skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We tried self regulation. We saw it being ignored widely.

See for example universities not making their material accessible.

People on HN lost their minds when video material was taken down for violating accessibility standards. What people failed to realise was that the universities imposed a condition (that the videos had to be accessible); they provided advice and help to make the video accessible; they asked professors to sign off that the videos were accessible; and those professors lied and said "yep no problems" even when no work had been done on accessibility.

The courts are the only way to drive change.
Skills which someone has put a name to already are nouns. But if you are trying to say something meaningful about the skills required in a rapidly-evolving field, it is going to be hard to find prepackaged nouns and so you are going to need to use verb phrases.

——

EDIT: for example, the notion of a language “working” in a mechanical sense has only been around for the past 60 years. If there is a specific noun to refer to understanding those mechanics as you type, it is obscure. This 28-year old software engineer who has worked in both the US and UK has not heard it.
PR: https://github.com/donnaware/AGC/pull/1
I used to live in a brush fire area, and the general consensus among my coworkers was in line with that. Any bushes near the house need to be short, so that embers don't get sucked up into the eaves and set the attic on fire. The more people that do that in a neighborhood the safer everyone is.
As an addendum perhaps to the Organize and Design Systems section, I'd propose including mise-en-place as it applies to project maintenance and the development environment.

This centers on tooling and documentation, especially the README. I want a README that gets me set up and running as quickly and in as few steps as possible. Recently I needed to test out some stuff one of my teams was working on. It was a somewhat complex Wordpress project. I was able to get set up using our documentation, but a couple key steps were missing making it error-prone and unnecessarily aggravating.

Anthony Bourdain explains it as only he can:

The universe is in order when your station is set up the way you like it: you know where to find everything with your eyes closed, everything you need during the course of the shift is at the ready at arm’s reach, your defenses are deployed. If you let your mise-en-place run down, get dirty and disorganized, you’ll quickly find yourself spinning in place and calling for backup. I worked with a chef who used to step behind the line to a dirty cook’s station in the middle of a rush to explain why the offending cook was falling behind. He’d press his palm down on the cutting board, which was littered with peppercorns, spattered sauce, bits of parsley, bread crumbs and the usual flotsam and jetsam that accumulates quickly on a station if not constantly wiped away with a moist side towel. “You see this?” he’d inquire, raising his palm so that the cook could see the bits of dirt and scraps sticking to his chef’s palm. “That’s what the inside of your head looks like now.”

https://books.google.com/books?id=XAsRYpsX9dEC&lpg=PA65&ots=...
That's usually a sign of overly aggressive linters and static analyzers. They probably got a "no magic numbers" diagnostic.

The solution to this problem is to add some sort of `NOLINT` comment to that line or, if possible, the comment that turns off that particular check. Then you link to the design document describing what "arr" is and how its interface involves accessing indices 0 and 1.

Or you could wrap "arr" up in a class or function of some sort so the code is theoretically more self documenting.
How trashy TV made Italian children dumber, enabled a wave of populist leaders
Self-Hosting Your Own Cloud – Part 3: Note-Taking with Nextcloud
See: Dagger-Trap letterlocking

https://youtube.com/watch?v=16GAIaYN_Gk
Your choice of the future here is arbitrary - we could just as easily say that there are many past and present "you" in the multiverse. This assumes a definition closer to DD/DW's than the author's.

The author seems to assert that his experience of self is incongruous with this definition of your identity. As a historical fact, "you've" always either chosen chocolate or vanilla, not both. The other branches aren't in fact you, any longer.
I honestly can't believe Dominos would spend millions on litigating instead of spending thousands on making their website and app more accessible.
Because management would then put me and the disabled person in shitty situations.

Me because I would be portrayed as opposed to all accommodations for people with disabilities - which I am not. Think Twitter storm.

The disabled person because they would then be forced to explain their disability and no one should have to do that.
You are conflating the right to carry out a business with the right to free speech. There are many reasons for licensing a business - sufficient liability insurance - self dealing etc.
In the paper:

Our study benefits, in part, from a law that allows
nonprofit organizations to retransmit over-the-air television signals without charge.
Because they lack sophistication?

>The current market share of jazz in America is mere 3 percent. That includes all the great ones like John Coltrane and the terrible ones like Kenny G (OK, this is just my own opinion).

Well, in a populist culture without an aesthetic hierarchy, where you can't rank Kenny G as terrible and Coltrane as great without having to explain yourself, what place there is for jazz or anything more demanding than triteness for that matter...
>Why don't we have government relay services for websites?

This is like doing away with wheelchair ramps and replacing it with government employees who will show up and carry the wheelchair up stairs.

Firstly it shifts the burden from the business to providing websites the impaired can use to all of us and it does so in a way that multiplies the costs in a virtually unbounded fashion.

Instead of a business doing the work once we will be expected to open our wallets every time and forever when someone wants to do something on the web where a rapidly increasing share of all business is done.

>What is the functional equivalent to a picture of food?

A well crafted textual description of said food which many times is already somewhere below said food anyway?
App Store & Google Play charging this fee is like Google charging your website in order to show up in Google results. The app stores are not great due to their investments, they are great due to the awesome apps developers have built
The most lacking skill that I tend to see is an inability to think in types, and to design software accordingly. Too many software developers never progress beyond primitives and basic control structures - I call them Int, String, and For Loop Developers.

Second biggest issue I see is failing to incorporate our cognitive shortcomings into code design, assuming that you'll remember these dozens of little details from today forever, and failing to enforce or make explicit one's "today knowledge" in the code.
Great work! A readme with a link to a landing page linking back to the readme.
> That companies used to be able to siphon off much larger quantities of private data using APIs or bypassing various restrictions before Facebook restricted this further, and iirc that this was used by Obama's campaign team.

True, but the actions of the Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica were significantly different in terms of disclosure and action. This seems like a good non-partisan summary[1]:

> But in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes. The Obama campaign used the data to have their supporters contact their most persuadable friends. Cambridge Analytica targeted users, friends and lookalikes directly with digital ads. Whereas the data gathering and the uses were very different, the data each campaign gained access to was similar.

[1] https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar...
> why do people have issues with accepting the Born rule as an axiom

Because it offends people's intuitions about what must be happening behind the scenes to make it true. Thermodynamics is mathematically complicated, but intuitively very straightforward: you've got a bunch of billiard balls bouncing around. People can visualize that. QM is fundamentally different. For starters, the wave function operates in configuration space rather than physical space, and is not always separable (which is what produces entangled states). Furthermore, in classical mechanics, the limitation on knowing the complete state of a system is merely technological. If we had accurate enough measuring equipment the state of any system could be known in principle. In QM this is no longer true. QM makes the true state of a system inaccessible even in principle.

BTW, with respect to the arrow time, you might enjoy this:

http://blog.rongarret.info/2014/10/parallel-universes-and-ar...
Using decision theory to explain quantum mechanics seems like a huge mistake for a very simple reason: It confuses "ought" for "is". Decision theory makes statements about what one should do if one wants a certain outcome. As the author points out, what statements are we making about what we want? We are free to decide that dividing ourselves and dividing an outcome are not equivalent. But really the whole idea should look silly long before we come up with such a specific counterexample: the laws of physics have no dependency on the wants of human beings, in fact the wants of human beings are fully dependent on the workings of physics (humans being physical systems), so an explanation of physics in terms of statements about wants should appear absurdly circular.

There does not need to be an agent optimizing outcomes in order for the predictions of quantum mechanics to be correct. There doesn't need to be agents at all, since the laws of physics worked just fine in the billions of years before there were people. This seems a bit like dressing up the problematic Copenhagen notion of a privileged "observer" in different clothes.

I have never understood what is left to be explained in many worlds, and maybe someone with deeper understanding can explain it: what is the problem with simply saying that the squared amplitude gives the fraction of the wavefunction that has evolved from the initial state into the final state? What need is there to bring probability into the physics? If we are accepting the initial wavefunction state as a premise x, and we associate each configuration in the final state y with an experience we might have, then isn't asking the "probability" of experiencing y given x, in a Bayesian sort of way, naturally, emergently the same thing as asking the fraction of [the wavefunction that evolved from all the configurations associated with x] which is associated with y? What is missing and what is the dispute?

Last, what is this talk of "splitting"? I thought it was true that the wavefunction is "incompressible", in that if some measurable that becomes more confined, there is always some other measurable that becomes correspondingly less confined? That is to say, if there is some axis in state space which splits (distinguishes) universes by narrowing possibilities, there must always be some other axis that merges (confuses) universes by widening possibilities? That is to say, if ever you know more about what universe you are in, you must know less (along some orthogonal axis) about what universe you came from? I.e. for every "branch" there is a "merge".
What you're saying is a bit misleading.

Headphones do not inherently damage hearing. What's damaging, is listening to them at a high volume. This might occur if you're in a noisy environment, and use headphones with poor isolation, e.g. airpods, which need to overpower the ambient noise.

You can absolutely listen to headphones all day, in a quiet environment or if they provide good isolation.
> If the song has any musical substance, it can be played on a piano alone

The level of ignorance and pretentiousness in this sentence is mind boggling. The human voice is the ultimate instrument, not the piano. Hell, we have not even had the piano for that long. Words can not be expressed on a piano. That is what makes singing and rapping unique, you are able to tell a story combined with music. Strange Fruit would not have the same meaning or significance without the words attached to it, neither would many songs.

Also, Miles Davis himself loved and embraced rap. He literally made a jazz/rap album.

Jazz is a dying genre in the united states, because American audiences are tired of hearing it, and there have not been any groundbreaking new jazz artists in the last 30 years.

Rap is one of the most interesting and innovative genres of music now, and literally incorporates and uses so much jazz. To Pimp a Butterfly is a great example of a rap album that is heavily influenced by jazz. It was also a wildly popular album and one of the most critically acclaimed rap albums ever.
Pretty much the entire web works just fine without JavaScript. Indeed, most of it works better without it - everything loads faster and there’s fewer annoyances like interstitial ads, auto playing audio, etc. Unless you’re serving an actual app, like webmail or online office, a webpage that doesn’t even render without js is an immediate bounce. I can get your content elsewhere.

I mean, almost the entire public web consists of blogs, forums, and news articles/essays. Almost all of these, with some modern exceptions, work perfectly fine. Of course, you may need JS to take full advantage of e.g., forum software features, but I can browse just fine. Sure, if you have a legitimate SPA like a mapping application or a game JS is a very reasonable expectation. But it’s hard for me to see what users gain otherwise. Actually, I don’t even see what developers gain, other than an improved resume.
Does blocks of text need responsiveness in order to be readable on mobile?

What problem are you experiencing?
> When you're in your early 20s everyone has similar goals - you're going to be a goddamn giant success, no matter what your field is

That sounds very American. Of course there are also people like that in European countries, but it's far from being the usual thing. Most people grow out of wanting to become a superstar or huge success during their teens.
Edge does that bit too. Things typed in the URL bar are only a small subset of "pages visited", typically would not include session IDs etc, ...
Should App Developers Keep Paying the Apple Tax?
You need to download Dev or Canary builds to use Edge Chromium (which I am typing this post on), it's not shipping as the stable Edge yet.
The other half of the thread was on linux-ext4, starting here:
https://lists.openwall.net/linux-ext4/2018/04/10/33

The part I found most interesting was here:
https://lists.openwall.net/linux-ext4/2018/04/12/8

where the ext4 maintainer writes:

«
The solution we use at Google is that we watch for I/O errors using a completely different process that is responsible for monitoring
machine health. It used to scrape dmesg, but we now arrange to have I/O errors get sent via a netlink channel to the machine health monitoring daemon.
»

He later says that the netlink channel stuff was never submitted to the upstream kernel.

It all feels like a situation where the people maintaining this code knew deep down that it wasn't really up to scratch, but were sufficiently used to workarounds ("use direct io", "scrape dmesg") that they no longer thought of it as a problem.
Does not seem like it was remotely successful.
From [1] - "Probably the most audacious effort came last year when two renowned snake catchers from India’s mountain-dwelling Irula tribe chanted their way across the Everglades for two months. They bagged 33 pythons. But that figure, like the 1,000-plus snakes killed to date in civilian hunting programmes, is a drop in the ocean."

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/25/snakes-flori...
Edit: op edited their post to remove these sections.

> Private businesses... let the business decide if it wants to support those customers.

Should businesses also decide if they want to serve black, Latino, Asian, or mixed race folk? These arguments have been had and settled: it's no ok to have a business that is open to the public and to also discriminate against anyone.

> Also... and let me just harp a bit here. ADA standards went a bit overboard. I think they should apply to government, and likely businesses, but not my own house. Building code that says all the thermostats have to be waist-high... ugh, come on. I don't want to have to stoop over to reach the damn things. (= But that's our building code now. Cool. Cool, cool, cool. Can't we have them taller and just mandate that they all have to connect to a smart phone?

I'm very confused as to what you're saying. The ada doesn't apply to residential buildings, even new construction. I'm not very familiar with residential building codes, but I've been in a lot of new construction since the passing of the ada and have never encountered what you're describing.
We had no linters enforcing the "no magic constants" convention. If we did, I'd question the sanity of the engineer who added that linter.

The reason we got code like this was because of outsourced contractors cargo-culting something they saw elsewhere.
Trade secret.
Confidential information.
Trademark.
None of which has anything specifically to do with doctors, nor are they to my knowledge typically even required of a business that sells e.g. fashion advice.
How does Monday works and how does it use Go language?
I've seen it in professional work. If it's actually a single variable conditional, that's irritating but by itself not worth more than a comment in the PR. However, in practice it's rarely this cut and dry. I usually see conditions expanded like this for clarity reasons. For example, I consider this kosher if it's in some business logic... instead of writing:

> return a && !(b || c) || d;

I've seen (pardon the formatting, I'm typing on my phone):

> if (d) {return true}

> else if (a) {return !(b || c);}

> else
{return false}

It's usually a choice to be verbose for clarity.
When we talk about MWI as the asker is trying to more fully understand, we are explicitly not talking about subsystems. There's just the one big evolving state (of the universe).
It is the nature of subjective experience that is the source of all the trouble with interpreting QM. If you ignore subjective experience, there is no problem at all: the universe is quantum, and that's all there is to it.

But most people want to know why, if the universe is quantum, does it present such a convincing illusion of being classical.
All of the app-generator repos are the same, as far as I can tell: https://github.com/app-generator

What gives?
We still haven’t explained ball lightning or spontaneous human combustion, yet. The universe is largely unexplained.

Edit: And kilogram reference weight drift.
Journalists were hit by thugs
https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E5%85%83%E6%9C%97%E6%83%A...
I didn't read the entire thread, so maybe this was answered: has anyone actually made a system that's "fully" correct with regards to file system errors? Most people throw them away, but even programs that try to account for them get them wrong on some system (or the system changes behavior from out under them…). Is there a library that does this?
I'm not sure op is manufacturing outrage. I'm not outraged but I am mildly annoyed that someone would assume me and my buddies would turn an office into barracks because that's "just what young men do."

More likely we'd turn it into the ultimate LAN party environment or something.
Anyone else read Neal Stephenson’s Anathem? It drew heavily from Deutsch, so it’s not totally surprising, but this argument seems pretty close to “Did you read Anathem? Because Anathem.”
>but that position is necessarily hidden from observation. I call this an IPU, an Invisible Pink Unicorn.

But why expect that all state of the universe be open to observation? This seems counter-intuitive to me. It seems far more reasonable that there necessarily are facts about an implementation that no supervening system can determine from within that system. For example, there are facts about a physical computer that no software running on that computer could deduce. So the fact that a QM theory posits state that is in principle off-limits to observation doesn't seem like a reductio, but the expected case.
Source please. I know there's a ton of late night hunts with infrared scopes where people snipe boars, but that's in person. Plenty of such content on YouTube. Is there a remote version of the hunt going on someplace?
SafeBrowsing already does the thing you're describing as a "possible option".

Say I go to https://fakebank.example/security/login and Google has decided all of fakebank.example is a phishing site.

My browser computes [among other things] SHA256('fakebank.example') and then it snips off the first four bytes and compares that to a large dataset it got from Google. It fetches updates to this dataset every few hours. Sure enough the four byte prefix is present in the dataset.

So, we've got an alarm - it calls Google, but it doesn't tell them it's thinking about https://fakebank.example/security/login at all, it just tells them the 4 byte prefix. Google responds with a list of full SHA256 hashes beginning with that prefix that it considers _right now_ to be phishing. The list might be empty (maybe fakebank.example was actually a Greek yoghurt company subject to a PHP 4.x attack, and they upgraded PHP and removed the phishing site so now it's fine) but if it has the entire SHA256 hash we calculated then I get an alert telling me that my browser thinks this is a phishing site and I might want to not visit.
Life is not black and white and studies study only certain things. Don't consider yourself wrong because certain use-cases may lead to other outcomes.

Being economical will save you money. At some point being too economical will mean you have to accept lower quality/value. There is a tradeoff.

If your parents were being economical they might not have purchased a computer in the 80s.. It was seen as an expensive toy and not purchasing one would have saved them thousands. Long term the opportunity cost would outweigh the purchase cost.

Buying a cheap kettle it might last 6 months paying a little more and you don't need to replace it for 5 years.

There is an old British saying. Penny wise / pound foolish.
I have no idea what you're on about. He should just look for supporting sources himself, instead of challenging us to disprove his non-substantiated opinion.
To answer the title: what we called FaaS back in the day. And back in those days, the suspender-wearing UNIX sysadmins said that it was just a more restricted version of inetd.

Wonder what the next generation will call it?

And yes, I am being sarcastic. There are differences. But do recall that when AWS Lambda came out, it had the exact same limitations w.r.t. one process per call, needing one fresh connection to a DB per request to handle, etc.
Can you give a clear example on “thinking in types” approach ?
In my 20something years of writing software for a living I've seen both. And I find it very hard to care which one someone on my team uses. It's not something fundamental. Both lines work perfectly well. They do the same thing. The second is more concise and 'better', but if the only improvement you can suggest in a code review is something like shortening a line then the code is basically fine.

A difference between good programmer and a bad programmer is that the good one writes working, readable, human understandable code that does the job it's supposed to do. That's it. Someone who writes code that's shorter without being more understandable, or faster, or significantly more efficient, isn't better.