skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
All someone said was "Await is a keyword, syntax highlighters will most likely paint it differently." Which is a perfectly cromulent thing to say, and isn't contradictory of anything you're saying. Now if someone said, "it's impossible to read the await keyword due to its placement, but since everyone uses syntax highlighting, it will be okay since it will be colored differently," then you'd have a point.

I guess I'm just so tired of folks piping up with the "not everyone uses syntax highlighting" crap almost every single time anyone even hints at the notion that syntax highlighting can help a particular piece of syntax. I guess you're probably tired of the opposite.
> Dealing with petty drama in K-12 is good low-stakes practice for dealing with petty drama in adult life.

There's really no evidence for this. The only reason anyone believes this is because modern school is a living hell and if the suffering and misery doesn't serve some practical purpose, we'd all be depressed.

The truth is that there are plenty of people who are schooled privately that turn out just fine.
Yes, and it is well known that Tesla's self-driving program reproduces Elon Musk's reckless driving habits... /s

I'm just intervening to point out that what you're saying is not what the paper you linked implies. Its title is "Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases", and the general conclusion you could derive from it is that AI programs reflect the stereotypes ... of the data they are trained with. This is why they use the right word: stereotype, instead of the charged word you used: prejudice.
Google never wanted to have these adblock extensions on their store in the first place, it just turns out that when chrome was released and had zero market share they had to make this huge compromise to gain territory in the browser arena and eventually overthrow Firefox and the competition. And when (not if, when – it will eventually happen) they do that I will jump off from the Chrome bandwagon.
When was the last time your average (non programmer) user expected search to behave like CTRL+F?

I'm not sure you're doing your users a service implementing search with SQL LIKE. I think it's probably better to divert them to Google, use a full text SQL index, use a managed search service like Algolia, or not do search. Otherwise, you're just promising them functionality that is almost always going to fail them.

Why is that?

Users have been pretty heavily conditioned to use search in specific ways that are different than finding a text in documents. They have a broad range of needs that a wildcard 'find in files' search doesn't really support. And most frustratingly users expect a single search bar to support them all. Some needs are known item - finding an item by name (like contacts on your phone). Other needs are informational - finding a fact or idea by expressing requirements. Sometimes its about getting a survey of information about a topic, or sometimes its about compare-and-contrasting different products.

The primitives available in SQL LIKE don't really lend themselves to solving any of these problems. There's no concept of relevance ranking, there's exact, direct, case-insensitive search, not to mention it's going to do a full table scan on every search...

(You'd have my ear more if we were talking about full text search features in SQL.)
Not a lawyer, but I believe that just giving something away is not technically enforceable which is why you see 1 dollar price tags, and picking it up would count as payment if the person giving it away is trying to get rid of it, the value is kind of in the garbage disposal aspect. And its not that you cant list or pick up stuff for free, you bn obviously can, but you just might not be forming a legally enforceable contract
This is a risk that has always existed and is not particularly new - how many web-based businesses have died due to changes in Google's search algorithms, for example?
>No, you're conflating "Apple has a monopoly on app stores in general" with "Apple has a monopoly on what they sell to their customers." The former is an anti-trust concern; the latter is just the basics of how a retail operation works. Which themagician has been patiently trying to explain.

Apple is using its position in one market (phone hardware sales) to exclude competition in another (app sales). It's a text book example of an antitrust violation.

>Hardware, software, and inventory are bundled into an experience by every retailer in existence.

No, they aren't. You don't have to buy software to run on a Mac exclusively from Apple, for example.
You can largely ignore what Angular is doing under the hood, tbh. If you're having performance issues, the answer is often related to change detection (aka, Zone.js).
Is that a bad thing?

If they can somehow address the insane tunneling infrastructure costs in the US, I don't really care what path they take to get there.
personally, i don’t want any more “stores”...

like social media,i don’t think we don’t need multiple committees and algorithms deciding to delist or not, what we need is a totally decentralized way to sign and notarize an app (to prove it doesn’t contain any malware etc) and provide it from ones own website (as an option)

worst case google changes their algorithm, you can still send an email, print and ad, make a poster for on the train whatever and people can go to your website etc

i would prefer that much more than relying on just app stores
I think EdTech forgets that student success has much less to do with schooling(home or otherwise). This is why education has bounced from trend to trend over the last 50 years. Because we constantly think we've found a silver bullet, but then after a decade or so, we realize it was once again correlation.

If you really look at the data, student outcomes essentially boil down to parents and the students themselves. We've see this with how standardized testing has gone over so poorly. The truth is that, outside of gaming the test system with essentially test prep style cramming, schools really have not been able to make any real meaningful changes to student outcomes.

Absolutely, schools can move the needle a bit in either direction, but outside of edge cases, I feel as though it may be a challenge to show the kind of outcome data that makes any EdTech product a must have in US education.
> Now I know you've never been in a city with an elevated train system. I once lived nine blocks away from an elevated train, and I could hear it all day and all night.

It is possible to build elevated rail that is much quieter than Chicago's and NYC's systems, so Chicago shouldn't be held up as an example of how noisy elevated systems have to be.
As someone who was exclusively homeschooled (and glad of it) my read is mostly of the first interpretation: OP likely had authoritarian parents that used homeschooling as a method of control rather than a way to learn.
Yeah, but just putting a price tag on it wouldn't change anything about the structure of students. Those with money would still pay to study those same literature, psychology, pedagogy, law, etc. That's what happened in my home country Serbia, people pay a lot of money to low-quality private Universities to get basically useless diplomas, hoping that when opportunity arises they'll be able to use that paper to catch some job opening in government or NGOs or big international companies, or to emigrate to EU. Some succeed, but majority just throws away that money...
Having seen this up close and being a good friend to both the owners and the newbs, the market based approach is non-optimal in this stiuation.

People want to be hired and trained, and need to be trained to preform the work. The issue, especially at smaller firms, is that training takes a lot of resources that aren't easy to spare. As such, the year costs and benefits aren't nearly as close.

As an extreme and simplified example: The new hire needs to be paid $50k/year. Also, the profit off their labor is $10k/year (firm makes $60k, pays employee $50k). However, training lasts 6 months. So, for half the year, they are not net profitable. That means that they are net negative their first year (0.5 X $60k = $30k lost in 6 months, add that to $50k paid out and you get $80k as the total 'cost' of the newbie at year's end. You end up at -$20k for the year for the newbie). So, to make back the cost of training this newbie, you would need for that employee to work for you for two more years (2 years X $10k/year profit = $20k. The training cost was -$20k). Then you would be net neutral. Also, not only is the new hire not 'pulling their weight', but they also take time and energy away from other employees.

To add to this, the newbie can just walk out and get hired somewhere else at any time. If that were to occur, then you really have to eat the costs of the traning and will not see any investment come back. In fact, it is likely to be going to help out a competitor.

Now, the above is an extreme example, of course. But some form of this calculus is occuring at smaller firms. Perhaps it's only six weeks of training that occurs. Perhaps they make much more profit off of the employees. Perhaps your business is growing fast and your are getting more efficient. Still, there is a significant cost to training newbies, one that many firms are loathe to pay out.

Now, economists have been talking about these issues for a LONG time. This kind of 'capital' investment mechanism is well studied, and , yes, a market is a very good way of sussing these things out.

However, we also know that markets are rational, and humans in a market are far from rational. These 'sunk cost' fallacies are very painful to humans. I suspect that they are very painful when it comes to training. You work with a person for weeks to months, watch them grow and learn, get to know them well, you put time and effort into them and come to care about them. Then the market comes in and takes all that emotional investment away, because 'prices'. It's not easy and it is not rational, it becomes (in some degree) personal.

So, yes, the employment market is a just like any other market. But training is more than that to us humans. That kind of investment is not something that can always be priced.
Unless you're certain how that ID is generated and/or linked to your identity, you've probably just put someone else at your company on the naughty list.
Most test frameworks allow you to stub imports. DI is just one of the many wheels Angular has reinvented.
Tracking every move outside of your house is A-OK but knowing your floorplan is unimaginable?

Why?
Has he specifically called out the connection or is this your pet conspiracy theory? It doesn’t seem too far off, to be honest.
OK, if you do that, I won't open any links in any emails from itdepartment@example.com, where itdepartment@example.com is the group email of my company's IT department.

I may or may not open any emails from that address period, depending on how paranoid I'm feeling.

Or... and catch me if I'm talking crazy here... or do you want to fix the email software so I can trust that only the IT department can send me emails from itdepartment@example.com which actually make it through the firewall and email filtering software and internal email security policy to reach my email account?
Modular Elixir at Fresha – Part 1: Introducing Scalpel
Seems that, regardless of platform, this was only really relevant back in 2017.
We used it for some years in a startup as a sales tool but it was very very slow and the UI and flow was too complicated for our needs. So we switched to Pipedrive which did the job, was a great success and for our usecase was much easier too use.
Downloading and executing code is only one way a browser session can be abused. At the very least you're giving away everything your browser (even Lynx) puts in the headers of a request. That's often a heck of a lot of useful information for an attacker. Lynx supports cookies too so it would be possible to track a user between sessions. I don't know how that might benefit an attacker but I'm not an attacker[1].

I think a reasonably paranoid approach like "Hackers might think of ways to abuse this that I haven't thought of" is best. Unless your job is to take a risk and visit a phishing site, don't take the risk. Even with Lynx.

[1] Exactly what an attacker would say!
I think both the multiple app store and 'apple isn't responsible for promoting your app' are both red herrings. The issue is that the search function in the app store lies to end users. To use the example in the article, if I go to the app store and search for "weigh loss tracker" I get 5 result, none of which is Happy Scale. The default sort is 'relevance', whatever that means, but i can change that to Most Popular. Still no Happy Scale. If I search for "Happy Scale" i get no result. From my perspective as an end user of the App Store, I'm being lied to. The search is not returning honest results that correspond to what I search for. This is not what the end user expects of search, they expect true organic results based on what they searched for, or at worst, a complete list with the apps Apple wants to promote at the top. In this case they are getting a curated subset of those results and not being told this is the case. Also, consider that the app store is unusable without search. There are million of apps, so is no way to browse it to find what you're looking for. If search doesn't return it, it might as well not exist in the app store.

Unless this is thoroughly explained somewhere in the dev documentation, then developers are being lied to also.

People threw a fit when Google changed the search result UI so that it became impossible to tell paid results from organic results. This is similar but worse. Google just put the paid results above the organic ones. Apple completely removes the organic results at their whim.

The author should have been promoting the app thru multiple channels and not relying on the app store search exclusively, this was an obvious mistake. This doesn't justify what Apple did though. It's their app store, and they can do what they want, but this, although legal, is pretty sleazy IMO.
no, efficiency is value in divided by value out.
One thing I've noticed in Chicago and NYC is that the old steel elevated structures are extremely loud. However, the few locations in NYC that are made with much thicker concrete structures significantly reduce the noise.

Elevated rail is not inherently noisy, but the majority of examples in the US are. This is why people are against them. If we could fix the noise problem, this could be the optimal solution. I personally think it is possible.
Making an existing tunnel wider is vastly cheaper than building an equivalent tunnel from scratch. Simply knowing the soil composition makes a huge difference.

In hard rock you can use drilling and blasting across long sections rather than just the leading edge. Alternatively, a TBM needs to remove significantly less material.
> particularly religious fundamentalists and anarchist types.

You mean the significant majority of home schoolers, driving most of the agenda e.g. around certification and curriculum standards? Public schools are meant to ensure that every child can get a minimal level of education. Obviously it's great when people can do better, whether it's through regular public schools, charter schools, private schools, or home schooling. The problem is that when you open it up to just anyone without any kind of certification, testing, or oversight, it results in a form of neglect.

> it is only available to middle and upper class families

Sadly, no. That might describe the home schoolers you see, but "home schooling" which involves little or no actual schooling is also a common option for the (especially rural) poor. Some of my own first and second cousins grew up that way, and basically never recovered.
There's also:

That we want well known standards like CTRL + F in a browser to be hijacked and replaced by default with a custom search experience that's a lot worse than a browser's search.

Try CTRL + F'ing on Stripe's documentation: https://stripe.com/docs/api/plans
I'm the PM in charge of GDPR issues at the company I work for. I don't know if I can give you any black and white answers, it really depends on a lot of factors. Some directions though:

- Try to minimize personal data in the logs or exclude it entirely

- It may be OK to have personal data in logs (e.g. IP addresses) if there is a basis for it. One example is for infosec - keeping logs to review for breaches, and pin down how the breach happened may be a good enough reason. You should disclose it as part of the terms of use.

- I don't know if you are really obligated to do per-region logs. If you are located in region A, and logs are located in region B, you still have to transfer data from A to B to look at it, so not really sure what it gets you.

I don't know if this is what you are looking for or not. Hope it helps though!
What would be the real reason then? It's not like they are workng on something else. Ivy is pretty much all they are working on for the past 1-2 years. Even to the point where events like Angular Connect are very boring because there is nothing new except this. I'm pretty sure they want to release it ASAP and be done with it.
Sound like you need to redesign your search bar on the page to convey to users the expectation that this is a simple search.
The hardware is mostly irrelevant for these two OS's. You could install both on any PC. A copy of Windows Pro is $199 (or less if you buy a PC off the shelf).

Apple chains their OS to their computers. There's no reason MacOS can't run on regular PC hardware, aside from the fact they don't want you to. The cheapest, i3 based (which is shit, obviously), 128GB hard drive Mac computer is $799.

Finally, to compare apples to apples: Android Studio runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux. XCode could do the same. Even if it was for iOS only. Which, most people would be targeting anyways.
Anchors from Fox and Chinese State TV to Hold Live Debate on Trade
> Money can hire power, if power wants to be hired.

All this means is that individuals have different currency conversions from money into power and vice versa. But in the aggregate, money is liquid power. If you've got the money, odds are good you can find someone with sufficient power that's willing to exchange.

> For example you can say I won't sell my land for any amount of money, and then money can do nothing.

Money can:

* Hire a thug to threaten to break your legs if you don't sell.

* Buy up the neighboring land, pollute the soil, drain the water, obscure the visibility, etc.

* Buy something that you would give up the land for. Private doctor for your son's rare disease. You get the idea.

Another way to look at it is that anyone who can honestly say "I won't sell my land for any amount of money" by implication already has enough money for all of the high priority things money can acquire. Being able say that itself already implies luxury.

So all you're really saying is that money won't buy someone who already has more money than you, which is pretty obvious.

> But then the government can use eminent domain to take it and you learn a little bit about power.

Except that you've taken some of your money and funded campaigns for all of the city council members so they're in your pocket and don't vote to do that. And you've bought advertising in the area to persuade citizens that they shouldn't take it.

Democracy exists fundamentally to push against the long human history of might (-> power -> money) making right. The idea of each human getting one vote is essentially an attempt to reset or flatten out the power currency economy. It's great.

But at least recently in the US, you can watch power and money reverting that back to the old way. Billions of dollars flows into campaigns every election. That money is buying something.
So like in European countries, only that in European countries you have to give up your fingerprints when you turn 14, and it's mandatory.
I don't think background noise of broad, low-effort phishing emails can be directly compared to a more focused attack. If you work somewhere with interesting data the odds of a good phishing attack leading to an exploit could be much higher because you're being specifically targeted and they're not going to send the message until they have a current exploit ready (probably hoping to get it in before your IT department's change window, too).
We do at Asana. I have not worked on it recently but I do believe that certain type signatures can have a large impact on build times.
"Unable to trim": https://youtube.com/watch?v=aoNOVlxJmow
Elizabeth Warren puts a giant tech breakup billboard in San Francisco’s face
I don't think the issue is with the market. The issue is that there's strong social signalling to have a college degree (or more cynically, social stigma that comes with not having a college degree. How many times have you head "uneducated" used as a negative descriptor?).

The fact that the value of this social signalling is diminishing is, in my opinion, a long term positive change. It does mean that some people who got degrees just for the sake of getting degrees are left out. But they aren't getting shafted by the market, they were put in this situation by skewed social norms around college education.
Yep, that's the problem with these ideas about terraforming. If you have the technology and energy to change the environment on a planet that much, it's really easier to just build O'Neill cylinders or some other large stations and rotate them so that you get perfect 1g gravity, and you can stick them in whatever orbit you want (i.e., close to Earth) so that they aren't far away and they're at just the right distance from the Sun so that they aren't too hot or cold.
New Data from the Sun May Lead to Advances in Nuclear Fusion
It will take some, but not all. That's the refutation.

The problem isn't the idea that some cost-of-living things will increase in response to UBI. It's a defeatist "What's the point, the landlords will get it all" attitude that doesn't take into account the complexity of what people spend on and the supply/demand relationships of those things.
Two white dwarfs collide, may end up as neutron star
> Realistically, how do we prevent every blockhead with an unsecured database from hoovering up personal information?

GDPR. You need to take GDPR, translate it to your local language without removing any clauses, maybe add some liability for processors too, and get that implemented as a law.
I don't understand this comment at all. The Boring Company's main plans aren't to create new and novel tunnels. The Boring Company's goal is to create cheaper tunnels.

Like, if I said I was planning on developing a wheel at 1/10th the cost of current wheels, I don't care that the wheel predates my innovation by millenia. I'm not attempting to _improve_ the wheel, I'm attempting to make it viable in an increasing number of contexts by lowering the cost.

The same is true of the Boring Company.

You can dismiss it as being unrealistic, or as the cost-savings not actually being there. But I don't understand being dismissive because we already have tunnels. Of course! If we didn't already have tunnels, we wouldn't be trying to make them cheaper!
I'm saying we'd probably subsidize the cost of some courses over others.
That doesn't look worth it at all. It cost $22 billion and the result is a narrow 1-block park through the center of Boston.

Most of those buildings next to what used to be the highway are at most 10-20 stories. A 60 story skyscraper was finished in Boston this year for $700[1].

So to a first approximation they could have had a full 2-3 blocks of parks around 15 new such skyscrapers to get the same building space after demolishing most of the buildings seen in the foreground on that picture, and have come out even on floor area.

They'd then have had had $12 billion left over to elevate the highway and put that elevated highway in a tunnel to cancel out the noise before they got to to $22 billion.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Seasons_Hotel_%26_Private...