skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For a handful of fixed intervals however (like notifications), the RabbitMQ solution works well - have one queue for "In an hour", another one for "in a day" and so on.

For completely arbitrary intervals you could look at Celery and its "Celery Beat" scheduler, otherwise for a proprietary solution look into Google Cloud Tasks which seems to have a "scheduled_time" parameter (haven't tried it personally though): https://cloud.google.com/tasks/docs/reference/rpc/google.clo...
A well written article with most of the points I agree with about the 10x developer myth. But I am completely lost on the last point that the OP made about another myth this time on 'diversity'.

> Most importantly, putting the 10x developer on a pedestal is especially damaging to people from underrepresented groups. To self-identify as a 10x developer who deserves to be praised and left alone to work, you have privilege granted by being a member of the dominant culture.

Disagree. Let's assume that the 10x developer myth is true, are you saying that all other 'minority' groups cannot also be 10x developers? I am pretty sure that the opposite can also be true in some companies given this assumption of this myth being true.

> ...By celebrating the 10x developer, you are upholding an ideal of a white cis-male developer propagated by Silicon Valley...

Bitch please, every time we associate popular ideas such as this being exclusive to white cis-males to antagonise other races is just as harmful and doesn't help your argument at all. I think this patronizes other developers from 'minority groups' into believing that they cannot be competitive with their white counter-parts due to their race. There is a reason why Silicon Valley invented the diversity myth.
> Imba is a programming language for the web that compiles to performant and readable JavaScript. It has language level support for defining, extending, subclassing, instantiating and rendering dom nodes.

I found it odd to see this language up on the list, and not Elm.
1) I mostly agree with your analysis
2) I don't think that admitting they were "chasing a chimera" would mean the end of the company, but...
3) I do think it would be the end of the current management's tenure, and that functionally means they will behave as if it would be the end of the company
Kim Kardashian Laughs Off Rib Removal Joke, Reveals How She Achieved Tiny Waist
Fair. I guess the 2008 financial crisis is an elephant in the room, for instance, revealing flaws in our current economic approach. But that is a very different conversation, I think, for a very different audience.

Sometimes, being in the cryptocurrency industry, it feels like a shouting match between people who have never studied economics or distributed systems or cryptography.
This is just terrible. I'm really sad that it's 2019, and not only are we still talking about undefined behaviour, but there are also blog posts arguing for undefined behaviour! I expect a good (programmer-friendly) compiler to at least warn the programmer in any case of provable, or potential, undefined behaviour, or ideally, refuse to compile/use implementation-defined behaviour (i.e. exactly "what the hardware does"). Anything else is basically just inviting security bugs in your code.

But, for a counter-point: what is an example of a code/algorithm that not only uses undefined behaviour (i.e. relies on it in order to compile to fast, optimized code), but also couldn't possibly be rewritten to eliminate undefined behaviour (while keeping the same speed)?
> because it's not possible to get it right

Of course it is. All jet airliners already have active augmentation to make them fly as if they do not have stability problems that can lead to crashes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaw_damper
As someone who scripts mostly in Python I prefer Rust over Go. If I could have Go with more functional paradigms (a map function!) I'd be happier with it.
I think your statement sounds perfectly reasonable, but it actually holds a pretty interesting corollary! If he is wrong that "most" medical treatments and prescriptions are worthless then that would necessarily mean that "most" are valuable. The reason this is interesting is because the exponentially increasing rate of both the amount of medication out there and the amount people are using. For instance from 1997 to 2016 the number of prescriptions filled grew from 2.4 billion to 4.5 billion [1]. And an exponentially increasing number of people, across all ages and demographics, are also being medicated with all sorts of drugs for various reasons.

So, if we assume that most medical treatments and prescriptions are not worthless we should see increases in healthfulness that are at least somewhat comparable with our increases in pharmaceutical usage. In reality we saw sharply diminishing returns on life expectancy that have now gradually shifted towards an ongoing decline in life expectancy over the past few years. By any standard of effectiveness, this is not looking good for pharmaceuticals.

So I suppose I'd turn it around. I think the view that medicines (and especially their recent exponential growth) are providing a substantial social benefit could be true, but it would seem to be the statement that needs to be explained. E.g. perhaps our own increasingly unhealthy lifestyles are contravening the gains from the medical technology? No idea there, but I do think occam's razor would tend to simply suggest that the reason we're not seeing improvements is because we're not improving.

[1] - https://www.webmd.com/drug-medication/news/20170803/american...
I learn with the classic read (or watch), do, repeat loop.
"The wonder of modern civilization gave us so much power to produce stuff that it's no longer feasible to just "throw away""

By the same token, it gave us the power to produce so much stuff that we can afford to throw stuff away.

Who darns socks anymore? Or has their tv repaired?

Your average family of 100 years ago was throwing away ashes and what? The rag and bone man collected rags and bones, veg peelings would have gone to a chicken/pig/compost. Paper probably went in the fire. Plastic was none existent, metal? (rag and bone man? I'm guessing there was a market for it somewhere).

This was the situation in the UK at least.
So in the USA if you work for a medium-large company they will almost certainly have you on a "self funded health plan". These are plans where the Cigna, Anthem, etc. card you get makes it look like that's your insurer, but in actual fact your employer is your ensurer. The Cigna/Anthem/etc. you are interfacing with is just a contracted administrator that handles the billing, claims, etc. processes, then passes the full costs back to the employer. (The employer will also have various re-insurance set ups to limit their total liability in case of very expensive situations.)

This administrator (Cigna et al.) will have a bunch of policies for certain treatments and drug uses that define when they can be used. These operate like a firewall rule, being parsed, and if you don't match perfectly, you get denied. Sometimes they'll be more flexible, but some are known to be terrible (cough Cigna cough).

If you don't match this policy perfectly then your treatment gets classified as "experimental". At that point they point you to something called the "XYZ Company Handbook" which is something your employer maintained. This is a document that almost never exists in reality, but the gist is that "XYZ Company Handbook" will say experimental treatments are not covered.

(There was nothing really experimental about my treatment, it’s just high dose IVIG, with lots of patients on it and a half dozen of my doctors all supporting it. Experimental seems to be their euphemism for “expensive, so we don’t want to cover it”.)

So administrator points to employer, then you go to your employer, they point to the administrator. Then you go to a lawyer or your state insurance commission for help, and they say because it's a self funded health plan it is not technically an insurance product, and is regulated under federal law as an ERISA plan. This means years in court, and the maximum you can ever recoup is only the costs of the treatment. So you have to pay for treatment up front, then fight to get those costs reimbursed. And because there can be no punitive penalties there is no real incentive to act in good faith.

Your lawyer (or state insurance comission) will also point out that because the plan is self funded your employer is actually the ultimate authority and can approve or deny or make exceptions for any claim.

The appeals process can include something called an independent review, where an outside organization can review your case and recommend treatment or not. This is a time consuming process though. Also it doesn't always work out. And they tell you that they are not bound by the results of the IRO anyway.

In our case we were able to change from our employer's self funded plan to a legacy brokered plan, an old school type one where your premiums actually go to the insurance company and the insurance company pays for all treatments. These are regulated by state insurance commissions. This plan was actually provided by a not for profit Blue Cross/Blue Shield and they covered the treatment immediately because my case was pretty darn obvious that I needed it.
From 2006 to 2016, India lifted about 271 million people out of poverty[1]. It should be noted that ISRO made considerable progress during this period.

1. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-lifted-271-mill...
That’s possibly true, but a position paper from a group whose stated goal is to promote the vegan diet should be regarded with some skepticism when it comes to presenting unbiased scientific facts.
If we're looking for subtle advantages, I really like VTCLX (for US investors).

Except for the fact that its top 5 holdings are in tech, and I work in tech.
Yep. If I had to start looking, I'd start looking here:

https://www.mymoneyblog.com/boeing-engineer-dream-job-nightm...

There's a Bloomberg article I've been trying to track down from back in the 2000's where a Boeing exec is quoted as saying that Boeing is going to undergo a financial transformation, part of which involved decreased "over thinking the box" and stripping all that wasteful effort (what engineers call the hard parts) from the process in order to bring Boeing into the mainstream as an optimized shareholder value generating machine.

This happened apparently shortly after the McDonnell Douglas merger as I understand it.
To me it seems a sound argument. GP uses 'rebalance' in a generic setting. GP defends this by examplifying a specific situation. The parent riposte is to give a counter-example for which the 'rebalancing' clearly does not take place. This seems to me to be logically sound.

1. for_all x: A(x) => P(x)

(need for rebalance)

2. Please prove!

(my comment: don't assume we believe everything needs to be rebalanced)

3. x_1: A(x) and P(x)

(gives example of programmer community)

4. Not a proof! x_2: A(x) and !(P(x))

(gives counter-example of garbage men)
As siblings have commented, it's not clear what reaction is obscured by your lack of words; but, if it's a veiled comment on the inadvisability of doing this, the author beat you to it:

> Warning: All of this doesn’t really follow any best practices for working with html, css or javascript - on the contrary: what we will be doing may look horrible to some people, and rightfully so - so you may not want to try those things at work just yet.
> Can a product claim to be professional when it is still in alpha?

"Professional" distinguishes the target audience and use cases; a professional NLE video editor that isn't done yet is different from a lightweight personal video editor that's close to feature-complete.
You're conflating the definition with the correlated properties.

> if the definition is to sense and respond to stimulus then the yes/no of "conscious" is always yes and therefore useless.

This isn't the definition. This is a hypothetical cause. The cause might be anything; we don't know (yet?) what objective indicators there might be of subjective experience.

Consider seeing. In order for a thing (be it robot, animal, or human) to see, it must possess some type of sensory organ and a method to interpret the signals from that organ. So, to test for the ability to see, we can look for those things. We can be pretty sure that fish can see, because they possess eyes, brains, and respond to visual stimuli. That doesn't mean the properties has_sight_organ and has_brain are seeing.

In the same way that physical matter is all made of atoms (loosely; let's not be pedantic), we might find that all things possess consciousness. We might not. But in neither case is the term made useless. Sure, if we find that to be the case, then describing a thing as conscious or not becomes similar to describing an object as atomic. But then we're just moving goalposts.
Regarding point 2, anyone knows why it became darker? Furthermore in the Wikipedia page they mention that when the lamp lost power for some time, it became much brighter a short time after it was powered up before dimming again. Can anyone explain that? I'd expect it to be the opposite, where the hotter the filament gets the more light it produces.
Me neither...especially when you think all of what I have taken time to respond to you is ‘blather’. Have a good one.
Not sure how that helps. What is alcor’s incentive to bring me to life in the future? Remember, I’m dead, so I can’t post nasty comments on twitter when they leave me in the vat.

More generally, why would I trust a private company to bring me back to life? It is extremely rare for any company to last for hundreds of years. And pretty much inconceivable for one to last that long without going through periods of very short term thinking.
Maybe it's that the lenses are still good for digital equipment?
You mentioned it briefly with "implementation-defined behavior" but tons of C/C++ relies on technically undefined behavior that has normal behavior on standard compiler / platform combinations.
>> interested to debate

Can you elaborate on good debate threads that happened on Twitter?
Here is a recent overview from Washington State University "Soil biology and soil organic matter; What do recent discoveries mean for soil management?"[1] I copy one quarter of its provided references below here, just to illustrate the situation that there is really no paucity of peer reviewed work from this field.

About the potential for reversing the long term trend in soil degradation through microbially 'un-interested' and herbicide assisted no-till methods - wouldn't be appropriate to provide university replicated peer reviewed research which substantiates they have the situation covered ?

[1] http://csanr.wsu.edu/soil-biology-and-soil-organic-matter/

1/4 References:

Jackson, R.B., K. Lajtha, S.E. Crow, G. Hugelius, M.G. Kramer, et al. 2017. The Ecology of Soil Carbon: Pools, Vulnerabilities, and Biotic and Abiotic Controls. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 48(1): 419–445. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054234.

Janzen, H.H. 2006. The soil carbon dilemma: Shall we hoard it or use it? Soil Biology and Biochemistry 38(3): 419–424. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.10.008.

Kallenbach, C.M., S.D. Frey, and A.S. Grandy. 2016. Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls. Nature Communications 7: 13630. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13630.

Kästner, M., and A. Miltner. 2018. SOM and Microbes—What Is Left From Microbial Life. In: Garcia, C., Nannipieri, P., and Hernandez, T., editors, The Future of Soil Carbon. Academic Press. p. 125–163

Woolf, D., and J. Lehmann. 2019. Microbial models with minimal mineral protection can explain long-term soil organic carbon persistence. Scientific Reports 9(1): 6522. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43026-8.
> Most Western countries don't quite have the culture of political extremism needed to create these conditions.

Only 26 years before decriminalizing drugs, Portugal was a right-wing dictatorship with concentration camps and which was waging war on Africa to keep its slave colonies. The '74 revolution brought on two years of heavy left-wing power, during which many feared (and others hoped) it could become a communist state attached to the USSR.

There's no lack of culture of political extremism in Portugal.
I just keep writing code, glancing at docs when needed and try to spend as much time as possible actively using the thing I'm learning instead of reading about or getting stuck in "what if" scenarios. In most cases writing as much code as possible (and looking up things as needed) will help you learn things faster than sitting back and reading.

A few days ago I wrote a post on what I learned from 7 programming languages over 20 years[0]. It kind of touches on the process of learning and takeaways. I almost always have a project in mind to build when learning something new.

Basically I'm not afraid to experiment. I don't think it's a problem to write code and then throw it away, or spend weeks learning how to use something to ultimately throw it away. You almost always learn something you can apply to something else which is really the main takeaway from the post.

[0]: https://nickjanetakis.com/blog/it-is-not-a-waste-of-time-to-...
I was thinking of that song as well. Time to record a Bollywood version?
Tip: Wappalyzer (https://www.wappalyzer.com/) can automatically do this snooping for you. I use it all the time to answer the question “What is this site running on?”
They're withdrawing subsidies for resellers of their products. It's pretty hard to see how that is them extinguishing competition...

Isn't subsiding by a major market power generally seen as an anticompetitive action?
Medications are a particular problem. It took decades of massive use for us to even realize that some of our most common over-the-counter drugs were being used in dangerous ways (e.g. aspirin can cause Reye's syndrome in children, Tylenol with alcohol can damage the liver). On top of that, I think drug interactions are a much larger problem than most people realize and that we have little idea of what we are doing to ourselves when we take multiple medications. A recent study [1] on just prescription drugs counted 220 million unique drug combinations experienced by a subset of the US population over intervals of about 3 years. How many of those combinations have been studied for safety? I'll make a wild guess that it's probably far less than 1%. I think it prudent to minimize one's medication exposure to the bare minimum that is absolutely necessary.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2017167
I would if I knew how; it sure wasn't for lack of my trying to do so, but I don't know enough to pull it off.

By the way expecting that something be fixed by a non-specialist just because something is open source and expecting someone to sink their extremely valuable free time so someone could break and destroy that work again, well, that's not only despicable, it's extremely infuriating.

All the more infuriating as SBCL wouldn't exist without Solaris, which means someone already broke it at least once and here you come expecting me to not only know what to fix, but invest my life into something where my effort would likely be broken upstream again.

This needs to be taken up by the core SBCL team. Meanwhile, pity the time I used to report bugs which just sit there unhandled.
It's an effort in spending wealth, instead of creating wealth. Since the country has a problem with poverty, effort should be directed towards creating wealth. It's mostly an issue with perception.
Today we know that: limit eating, calorie restriction, little sugar consumption, can reverse type 2 diabetes and greatly reduce body inflammation, which is thought to give rise to all our modern diseases.
Saying that people are looking for things to complain about is the exact reason that people dislike Google. The problem isn't you, it's that the entire company feels the same way as you do, that users of Google products are just looking for reasons to complain when their favorite app gets shut down. It's as if the company was created with no one who's job it is to think about users and it's bitterly apparent. Real people are really inconvenienced and impacted by switching services Google likes to kill off, whether it's this Compass product, Reader, Picasa, SketchUp, G+, Inbox, Hangouts, Nests, Blogger, or Android for Fuschia, or something else, it doesn't matter. Other companies don't treat unknowing users like beta testers. People choose to opt in, knowing it might fail, and take that risk. They don't get functions for something they physically installed into their house willfully broken for no reason. It's not just a few products. Try and fix something with Google DNS, go ahead I'll wait while you find the appropriate place to contact. I'm going to guess it's going to involve knowing someone at Google because there's no way to report that Google servers are breaking connectivity to websites. The entire company is like this now, no one cares about the users and it's blindly apparent.
> There's nothing that can be done VR that can't be done outside of VR.

That is much like saying there's nothing that can be done in a telephone call that can't be done by telegraph. You just pass around information.

I believe the killer application of VR will be tele-presense. Avoid the traffic jams and airport delays.

You could say we can already have a video conference. But the point is that video-conference is simply not Hi-Fi enough. It is not the same thing as having the people
in the same building and room actually. That is why people still do business-travel at great cost even though they can have a video-chat or video-conference.

It's another question as to when VR will become Hi-Fi enough to enable tele-presence almost indistuinguishable from real presense. 5G may not be enough. We may need 6G. But once we're there there's much less need for business-travel, commuting will be done for pleasure not for business.
Yes, but then you're using Vegas Pro.
Because "all is well" is not an effective way to get elected.
Get Paid Cash for Email, Surveys, Games, and More. Join InboxDollars
Is it fair to say Airbus is better at FBW because they have more experience with it?
I'll fly on them anytime.

Once the pilots understand that runaway stab trim can be immediately halted by throwing the stab trim cutoff switches on the console, which is what the pilots did in the first instance of an MCAS failure and landed safely, the airplane can be safely flown.
Probably the way he is arguably more responsible for "destroying" it was by deliberately choosing against selling out for big money. If he had sold out, it would have been monetized, thus costing more money, and it would have been easier for journalism to compete against it.

It's kind of a perverse argument overall, generosity being responsible for killing industry. But even if he had sold out and there had been a higher price point set, someone else could have undercut it, since classified ads are pretty easy. So if anything he just accelerated the inevitable.

But also interesting that the value of journalism (the specialized abilities of the profession) was funded by something that could be commoditized like that.

Makes me think more about the post-scarcity economy. This is an example of how it changed something that could be commoditized, meaning something that didn't take particularly specialized skills and could easily be cheaply automated, but didn't change something that did require specialized skills, like journalism skills.

So maybe that means the way to future-proof is to make sure your specialized abilities aren't funded by non-specialized abilities.