semvar.

Currently it’s a hot mess of using a changelog file, release notes, private website, all in unstructured text format, even if generated from commits.
AI2-THOR v1.0: Near-Photorealistic Interactive Environments for AI Agents
Intro to Blockchain Seminar presented by Stanford Blockchain Club
A lot of the information here is about the (relatively stable) hooks the objc runtime gives programmers into its internals. If you’re writing ffi code to interact with the objc runtime, a lot of the functions referenced here are reasonable to call directly in the interop layer
> Scrum is iterated waterfall.

No, it isn't. Iterated waterfall is at least as old as the first paper discussing waterfall, but while scrum mandates interations, it doesn't mandate much about how work is done in the iterations, and specifically does not mandate the process steps associated with waterfall; further, it emphatically rejects the role separations and handoffs associated with waterfall during the iterations.

> munching through backlog items fed to them by product managers.

That's...not actually Scrum, as it implies that either the role of Product Owner is taken by a PM outside of the Scrum Team or that that the Scrum Team is not self-organizing, either of which is a significant (even if common) deviation from Scrum.

> the blinkers of "sprints" encourage growth of tech debt because nobody has an eye on the future

Tech debt should manifest in reduced velocity which should be noticed, taken as a signal of a process defect, and addressed in the Scrub Team’s various inspection and process adjustment points.

OTOH, if the Scrum Team is properly cross-functional and self-organizing instead of having a non-team-member imposed as Product Owner, then including appropriate restarting as components of completion of relevant backlog items shouldn't be a problem.
Another solution to that equation is that houses increase in value at 2% a year (keep pace with inflation), and yield 3+x % in rent per year, where x is enough to cover administration and provide a modest return.
Your MVP Is Bloated
I completely agree here. Instead of understanding the volatility of the requirement(s) and designing for that, we refactor and react.
> Nominalists, such as Hume, don't believe there is such a thing as 'good itself', and believe all mental abstractions are merely labelings of physical things. Thus, mental abstractions cannot be the goal of our desire. Only physical things can be the goal of our desire, and we must necessarily be ruled by our passions.

I don't think this chain of reasoning is consistent with Hume's.

Hume is an empiricist, not a nominalist: he doesn't deny the existence of abstract categories, only their a priori intelligibility. He also makes direct reference to non-physical, desirable things (it's been a while, but I'm pretty sure approbation and praise are his chief examples). We're ruled by our passions not because our ends are always physical, but because (according to Hume) (1) reason alone cannot lead us to action and (2) we clearly are lead to action all the time. Therefore, something else must be driving us.
Thus the noose tightens. Huawei is a security threat, and until they do more to show they are independent from the Chinese communist government, the noose will just get tighter.
You’d stifle mathematical innovation: after all, there are quite a few things that have been proved or discovered by people who were fortunate enough to not be told that they were solving a hard problem.
"People" don't. I don't think social media companies should be policing anything. They should be agnostic platforms.

It's the establishment and the media/news companies that are demanding facebook censor according to their liking.

And what of "dirty tricks". There are "dirty tricks" in political ads/content all over TV, newspapers, radio, etc. Hell, CNN/NYTimes and much of the media outright colluded with Hillary and the Democratic party. Foxnews backed Trump.

If "dirty tricks" is this upsetting, then we might as well shut down all media.
The author says that $6.99 a month is a no-brainer for his 12 year old daughter, but what about adults? NetFlix has R-rated content that I doubt Disney would produce or carry, and there will always be a market for that.
No. I've been blogging a lot about how it's actually underrated:

https://medium.com/@lironshapira/how-to-sanity-check-your-st...

https://medium.com/@lironshapira/when-not-to-be-a-lean-start...

https://bloatedmvp.com
Moore's law was that transistor density doubles roughly every 18 months. That 'law' has not ended (15nm ->7nm, for example), it's just that the gains are being used for things other than clock speed.
> "Where did Casey or anyone else give this impression? I think you're reading a LOT into this that isn't there."

Maybe you're right. I admit there's quite a bit of sour grapes on my part. On the other hand, I think it's more a matter of what's not said. On ATP, the relative fame of the three co-hosts is rarely brought up as a causal factor of success, and Vignette's development has been talked about as if it were an an entirely conventional process, with no asterisks or caveats. To paraphrase several episodes of discussion: "You make the app, and if it's good enough, people will write about it and you will make on the order of several thousand dollars over its lifetime. Maybe you'll even be able make a living out of it." But that's just not how it works for ordinary people. Either the co-hosts are out of touch, or they assumed that Casey's connectedness would substantially help his sales, but didn't outright say it.

To be clear, I don't blame Casey for any of this. He did nothing wrong. More than anything, I'm frustrated by the Apple media for (what I perceive to be) favoritism when it comes to picking apps to write about and prop up. Where's the journalistic integrity? You pass over so many fantastic apps, yet a tiny utility app by this one famous developer (who's friends with the higher-ups) gets a full writeup?

> "Not just that: the app has to work, and Vignette works well. And it solved the problem of the people recommending it, too. That's part of why everyone who knows Casey is eager to talk about it: the app genuinely helped them."

I think it helps connected people in the Apple indie dev scene more than anyone else. If you read the feedback in the corresponding Reddit thread[1], you'll see that most regular people aren't able to make use of its functionality.

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/bs7z8a/vignette_for_...
> I think it might be mediawiki software?

What? Wikipedia uses MediaWiki, and it looks nothing like that.

It's also functional without JavaScript.
Plenty of examples of completely anonymous altruism where the person can not possibly benefit, or hope to benefit.
Even more -- cows' milk is optimized for baby cows. We think it's weird to even drink human breast milk as adults, but think nothing of drinking bovine milk.
Objective-C 2.0 was part of 10.5 in 2007. It’s not directly tied to 64-bit support. You’re thinking of features that require the “modern runtime” which is only available on 64-bit Mac. Those features came after ObjC 2.0.
Five Tasks You Didn’t Know Could Be Done with Google Sheets
The tech media is just as much about gotcha stories as the rest of the media. Worse so, because the tech media is absolutely dependent upon its access to the tech industry, which it must always be careful to curb their reporting so as to not lose access.
> You could even mount /bin from whatever machine you wanted.

Neat! Now my system is completely unusable if another computer is down or unreachable!

And to think people around here bad-mouth cloud computing.
Jaeger and OpenTelemetry
To answer the question at the end of the post: probably none.

As others have said, it's incredibly unlikely that a tweet is going to change your mind about anything.

Having worked both in and out of the journalism industry, I know that journalists get a lot more worked up about what people say online than everyone else does. They think it matters a lot more than it does (probably why they got into the job of saying things online in the first place). Twitter is completely irrelevant to most people. They're vaguely aware it exists, but it really doesn't matter.

In TFA, you can see each tweet getting a few hundred to a few thousand likes/retweets, and most of those identified by the analysts as bots. So each tweet is maybe reaching an audience of a couple hundred humans, at best (and it'll be the same few hundred humans for all such tweets). How many of those humans are going to change their vote because of that tweet?

It's irrelevant.

But it is dangerous. Politicians get very nervous about elections. If the politicians are persuaded that any of this matters, then they'll be more inclined to stop it mattering. And that means laws that curb free speech online, monitor communication, prevent encryption, and all the rest of the shitstorm we're facing.
Because there's no such thing as a "less-high-end" home.

Person A leaves the housing unit they bought for $100k (back when housing had sane prices), to move into a $800k condo. Person B is trying to buy housing in a $200k neighborhood, where everything is currently priced at $600k. Person A's housing unit they just "left", gets listed for sale at $650k.

By your perspective, you perceive this as a "less-high-end" home just opened up. But for 95% of everyone in the country, this is perceived as yet-another $50k jump in the market price.

There is no such thing as "less-high-end" homes anymore. There is no such thing as trickle-down housing. Property values rise too fast (even in areas where construction outpaces population growth).
Excellent marketing! I checked out the author's product, Statusgator, and signed up for a $30/mo plan. It aggregates statuspages of all the vendors we use, and pings our slack channel. Super useful!
There Is Too Much Stuff
80s "Personal Computer World" was pretty much the european equivalent to byte, and it was usually around 900 pages and 3/4" thick too - although most of that was adverts, naturally.
The functions the the runtime exposes are relatively stable API. It’s the implementation details and structure layouts that are subject to change.
Shared memory is way outside the scope of standard C or C++. It's implementation-defined. It's inconsistent to insist on the weakest definition of atomics allowed by the C/C++ standard(s) and simultaneous invoke one of the weirdest implementation-defined mechanisms defined by POSIX. If your implementation provides shared memory of some kind, it's up to your implementation to define some sort of reasonable semantics.

In POSIX' case, it's up to POSIX operating systems to define reasonable semantics on the memory, using constructs like PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED and "robust" pthread mutexes.
Yes! One thing I don't see people mention is that Scrum requires that everyone on a team to be competent. It's for teams that are already great that want to be even greater. It's not for teams with inexperience and incompetence. My guess is many people are afraid of scrum because it may out them as incompetent.
If it works then it's not silly! Thanks for sharing :)

If I understand it correctly, you build locally and then upload to the server? I have this setup for a few webservers that I have limited control over, so just FTP/POST documents to upload content.

When I have proper control over the server, I much prefer to have the server build the documents. The benefit is that I can simply write a new blog or something from my mobile whilst in a meeting, commit and the server auto-generates the new content. I just need a web browser, GitLab, GitHub and BitBucket all support some form of basic editor for markdown.

Interesting take anyway. My feeling is that I want to do more experimentation on my server and build more "rough and ready" web projects, with the knowledge they will probably fall over more easily and have security flaws. The service goign down is one thing, the entire server being compromised is quite another. I think this points towards introducing some container system. I'll have to learn me some docker.
This author doesn't give enough deference to the market. Building more housing will not work, not if the current economic incentives exist. I would love to build housing in compact cities; I could make a fortune. It will take significantly more housing before the market will start to feel the impact, and will be forced to reduce prices due to too much supply. More housing, more affordable housing, more taxes, all of it will still be at the whim of the market.
> Why would they pay for the order flow and create smaller spreads which makes them less money?

Competition. Why does Coca-Cola spend money on advertising, driving up their costs and (seemingly) ensuring they make less money? Retail order flow is essentially free money for the market maker who gets it, and they compete with each other to obtain it. That competition shows up in a mixture of tighter spreads (ie, better than the "best price" for the customer), and payment for order flow. And payment for order flow, in turn, shows up as some mixture of lower fees or higher margins for the broker.

At a big picture level, retail orders are valuable, and that value will be split between the market maker, the broker, and the customer, with the exact split depending on a number of factors.

> I don't see what you mean by savings - if they're making less money, how does that translate into savings for anyone?

Keep in mind, market makers make money by being extremely efficient at buying stocks when people want to sell, and selling them when people want to buy, minimising the stocks they hold at any given moment, making a tiny amount on every transaction, and making it up on volume. If the incoming orders are "uninformed", ie, it's just a dentist in Milwaukee daytrading his retirement account, then this is very safe. If the incoming orders might be "informed", ie, it might be the first indication of a fundamental shift in the value of the stock, then this is not safe, because every trade could just be noise, or it could be the start of some hedge fund shifting a billion dollars into or out of the stock.

The NBBO (National Best Bid and Offer) is the best available price for "mixed" order flow, that captures the risk to the market maker that, if they fill the order, they might be about to get run over by a bus. The more they can get order flow which is safer than that, the more they can afford to beat that "best price". They do this because they believe that, on average (and after adjusting for risk), they will be making more money, not less.

This is all pretty concrete, nothing here is new, every broker does this, and it's all very well understood. If the current best ask is $X, and you can promise that you're an uninformed idiot who has no clue what's going on and just wants to buy 50 shares, then you can find someone who'll give you a better rate than $X. If you're Bridgewater and you want to buy 50 million shares, you won't.
How can it be a Chinese company if ARM is a Japanese company now?
> vi, emacs, ...

>> Try acme or sam.

The idea that your OS determines your text editor is fundamentally broken.

The idea that your OS determines your GUI model is also fundamentally broken.

Both of those notions destroy loose coupling, which is a fundamental design principle.

And this...

> objects

>> BellLabs didn't need them since the complexity is back under control.

... is really too incoherent to refute.
> Stop the notion of being nice to the lack of skills of people.

Projects don't fail because people are "too nice".

Projects staffed with fully qualified people with hardcore skills fail too. And projects staffed with utterly under-qualified people sometimes do just fine.

The thing is projects succeed or fail for many different reasons, usually multiple reasons operating in concert.

I think the best approach is not to be dogmatic about process and to recognize that "pointing fingers" rarely resolves anything, regardless of whether one is pointing at the process or the people.
I think they got funded by someone and now Tim has left MIT and works for the funded version of this. Forgot what it’s called. I was in touch w the team in the past. Tried to join forces with https://qbix.com/platform because I felt we were much further ahead but needed more standards compliance. It never led to anything so I haven’t really been following them. But Melvin Carvalho and the team are still activeon github.
Low level crime slowly becomes a drain on the entire neighborhood. Theft, vandalism, taking a crap in the street, it all adds up. Eventually the police will find a way to reduce such crime, or citizens will start building gated enclaves and hiring guards, creating the burbclaves that Neal Stephenson warned us about.
Which part didn't you understand?
With fake reviews in the opposite direction?