skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not just about what we are used to. The argument about where the "central" point in the scale matters (for seconds and for grams) because the prefixes are by their very nature logarithmic, with "easier" distinctions made close to the center point/0-point on the scale axis than further away in the scale.

milli-, centi-, deci-, deca-, hecto-, kilo- are all six very close surrounding the 0-point/origin. Everything else gets logarithmically further out.

Using second as the 0-point is great for computation, as milliseconds and even microseconds can matter to a computer, but it isn't great for the human perception of time where people are bad at even granulizing events that happen in deciseconds, leaving nearly all of the decimal prefixes almost useless in human timescales.

Which is why you see the French Decimal Time system mentioned in the article here and used by the poster above in this thread centered around the day as its 0-point. milliday, centiday, deciday, decaday, hectoday, and even kiloday are all relatively useful units in a human timescale.

While you are correct that we don't "need" that kind of vocabulary, the argument is that it would be useful in conversation and in day-to-day (fig. and lit.) math. Having additional prefixes serves as mental anchors/frames for the conversation. If I give a number of seconds to you as hundreds of milliseconds versus deciseconds, that gives you additional context about my methodology and/or focus in whatever that benchmark was. Sure, you can easily convert between the two prefixes, but that context can be useful.

Just as the difference between if I tell you something is happening in hundreds of minutes from now versus threes of hours from now. There's probably a useful contextual distinction there. That's why people play with solutions like Decimal Time changing the scale altogether away from seconds to something more like an Earth day, or in the other direction explore ideas with more prefixes to fill in some of the logarithmic "gaps" such as myria- and hebdo-.
I think the law needs to recognize an intermediate expectation of privacy. Right now we have a hard level[1] or no expectation at all[2]. And that's it. And intermediate rule should make anything but incidental recording criminal[3]

[1] Film a lady in a dressing room? go to jail.

[2] Topless at the beach? Perverts can record you and upload the videos to porn sites.

[3] Camera recording people around the store, legal. Using AI to track who they are and collate that with other camera's? Felony, go to prison.
I can comment on this on my own:

1. Java - did not want to adopt the entire ecosystem. This is very much wanted a banana and got the whole jungle with a gorilla type of story.

2. Python - dynamic. Don't want that. Go's minimal typing is perfect. It's easy to deploy (binaries). It's fast. It can scale well. It's opinionated (love this).

Python and Java both encourage and allow developers to flex creative solutions that are hard to maintain long-term. Sure, seniority helps with that, and being part of a good team; however using Go, you just run into that less due to the conciseness of the language and strong idioms.
It's a side project. :) The "environment" in this case would be k8s. My (small) point was that that component is straightforward to upgrade if needed.
I would almost be tempted to drop iOS. The holy grail for a product is to find the problem you can provide a 10x better solution to. I wonder if you’ll ever be able to be 10x better for creating a website for the vast majority of iOS users. But I would bet a lot of money that you can be 10x better for a majority of Android users. Earning revenue from that market is harder, but it’s not an insurmountable challenge.

Anyway, you know what’s best for your product. Great work on what you’ve done so far.
provided by starlink
When reading these stories, part of me wants to give up and switch to the dark side. Instead of worrying about whether what we're doing is even useful for anyone, I could be earning money and prestige by leading large companies to deploy random SaaS solutions. What's not to like? I mean, except making your organization waste couple billion dollars and hundreds of man-years?
Battle of the bulges: Have astronomers been wrong about spiral galaxies? (2019)
Steve Jobs could not get trademark on McIntosh but was able to negotiate for Macintosh

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/flashback-1984-apple-...
Seems to be a DoS against the application using cryptoapi. certutil <cer> seems to hang but can be killed without negative effects on the system. Ant timeouts in cryptoapi ops will prevent this. According to the report: Severity-low

I'm really dont think forbes is a good media for publishing the digest like this - the public there is very broad and dont have the expertise to evaluate what've been presented.
F-35 hit with damning reports as Pentagon eyes full rate production
> Downvote posts?

I think both in practice and in theory the function downvotes serve for comments are served by flags on posts.
We love Meteor too, but have been very disappointed by how MDG has seemingly abandoned it. We had so many expectations for things it would be doing by now that never materialized because MDG moved onto other shinier things.
Thanks for sharing those. (I wrote them.)
>But what if you are pirating a legal stream?

The glass only appears on the (vastly more expensive) pub licensed feed, not on the consumer feed. The higher cost and much smaller pool of licensed customers reduces the likelihood of someone pirating the feed and vastly simplifies the process of identifying the leak. A pirate could burn in the right logo to a standard consumer feed, but they'd need daily information from someone who can view the pub licensed feed.

Given the incredibly devious history of satellite anti-piracy technology, I would fully expect Sky to have a bunch of other, subtler data hidden in the feeds and codecs.
No, that's unproductive. This approach will only lead to the black market staying black.

Drugs are recreational. By outlawing, or otherwise restricting drugs, a government admits to a decision to not provide environment and opportunities for recreation, or any other affordable opportunity for fullfillment.

By not removing those restrictions entirely, it admits it still desires the resulting oppression. So it's pointless.
Back then we just paid, don’t know if this changed. Oracle and PL/SQL was deeply embedded, I don’t think this would be feasible. There were terabytes of beam data in Oracle DBs and lots of software relying on the dialect.
> if you can get away with monoliths, you probably don't need Kubernetes

Right, especially if you're doing microservices the "right way" which means, each service has not only its own app setup but its own data store. I am responsible for (among other things) maintaining and scaling my company's infrastructure, and while we do have some vague concept of microservices (app, api (monolith), queuing system, various ML apis, headless browser, etc) it is always always ALWAYS "what's the simplest way to do this?" Microservices are a ton of moving parts, and adding in their own data stores is another can of worms.

We have a need for a scheduler. We are using Nomad internally. I chose this over Kubernetes. Why? I know that Kubernetes has more muscle behind it, can do more "things" we might need in the future, etc. I chose it because of its operational simplicity. It strikes a perfect balance of "scale these three things up" without needing a dedicated ops team to run it.

So far it has performed great, and I really think it comes down to limiting the number of moving pieces. Don't get me wrong, microservices are great if you have an ops team and a 50+ dev team all working on different things. But I often see microservices being pushed without warning people of the inherent costs involved.

I'm sure kubernetes is great, and I'm continuously re-evaluating where we are and what we need, but for now simpler is always better. If we do go with Kube, it will likely be a managed version so I don't have to touch the internals...not because I don't want to learn them (I definitely would want to know all the grimy details) but because I just don't have the fucking time to deal with it.
I think every state requires an eye test, but that's at every age.
My thoughts exactly. It's been a while since I last saw a company with an actual IT department and even longer where they had an actual clue. The reality is that IT in most SMEs simply sucks and no longer requires a college education. Working in IT for an SME is not a career plan. You're at constant risk of being outsourced and essentially all you do is done better by a gazillion companies as a service that probably cost less than a few months of your salary. Frankly, most SMEs would be better off doing exactly that. Most startups I work with do this from day one for obvious reasons.

Once you hit a certain scale different dynamics may kick in but even then, outsourcing is an option.

As a freelancer these days, I bring my own laptop and am granted access to stuff for the duration of the project. It's understood and expected of me that I do such things as encrypt disks, use 2FA, and don't use "secret" as the password. Most stuff I access for these projects is SAAS based. I'd probably walk away from projects where that wasn't the case.
CrowdStrike up 70% in IPO now valued at $11B
If there's anything I'd draw the most attention to from this, it'd be the conclusion:

"If your program is small and can mostly be described by what it does... then Go is fine. If it’s large, if it has non-trivial data structures... or if it will be dealing with a lot of data from the outside, then the type system will fight you for no benefit and you’re better off using a different static language (where the type system helps) or a dynamic language (where it doesn’t get in your way)."

That's a much better way to express my sense after almost a year of working with it that I'd ended up with a Pascal-like subset of Java with most of the liabilities of the former. And I wanted to like it going in ("hey, some people love it, and it's more or less Gosling's statement about Java w/o classes come to life!").
I appreciate the lengthy reply and I sympathise with your concern regarding the cargo culting of technology trends. It's not the first time it happens nor the last. I disagree in general with your view and I think that past few years have brought tremendous innovation in the space: software defined networking, storage, compute; all available to the "hoi polloi", as open source high quality projects that are interoperable with each other and ready to deploy at the push of a button. And you know why this has happened? It's because Kubernetes, with all it's complexity, has become the defacto standard in workload orchestration, and has brought all the large players to the same tables, scrambling to compete on creating the best tools for the ecosystem. I am not naive to think Google didn't strategise on this outcome but the result is a net positive for infrastructure management.

I also sense a very machine centric view in your message, and there is a certain beauty in well designed systems like SmartOS and NixOS. But you are missing the point. The container orchestration ecosystem, for all it's faulty underpinnings (Linux, Docker, Kubernetes), is moving to an application centric view that allows the application layer to more intelligently interact with and manipulate the infrastructure it is running on. Taking into consideration the Cambrian explosion in software and the exponential usage of this software (tell me an industry that is not digitising?), this transition is not surprising at all.

Regarding the complexity of Kubernetes, some of it is unavoidable, especially considering everything it does and the move from machine centric management to cluster centric management. There are other tools that are operationally simpler (Docker Swarm, Nomad), but they definitely don't offer the same set of features out of the box. By the time you customise Nomad or Swarm to feature parity with Kubernetes you will end up with a similarly looking system, perhaps a bit more well suited for your use case. The good part is that once an abstraction becomes a standard, the layers underneath can be simplified and improved. Just take a look at excellent projects like k3s, Cilium, Linuxkit and you will see that the operational complexity can be reduced, while the platform interface maintained.

To summarise, I am very happy that Kubernetes is becoming a standard, and I am convinced that 30-50 years from now we will look at it as we look now at the modernisation of the supply chain which was triggered by the creation of the shipping container.
The beauty of it is that no blood need be removed. That is a huge improvement in terms of patient experience.
KiCad is an excellent example of CERN doing exactly that. I’m cautiously optimistic about this project!
Who makes systems that do routing on UDP?
Oh he has. Watch the podcast.
I disagree. The other thing unions create are standard working conditions. Some supervisors/departments are terrible - even within the same dept/uni.

Grad school isn't about the money but it is all about the supervisor/student relationship. The power imbalance is extreme and sits with the supervisor - a 6 year PhD is not something most people want, they want to graduate and earn some $$, but another year can generate a couple extra papers for the supervisor...
> requires stable addresses -- meaning VPNs for everyone

The true requirement is for a stable identity, not a stable address. You just mentioned Syncthing, which is an example of this: every Syncthing node has a stable identity (which is its public key), but not necessarily a stable address. All you need is a way to map the identity to the address, which does not have to be centralized (even though the current implementation in Syncthing, outside of broadcast-based local address discovery, is centralized); bittorrent DHT manages to map a torrent's hash to a set of addresses without needing any central node.

> requires the physically impossible "access to data when phone is out of battery and/or in a Farady cage" [...] People who seriously use Syncthing or btsync instead of Dropbox have to set up at least one "constantly on" server

You stated the solution yourself: to access the data when the phone is offline, mirror it to a node which is online. Just because these particular protocols require you to set up your own always-on node doesn't mean it's a hard requirement; some older peer-to-peer protocols from over a decade ago already securely mirrored data in nodes belonging to other users.
And WHERE do you PUT a trillion tons of stuff? It doesn't just 'magically disappear'.

Pie in the Sky thinking.
Here's several legal decisions about that happening in several Canadian cities:
https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/text=setanta%20ufc
Why do we care more about people 10k years into the future than we do about the ones alive today? It's ok for pollution and wars to take lives, why isn't it ok to do so in the future?

Also, why do they assume future visitors will enter through the front door? I thought their intention was to bury the entrance and erase all signs it existed.
For anyone wondering why the one (1) day extra, microsoft has a fixed patching schedule. The patches were released on june 11 patch tuesday. They needed the extra day to check if it was included in the june 11 patches.
The Gish Gallop: When people try to win debates by using overwhelming nonsense
Damn, yeah I had no clue. This makes a ton of difference. Thanks for letting me know!
It's really interesting how stable CBN is after oxidizing from THC... it also apparently has a strong anti-anxiety effect similar to benzos. It is currently in a lot of cannabis sleep aids.
I write fiction in my spare time, and at least anecdotally, I think the obsessive readers, the most well-read folks in the workshops/classes I've done have consistently been the best writers. I know writers who have written millions of words, but don't read enough to pick up an intuitive sense of what good looks like.

I'm often astonished, when I read old interviews with great writers in The Paris Review's Writers at Work series, just how well-read the masters are. They've read everything. Soaked it all in. And writers borrow, copy, steal, adapt, all the time.

Of course, I agree with the heart of the matter, that just doing the thing is most important, but I do wonder if it is sufficient.
You believe the Republican position on Putin right now is "uncritical enthusiasm for the guy"?

As with the above, this sounds like something from another dimension to me. Who exactly are you referring to? What words/actions?
Several Phoenix pay system replacements expected to get test runs
> It's an incentive misalignment. IT is evaluated in 'how secure things are' or 'how easy is it to maintain' or 'does this give me more headcount'.

I tend to summarize my experience with IT in large companies and universities like this: IT is evaluated in "how secure things are", or "whether things are not broken". The only sure-fire way to ensure a system is secure and not broken is to make it completely unusable, so that people don't use it. If people don't use a system, they can't break it!
If we convert an IPv4 datagram on the way up into the stack into the IPv4-64 format, and then just feed it to a single implementation of TCP or UDP or other protocol, I do not feel it is accurate to say that I we have two protocol stacks.
Off topic maybe: are there resources out there for teaching coders how to journalism?
Note that I wasn't asking why one would use Go instead of Elixir for a given task. If it's CPU bound, Go would be a better choice.

My question was how the poster was using Go with Elixir. Since they have a big overlap in what they're commonly used for and since NIFs (Natively Invoked Functions) on the BEAM really need to be fail-safe, it's not as clear as how to use these two together as how one would use C in the same stack with Python, for example.
Writer of the articles, and an editor of Inkstone here. Thank you so much for the comment. You're describing exactly what that piece sought to do: a quick look at the views of the main stakeholders. You may also be interested in a thread I tweeted yesterday that goes a little deeper into the tensions behind the extradition bill: https://twitter.com/alanwongw/status/1138670655480639490
My current uBlock extension has 99,596 network filters. Easylist alone has 90,000 for me, the rest are miscellaneous ad-on lists -- so maybe it is different for different apps. The direct download from the official site has about 75,000 filters[0], though maybe that includes some cosmetic ones?

150,000 is definitely better than 30,000, but it's probably not a future-proof number.

EDIT: Actually, given Apple's 50,000 filter limit, I wonder if your source was looking at a version of Easylist that was trimmed down specifically for Safari.

[0]: https://easylist.to/easylist/easylist.txt
> Stopping compilation with an error for every unused import & variable is particularly annoying

It's been a long while since I last touched Golang, but I recall the process of learning it.

My coworker and I were tasked with creating an interface for our employer (a cloud service provider) to allow Rancher (or clients of Rancher - I forget) to use our backend system (which was built out of a combination of PHP, Java, and Bash - among other parts) to provision servers.

Neither my coworker or I had ever touched Go; we were PHP developers. But Rancher used it, had examples, and we set out to learn it (while we were employed as PHP developers, we both had extensive prior experience with a number of other languages).

It took about a week until we were comfortable enough to begin our implementation, and about a month later we had a working library written in Go that we understood and had documented well, with tests.

But the process: Exactly like you noted! We railed, we gritted our teeth! We shook our fists at heaven and loudly proclaimed "WHY?!"

Because we were so used to leaving things lying about in PHP; for experimentation, debugging, and other reasons. But Go wouldn't let us - no-siree-bob! - you had to make it just so before it would successfully compile, and we tore our hair out over it. Day after day, week after week...and then:

Something changed. We understood. We realized why the designers of Go did what they did, and we also started to wish fervently that PHP could be the same way. We also noticed that by these changes, we no longer needed to leave this "cruft" around, this "dead code" that could possibly cause us to trip up, or wonder if it was needed later, or whatever. Yes, it made development more difficult - but we came to recognise that it helped greatly to prevent errors, or future problems, and kept things very maintainable.

But like I said - I haven't used Go in years since that time; there hasn't been a call or need for it, but it is a language that I keep in my "back pocket" just in case I ever need it. Maybe things have changed a lot since then, or maybe they haven't. Regardless, I learned from that experience that sometimes you have to power and struggle through things before the revelation appears. I got to experience a fairly unique language, and I feel that I'm better as a developer for it.
I've been the one in the story who hears "no" enough times myself that I know which side I'm naturally going to fall on. But I've never been the one that did an Equifax, and now has to explain themselves to the board, so there's also that.

I've seen it said well in another comment on this post, I feel like could be said about more than a handful of orgs:

> The problem is, I write up a proposal identifying the risks associated with the exemption, along with minimum and recommended compensating controls. This then gets discussed among IT Management, where it is usually decided it's too much overhead, and to just deny the request or if the user can scream loud enough, allow it outright and get some director to sign something. The third oft-used response is ignore the problem and hope the user finds their own work around so we can get back to the 13 projects we're somehow expected to complete this quarter.

> ignore the problem and hope the user finds their own work around

> ignore the problem and hope the user finds their own work around

If this is even remotely the story of what happened, you can't really be surprised when the user went off and did their own thing. If they came to you with a specific priority business problem and an expectation of your support to solve it with a sense of necessary due urgency, and your answer is returned in the format of a 5 year plan... I don't think you can really act surprised in fairness when they end-around you and solve the problem somehow else, anyway.

If it means standing on a mountain of chairs for them to do so then I guess there'd have to be shared culpability. So how do we make sure that it never looks attractive to build that mountain of chairs?

I wish I knew more about the "digital customer acquisition program." The story makes it sound like this "VP for a declining line of business" honestly was not going to make it another 3.5 years without some help.

I struggle with this myself, when it seems like we could go ahead and solve a problem for like $80/mo, but instead we're going to study the problem and spend $20-40k out of peoples' salaries on coming up with a recommendation for an even more expensive project that can only be justified as necessary in order to avoid this other, cheaper tool we could have used.

There's obviously some mismatch when on one hand there's a major project with a vendor like SAP in the picture, but on the other hand there are basic needs that aren't being met, to the point where someone is going to set up "shadow-IT" on a personal credit card just to keep the basic business of the company moving in the right direction.
It's not really run IRL though, or at least the US government isn't putting out official atlases (I don't think?)