skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I 100% believe everything Russ Cox says here and don't think it will make a whit of difference on HN and Reddit.

Keeping as constant Go's opinionated (for better/worse) management philosophy, I don't think there's anything the Go team can say to put this criticism to bed. It's simple: Rails can be "omakase" because Basecamp is a tiny company, and Go can't be (without gripes) because Google is a big company. Hell, it wasn't even clear a few weeks ago whether Clojure was allowed to gripe-free "omakase" status, and hardly anyone on HN has even heard of Rich Hickey's company.

Since, short of drastically changing how the project is managed --- something I don't think many Go users have an appetite for --- there's nothing they can do rhetorically to shut the argument down, I think it's best ignored.

If you don't want to use a project affiliated with Google, don't code in Go. Similarly, if you want to have large solo impact on core features of a language platform, like package management, set your sites somewhere other than Go, where fairly intensive gatekeeping to that kind of stuff is widely considered a feature, not a bug.
A Web Interface For Managing Haproxy Servers
Stockfish's evaluation function is; though; ultimately a floating point accumulation of such decision processes. In fact the leaf level scores are themselves floating point.

eg. check out the scores here:
https://github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/...

... actually realized it uses an int typedef for the 'Score' type so it's "fixed-point" I guess.
But they don't work. So many products and services are not useful. Simply not useful. On Twitter, I've started blocking every useless advertiser that decides to show me an ad... and I'm left with EXAAIR, who I'm sure is glad to target a computer software researcher with their compressed air-powered tools. There is simply too much advertising and too little space. How many advertisements, reasonably, can be sent to a person for things they legitimately want? Does that at all track with what they would see on the unfiltered web?
Google does with all corporate sponsored projects. Most non-Google commiters just submitted simple bug fixes, most or all core maintainers are Google employees.

It's this way with every Google OSS project I know of. Guava, Angular, AMP, Chrome, Android, Tensorflow, gRPC. Sometimes they even de-facto take over existing projects, like Square's Dagger DI.

Google has no open source governance model unlike Apache, the chaos that is Linux or rust, or even Java's JCP. Since a fork is so expensive to maintain over time, many of these projects are open source only in name. Google invests enough money to keep anyone from forking. Pennies for them compared to the huge marketshare they get for having massive "safe" OSS projects that companies won't worry about adopting.
Fair Is Better Than Sensational: Man Is to Doctor as Woman Is to Doctor [pdf]
And I strongly repeat that well-understood and commonly-used APIs benefit (strongly, heh) from concision and idiom.

Seriously, when was the last time a C programmer needed to figure out where identifiers like "strlen" or "fread" come from? The problem you posit need not exist for big chunks of commonly used APIs, and the inability of modern programmers (trained, it seems, on C# web service code) to see that is frustrating.
Considering there were over 1000 tornados last year (and it was a low year), I’d say they are sensationalizing.

As I type this, there is a 1 mile wide one just 20 miles from here.
No More Shiny Tomorrows: Futurism Needs to Get Real
Nothing is being forced upon anyone.
> companies would use other, hidden means to reach customers' minds.

This is currently done extensively, despite advertising existing. So this doesn't seem like a valid counterpoint.
I mean, that's what needs to be done, for the test to work.

Either Stockfish's style of algorithm needs to be ported to a GPU (and I'm arguing its possible to do so efficiently. But a number of unsolved problems do have to be solved).

Or... Leela Zero needs to be ported to a CPU.

I'm not saying a naive port: I mean a port where the programmer spends a good bit of effort optimizing the implementation. That way its fair. Those are the two hypotheticals that can happen for a "fair" test.

I'm, personally, more interested in the case of Stockfish -> somehow ported to GPU, mostly because its never been done before. I mean, I don't want to do it, but if anyone ever did it, I'd be very interested in reading how they solved all of the issues. :-)
Gene location is extremely consequential, especially in Eukaryotes (everything that's not bacteria or bugs living near hydrothemal vents). A couple of things that are influenced by position:

* First, and most immediate, are promoter/suppressor sequences. These are the bits of non-coding DNA that regulate when a gene is turned on or off. If you move a gene away from its promoter, it will not turn on and off at the right times. These sequences are so closely tied to the proper functioning of a "gene" (typically a term that refers to the introns and exons of a coding sequence), that the operating definition of "gene" should probably be expanded to include them.

* Copy number. Chromosomes take a long time to copy, and if you had to copy the whole length of a chromosome from one end to the other you'd never get a chance to divide. So chromosomes contain multiple ORIs (origin of replication). Even so, it takes long enough to copy DNA that genes located near an ORI will have an effective gene dose higher than those located further away (i.e. it will be almost as if you have two copies of the genes close to an ORI and only one copy for those further away). Granted this effect is more pronounced in bacteria with circular chromosomes and a single ORI, where gene dose can differ by a factor of 4 (or even 8) depending on location, but the effect is still there.

* Sub-nuclear localization. This is an area that is still under active study (last I cared to look...which is a number of years ago now), but there does seem to be some order to the location of chromosomes within the nucleus during interphase (i.e. when the cell is not compacting chromosomes and lining them up to split the cell). It's likely that this localization is related to the distribution of various signaling pathways so that, if a gene is expecting to be "turned on" by a specific pathway, but it happens to become dislocated in the nucleus from where the elements of that pathway are doing the work of activating genes, then it may not respond the same way to extrinsic signaling.

* Finally, and most importantly: heterochromatin/epigenetics. In addition to regulation that occurs on a gene-by-gene basis, eukaryotes are also capable of large-scale regional regulation of their chromosomes. Essentially, a signal causes modification of the histones associated with a region of DNA and the entire region becomes "condensed" into heterochromatin. A gene in a heterochromatin region will not become activated even if all of the signals that would normally kick it into gear are going full blast. In other words, if you accidentally move a gene that should be active into a region of heterochromatin, you may as well have removed it from the cell entirely!
I don't know what "a community driven project" means because it doesn't use technical terms. The established technical concepts are stakeholders, consensus, and standardization. Go has clearly delineated stakeholders. These are few relative to Go's broader user base. Not being stakeholders, the broader user base is excluded from Go's consensus process. Go's stakeholders do not appear to value standardization of the language.

None of this is inherently bad or good.
It does, genes are translated into protein products that affect cell operation. The relative concentration of these gene>protein products also impacts how a cell operates.

How efficiently genes are turned into proteins is determined by quite a few things, but one of them is definitely based on location. Upstream and downstream transcription factors will impact how many copies of a genes proteins are created.
It was 14 wins for leela and 7 wins for sf, which is pretty large for the level they are playing at. Anyway people have thought about using GPU for chess engine but it was difficult to make work. (https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/9772/cpu-v-gpu-for...). GPU and CPU have fundamentally different architecture and comparing them using just ops per second without taking into account their capabilities is missing the point.
Q: How do you know there's fuel in the Blackbird?

A: It's leaking.
Old story.
I don't know about your first point.

But your second - "as I type this" - supports what the article is saying doesn't it?
I have visited Tokyo twice and the density is not that remarkable. There are corners and blocks of downtown Manhattan where there are multiple pharmacies, Starbucks, Chase banks etc all within eyeshot. Wherever there are lots of people squeezed into a small space, they need all these services readily available 24 hours a day.

The density of Manhattan is ~73,000/sq mi[1], whereas Shinjuku is merely ~48,000/sq mi and Shibuya is only ~38,000/sq mi. Note that Manhattan is much bigger than Shinjuku or Shibuya so this should actually work against Manhattan in these statistics.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinjuku

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibuya
Because people want cheap, cleaner electricity and we haven't used up all that much space yet. Manufacturing capacity is still growing, the rest of the industry is still growing, it's not likely that there will be a year in the next 20 where global installations are smaller than this year.
You’re assuming grades mainly exist to solve an industry problem. But why should that be true? If I’m running a school I’ll use grades to further my own school’s educational goals and trust the various industries and other post-graduation institutions to figure out how to determine who best fits their purposes for themselves.

There certainly is a real value in putting the smartest (well, most able actually, but I know what you mean) people on the hardest problems. So better to use a system designed for the specific purpose rather than try to repurpose something made for a different purpose.
Hopefully there is documentation; often there is not. It's borderline criminal that nearly all examples omit error-handling code, at least for the broad-strokes classes of errors that you, as the library author, know can and will occur.

I hated Java's checked exceptions, but it did let you have some idea what kind of errors were expected to be possible. Most of the time I'm excavating deep layers of source code, monitoring and logging to see what the errors might be, and tossing in catch-all handlers to keep the stack from unwinding too far if at all in doubt.
Japanese scientist puts forward theory to solve 50-year moon rock mystery
not quickly
His comments are fine, but don't engage with any of the criticism or concrete points others have made. The "Go Is Not a Community Driven Project" post really dug into detail how, in a specific case, Go did not behave as a community driven project, and it was made very clear that Go was Google's language, not the communities.

Responding with, in essence, "but we love the community!" is great, and probably true, but...unless it's followed up by "...and that's why we feel so badly about the previous events, and have made these specific changes" (or at the minimum a rebuttal of the specific criticisms), it doesn't really....mean anything?

Keep in mind, the closest we've got to introspection from Cox about the modules issue was a "I'm sorry everyone else is upset, I must have not explained things well enough" non-apology. Which is fine! The Go team doesn't need to apologise for running their language development process however they see fit...but it does underscore the issue.

Fundamentally, a decent chunk of the Go community thinks that the modules process was fundamentally broken, and the Go team thinks the modules process was fundamentally fine. I would interpret the subtext of Cox's post as "we really wish the community would be fine with the process". No doubt.

Finally, there's something a bit patronising about this:

> I spent a while trying to work out what I want to say about the general theme of Go and open source, but in the end I realized that my talk at Gophercon 2015 is a better articulation of what open source means for Go, and what Google's role is, than any email I can write in a few hours today. You can read the blog post version, “Go, Open Source, Community,” at https://blog.golang.org/open-source, and I am including a copy below. I reread it this morning, and I still believe everything I said then.

The current discussion is about events after 2015, by people who are well aware of that talk. If people are questioning how the Go team is interacting with the community even after that talk, then maybe it isn't sufficient, and you need to do more than just tell everyone to read it again?
> Uninterested. Plumber magazines or sites? Very low traffic - no way to scale.

That means plumbers don't care about plumbing news, including your app. You have no right to disrespect their choice by spamming them anyway.

In a world without ads, not subscribing to plumbing news would be a weird choice anyway. Refusing to learn about new ways to increase productivity – like your app – means giving your competition an advantage.

> It cost you years of your time and lots of money to make this great app, and you need a lot of plumbers to buy it to afford to continue working on it.

Society does not owe you customers.
"Docker is vulnerable" is also a valid statement at present, hopefully it will improve by the forces of $$$ and tech fashionablism.
It's a quote from the warning coordination meteorologist at the National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center.

And it's not about the number of tornados. But the fact that there has been no break between them i.e. 11 consecutive days.
> I'm not sure ... or if I'm reading you as slightly more defensive than you'd intended

That one. :)

> But if a sufficient fraction of cars have traction control, and we sufficiently improve the performance of traction controlled tires at sufficiently small damage to the performance of other tires

That's a slightly different scenario, where the change is to increase safety. Then it is, as you say, a trade-off. It could just as easily be a trade-off because material is cheaper though, in which case different calculations are important.

Also, it's important to be careful not to exclude important information from the calculation even if it's about a relative safety increase. For example, if you increase the safety for 90% of the people but decrease it for 10%, and that 10% is mostly comprised a population that is unable to switch and benefit (e.g. poor people with little choice in the vehicle they drive, as they drive what's available and cheap), you might not only be forcing that risk on an already captive population, but they might also be a population that is resistant to change that would mitigate this danger (they can't afford new cars and they can't afford better cars). Conversely, shifting risk to the wealthier (more elastic) part of the market might yield more of a net reduction in risk as they are capable and willing to respond to the increased risk (or more likely, increased annoyance).

> I don't think there's a direct mapping back to syntax and highlighting.

There isn't, we're getting into the weeds, but conceptually I think there are some interesting points that apply at least partially. For example, not all changes are felt and valued by the populations they affect similarly. E.g. not relying on syntax highlighting for a language feature does not affect a person that uses syntax highlighting that much one way or another (it will likely still be highlighted in some way), but it can impact those that don't or can't fairly heavily. If I'm stuck trying to review some bug while on vacation through some crappy online git interface that isn't highlighting code well, or maybe even at all, I'm going to curse the heavens if there's a feature that's easily missed or hard to follow in monochromatic output if it's causing me problems in my stressful moment.

Perhaps that's my sysadmin history coming through, but I want stuff to be simple, reproducible, and obvious. Complexity, fragility and obscurity are the enemy, and I fight them wherever I see them. ;)
This is such an incredibly short-sighted view from astronomers. The same tech that is going to enable SpaceX to launch thousands of satellites is exactly what will enable (and fund) the expansion of humans into space — which will be more of a boon to astronomy in the long term than any number of large ground-based telescopes.

I'm perfectly happy to permanently screw over ground-based astronomy if that's what it take to get us into space.

Just build the damn telescopes in space. And stop thinking single-mirror scopes like Hubble — you could build huge multiple-segment mirrors in space — much bigger than anything on earth.
"I'm afraid the sad fact is that he's now completely destroyed."

A conclusion it is hard to deny.
I’d love to live long enough to be killed by any of these things!
That's a nice thing to say, thank you. I'm off to an Extinction Rebellion meet up this afternoon, where this kind of perspective is less alien than in the tech sector. They've had to book a bigger venue than originally planned because of a deluge of local interest. I have no great hopes, but there are stirrings.
CVos – A Bootable PDF
Maybe they make different models in USA vs Australia or probably we have a different standard of quality for the Tesla Model X price range. I find it rather flakey and poor.
This is not a stupid question at all. In fact, it is the subject of much active research. The short and extremely oversimplified answer is that a given gene will produce approximately the same protein product no matter where it is in the genome, but the regulation of where and when and how much and under what conditions that protein is produced is highly dependent on the genomic context of the gene.
The clear dividing line is when you feel bad for doing it. But money. So people do it anyway.
A better equivalent than a Starbucks would be a pharmacy like CVS or Walgreens, which do stock light fare such as sandwiches etc. Most of this food is usually dry or unpalatable unlike the savoury foods available in Tokyo convenience stores. NYC will have a "dollar slice" pizza joint open til 3 AM or 4 AM depending on the neighbourhood.
you know they are sensationalizing because they say:

> Approaching ‘Uncharted Territory’
On the Trail of Tupelo Honey, Liquid Gold from the Swamps
I explain why this is a valid counterpoint in the second sentence of my post: Today in the press we have a more or less clear distinction between advertising and content, and I think if we banned advertising it would create an unintended incentive that could lead to the destruction of unbiased journalism as we know it today.
In the context of this discussions why would it matter if someone never worked at Google vs someone who used to work at Google. They're not acting on behalf of Google when they make the contribution.
Either way, Canada has jurisdiction.
This title put me into one mindset, which was not at all the right one for the article. At least, I don't think so. I think there exists interaction outside of the Apple ecosystem.

First, I think you probably have to have read and understood this prerequisite article about Marzipan - https://blog.iconfactory.com/2019/05/what-to-expect-from-mar...

Then, you probably have to live, breathe and dream within the Apple ecosystem.

Then you can read this article about plans and musings about what might come to pass, particularly with Apple's plans to enter augmented reality (AR).

I would suggest that we will not correctly predict the "future" of interaction until it becomes the present, but I do think thoughtful attempts to create great new experiences through technology are interesting.
Your remains will be exquisitely preserved.
The correct answer would be -- it depends. But in general, yes, the precise location of a gene on the chromosome matters.

The chromosomes are organized in an intricate three dimensional structure with different levels of hierarchical organization and interacting functionally. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topologically_associating_doma... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-regulatory_module
Canon EOS 2000D / Rebel T7 Review
Stuff like this is in a sense worse. Everyone knows ads are ads. But these are 'unbiased' reviews which are totally biased, requiring them to actually distort objective information where required.
Open-Source Alternatives to Proprietary Software: Self-Hosted Applications
That bugged me at radio shack
I would always tell them my name was
Herman Munster
1313 mockingbird lane.
This town this state 66666
Phone was *867-5309
I even used this name as my warranty id and received warrantee service using that name.
Some of us had strange ideas where this lack of privacy was leading way back in the 90s.
Back then I just didn't want any more junk mail or cold calling salesmen calling my house.
Comparing then from the stuff that's going on now reminds me of that
"Boiling the frog" analogy.
I think the froggie should try to jump out while there is still time
Yes, but it's dependent on a lot of things. Some chromosomal areas are more important than others. In humans and other mammals, it also matters from which parent the DNA came from (paternal DNA is different from maternal DNA, but a woman will 'rewrite' her father's chromosomes when passing it on to her child and a man his mother's, etc). Any variation in these things could cause developmental disabilities. However, typically things like inversions and translocations and such do not have huge phenotypic differences, whereas things like triploidy or uniparental disomy (inheriting both copies of a chromosome from one parent) have a more obvious manifestation.
It seems a lot of US good is designed for easy handling and addictiveness. There is no concern for purity.
If you would like a truly disturbing look into the massacre, read through the diplomatic cable sent home by the British ambassador - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UK_cable_on_Tiananmen_Square_... ;

> 5. FACT. ON ARRIVAL AT TIANANMEN TROOPS FROM SMR HAD SEPARATED STUDENTS AND RESIDENTS. STUDENTS UNDERSTOOD THEY WERE GIVEN ONE HOUR TO LEAVE SQUARE BUT AFTER FIVE MINUTES APCS ATTACKED. STUDENTS LINKED ARMS BUT WERE MOWN DOWN INCLUDING SOLDIERS. APCS THEN RAN OVER BODIES TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO MAKE QUOTE PIE UNQUOTE AND REMAINS COLLECTED BY BULLDOZER. REMAINS INCINERATED AND THEN HOSED DOWN DRAINS.

...APCs then ran over bodies time and time again to make "pie" and remains collected by bulldozer. Remains incinerated and then hosed down drains.

I can never get this image out of my mind. A global future led by the same people involved in continuing such atrocities is terrifying.