skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> But that is exactly the argument being made

Then I respectfully disagree. I don't think cloud storage is always the best use case, but I do believe it is a good value for what it actually offers you. Backblaze B2 is my ideal marker for what a 'good value' in cloud storage should look like. At $5/mo per TB[1] it easily crushes the metric of monthly cost being less than equivalent non-redundant refurbished storage media.

> that a trustless distributed system can substitute and obsolete cloud storage.

OK, I have literally no qualifications to say that this isn't true. After all, what I am NOT claiming is that it can't be done for cheaper. What I AM claiming, is that without a service like Sia, it is certainly not going to be cheaper for common use cases of end users. I'm talking about comparing harddrives to services.

> Buyers are essentially paying Amazon each month the entire cost of the hard drives used to store their data

I still think though, that a compelling case could be made without bad comparisons or hyperbole. Which makes this more frustrating than it needs to be imo.

[1]: https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html - Assuming I am not deeply mistaken.
Didn't see any improvement. I think the fix was about the USB chip temperatures only. I'm planning to get heatsinks on the hottest chips + fan.
I have this tendency to vocalize my prediction of the speaker's next words; this is sometimes interpreted as an interruption.

When I do this, I'm not intending to stop the speaker, or even to speak over them; the goal is to demonstrate that my understanding is synchronized with what they're saying. It's a tool to improve communication, not to disrupt it.

I sometimes get the impression that 50% of people do this naturally, and 50% hate it and interpret it as interruption.
I always tell people that ADHD is not an inability to pay attention, it's an inability to direct and focus one's attention at-will.

Whatever is most stimulating gets my attention.
I don't really care about try/catch, I'd just rather they come up with a standard for wrapping errors so there is more visibility as they get bubbled up. Currently you can write code to do this but most packages will not be doing the same. There also will always be some member of your team fighting you about "simplicity" when you talk about wanting to have more info than a string to log.
I’m Stopping the Fan-Supported Podcast Experiment
There is/was one in Khao Yai. I stopped there once. It was a freaking food truck selling 400 baht hamburgers.
If paying more money for back-breaking work is going to result in more automation, we should welcome it. There's no way that I will stand on the side arguing that unemployment is worse than slavery. But yeah, if they raise the wage for these slave-tier jobs and still only immigrants do them, why the hell not? (As long as they aren't here illegally of course).
By asking them their mother’s maiden name, of course!
> and you can see it in stark contrast to something like the JS community with its require('left-pad') NPM ecosystem.

Is it fair to compare external packages to core language features?

There is nothing preventing a go mod/dep left-pad
> If anyone didn't like "try", well, don't write your code that way.

I don't have a strong opinion on try, but this is not a good philosophy. Whatever you include in a language will get used and will get abused if it can be abused.

This is mostly why there is a part of Golang users who do not want generics. Look at codebases in C++ and you can see the clarity cost of adding generics in a codebase.
They do invest in improving the project https://github.com/osmlab/appledata/
Same here. I often decide that the other person have stopped talking prematurely because they've made a long pause and I was eager to jump in.

However, if I notice that I have interrupted someone too late, I finish my point, and then say "but I've interrupted you, you were talking about X", and then make an effort to listen actively instead of coming up with thoughts of my own.

Sometimes, when we get carried away, I remind the other person of something he had been talking about so long ago that even he has forgotten about it. In my experience, being able not just go with the flow of the conversation, but keeping long conversation "stack traces" in mind so you can go back and actually "return" from a "subroutine" in your conversation is one of the most useful communication skills I have.
That doesn’t mean there will be a line item on the income statement labeled “evil anti-privacy stuff - 2 billion”

It’s trivial to lump things together in GAAP accounting statements.
Global warming is accurate, the problem is people confuse weather with climate.

A global warming trend means more energy in the atmosphere, which in turn leads to higher weather variability, bigger storms etc. It doesn't mean everywhere on the planet will get a higher (pick your temperature statistic).
All signs point to us being back to what we had when cable was prominent. Different lipstick on the same pig.
Japan is indisputably a demographic outlier. It's the oldest country, meaning even without having the absolute lowest birthrate, its population poised to shrink at one of the fastest rates on earth. Combined with its conservative immigration, low birth rate is only part of the picture.
> Because they think go needs something better, and if this passes, they'll never get it?

More that they will never get rid of it, even after something better comes along. Same reason Go has been careful about adding generics. There have been many generics proposals over the years. Any one of them – or even all of them – could have been implemented, but all of them had faults that the Go maintainers did not way to forever saddle the language with even when a better way to do generics comes along.
The Case for 'Dumb' Cities
Thanks for sharing....
I've often heard people say that we know that these radio waves are 100% safe because the heating effects of non-ionizing radiation at these doses is not a significant risk.

However, the article itself mentions that "novel EHF [medical] therapies" use only slightly higher (and also "non-ionizing") radio frequencies.

Per the Wikipedia article on EHF therapies, this seemingly similar radiation appears to have studied, proven biological effect: "Low intensity (usually 10 mW/cm2 or less) electromagnetic radiation of extremely high frequency may be used in human medicine for the treatment of diseases. For example, 'A brief, low-intensity MMW exposure can change cell growth and proliferation rates, activity of enzymes, state of cell genetic apparatus, function of excitable membranes and peripheral receptors.'[14] This treatment is particularly associated with the range of 40 – 70 GHz.[15]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency#Medic...

Can someone explain to me how we are so confident 5G is safe, if similar, 40-70 GHz radiation at 10mW/cm2 has been shown to
"change cell growth and proliferation rates, activity of enzymes, state of cell genetic apparatus, function of excitable membranes and peripheral receptors"?

Why shouldn't there be risk of similar effect at slightly lower frequencies and somewhat lower power?

(To be clear, I believe 5G to be safe with very high probability. But I wish I better knew how to reconcile this information and explain it to others who are much more skeptical.)
Yup. Cops see a lot of things that shouldn't be open to FOIA requests. There's also the little issue that cops are human--they use the bathroom on occasion. If the camera might be running (they're human, they might forget to turn it off) and the video could be FOIAed they're not going to be welcome.

I think a reasonable compromise on this would be to modify the FOIA with regard to things like bodycam video and 911 tapes. Anything which is to be released gets edited for stuff that shouldn't be released and the requestor pays a fixed hourly rate for this.
I don't think it would have been a hassle for him specifically (could always just ctrl/cmd + f....), he's moreso lamenting the fact that this is an actual feature i.e., if you actually wanted to program in COBOL for some reason you'd actually have to deal with this, which makes its inclusion insane.
Only if it doesn't scale.

100K a month for 2.5million in goods sounds like real money to me.
Just pronounce it similar to how "crap" sounds in German. I don't mean to undermine the quality of this library but after using Clojure and EDN for a while, I honestly think the proper way to pronounce JSON is "scheissen". :)
They are not the only ones who are not monitoring from customer perspective. It is actually hard, as it involves much more than watching some metric.
I proposed a user experience monitoring system for my ex employer, which was based on a very simple principle: problem is a difference between what customer wants and should be able to do and what customer is able to do right now.
It kind of funny, but some major eng companies (maybe even all) don’t know what is user experience...
I read code for a living and Go was the easiest language to read imo.
Not abusing workers and not turning Google into an extension of the DoD & Chinese Surveillance Infrastructure is a fringe political agenda? That seems fundamentally baked into Google's old motto, "Do no evil".

Microsoft's still playing their old games FYI, they have not shaken their prior reputation (esp. with their abhorent behaviour at Linuxfest Northwest 3 or 4 years ago), and they've essentially scuttled QA (hence certain Win10 updates deleting your files, among other recent bugs). There was a recent push to gut the MS Partner program's benefits, which had predictable results. IMO they are using Oracle's business model currently, albeit with a few thousand extra developers.
The problem with this is that code that can potentially produce errors cannot compose.

You need a value that is either correct or an error, not something that returns two values.
I suspected this was coming, and it's unfortunate. If Go had implemented try, then in a year everyone would be happy using it and the controversy would have died down. I've seen this happen before.

Unfortunately, the community that has sprung up around Go is more or less opposed to new language features on principle.
Even if you work on small teams, you use dependencies.
What I am not saying is that Sia is not viable or that cloud storage providers have no downsides, which they clearly do. I did not mean to imply that there is anything wrong with this service, just to express my annoyance with the comparison. I am not happy that my comment got so much attention, because I had no intention to overshadow the announcement with my single gripe.

The line that is annoying me and probably others is this:

> Buyers are essentially paying Amazon each month the entire cost of the hard drives used to store their data

...They're not. Because redundancy. Because electricity, CPUs, network, software development, etc.
As Arnavion points out, handle handles multiple error cases. That said, I'm not convinced it's better in practice. For some comparison points - here's how I'd write the Go CopyFile in Rust:

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

Or, if we want to keep a more 1:1 direct mapping to the Go code:

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

Caveats with the "1:1" mapping:

1) In a real rust codebase you'd probably simply forward std::io::Error instead of converting it into a string like I have here, or give it a better error struct/enum type. I've tried to mimic the Go code here, not fully convert to Rust idioms.

2) You could get rid of the .as_ref() spam by just using &str or &Path to be closer to the Go code, but I'd rather stick at least that close to std::fs::copy's file signature.

3) All explicit close operations are dropped as unnecessary vs the Go code. I guess I could've used std::mem::drop to be more explicit?

4) TempPath is obvious overkill for the single remaining error point

5) In temp-file heavy code you'd probably wrap TempPath + File into TempFile. keep could return the interior File as well.
> My guess is that gofmt is a huge factor in this

It really is. My code looks like your code and the next person's code. Go is opinionated and strict and that makes reading other people's code so much easier
Another approach you might try is to ask a coworker to step in and ask the interrupter to let you, or someone else, finish speaking. I find I do this myself primarily because I don’t believe people who aren’t comfortable being confrontational don’t deserve an equal chance to speak and be heard.
>So you only used ...

Nope I used more than one job search method.

It was Advertised. They paid for an advert. To be advertised to strangers.

It might as well have been a Facebook ad or a Google search ad, for all that networks had to do with it.

> Your in person network for the final conversion

Yes references. That's a bit different though.
If this is happening consistently, it is a failure in management.

I don't think it is a Bay area specific problem, but it does correlate to startups fairly strongly (due to weak areas in management).
> EM fields are not affecting protein folding.

Why not? The energy needed to affect that is lower than ionization energy, so they could.

And I'm not "reacting" to anything. 60 GHz radiation is sufficiently different from sunlight that it might plausibly have a different effect on us (such as by interacting with some low-energy absorption peak of a protein that visible light does not interact with due to its higher energy, or by penetrating deeper into tissue than visible light can).

It turns out studies show it is not harmful. But they conducted actual studies to show that - they didn't dismiss it outright "because sunlight".
Go does not force you to think about errors at every single point. If a function returns only an error (such as, for example, os.Mkdir), the language will happily let you drop the error on the floor.
> Racket, as a full-featured dialect of Lisp, has an aggressively simple syntax. For a small fraction of students, this syntax is an impediment. To be blunt, if these students have a fundamental mental barrier to accepting an alien syntactic regime even temporarily, they lack the mental dexterity to survive a career in computer science. Racket's powerful macro system and facilities for higher-order programming thoroughly erase the line between data and code. If taught correctly, Lisp liberates.

What a rude paragraph. I think this viewpoint is very unfortunate. I love functional programming, and I think everyone benefits from learning it, but this garbage attitude is toxic to students. The author cannot imagine a successful computer scientist who doesn't love the same PL paradigms as him. I would prefer to keep them away from my learners.
I had the same experience on Col du Tourmalet. I heard the helicopter but couldn't see it until I looked down.
This. I have no idea what GP is referring to. I've seen some really beautiful code written in Golang. Check Let'sEncrypt.
I don't see how a switch statement helps you avoid checking for errors when methods you use return errors, and a lot of methods return errors.
>It's a significantly higher frequency.

Than what?

>RF can raise body temperature slightly at high enough powers

Undetectable tissue heating; the difference you experience from going outdoors from indoors is many, many times greater than what you mentioned.

>(any one who has been in an MRI for a while knows this, though that is much higher than 5G)

Then why even bring it up? You mention at the end of your reply that you're not trying to fear monger.

>This is a high-frequency signal

But lower than the visible spectrum and ionizing radiation.

>Maybe it's like so many other things: fine in small to moderate doses, but harmful in large ones?

Mate, you're being bombarded by electromagnetic radiation every second of your life, in quantities which eclipse anything you mentioned.

>but the bottom line is we don't know

Yeah, "we" do; folks much brighter than I have spent a really long time studying this stuff and their findings are available for consumption by anyone interested to learn more.
Infosec usually, the difference here is you're taking on the risk and data knowingly and willfully. "Officer, it's part of a blockchain thing called Sia" is unlikely to satiate them.
Or even a simple script that would convert source code from all-caps to the usual normal-language sentences and then back.
not entirely sure I follow the question. But if I'm reading you right, yes, a lot of DLC features and "quality of life" improvements originally started as mods, which are still available.
Or for the pagans out there, the underworld, the earth, and the heavens.
I agree that making the change is preferable to reimplementing. Just saying you can’t assume that an old and battle tested codebase is an ops problem rather than a dev problem.

There’s going to be some point where you’ll be glad to have original specs and docs and source code on hand (along with a good COBOL dev) so you don’t have to decompile and reverse engineer the damn thing. (Which IIRC had to be done for a relatively large percentage of COBOL-era systems updated for Y2K.)
The maybe monad is the best solution for this.

Usually to support this the language needs Enum support and a proper type system neither of which golang has. So I'm ok with the developers just baking in syntax for an error monad with specific sugar for extracting the value or handling an error.
They would have to have live price data across multiple vendors -say uber, lyft, every train station, every bus station, city taxes, if you can bring a bike or not, etc.

Getting all that data for a single city would be impressive, let alone around the world.

Not that Google couldn't do it of course.
If this happens a few times in a row, I tune out, start browsing something on your phone. When everyone starts doing this they get the message.
Why not just confront them directly? Why beat around the bush? Politeness only goes so far.
Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try.
I see this a lot in example code and I hate it. Don't hand off error handling to some other function, return then and there, bubbling up whatever went wrong.

Most of the time the receiver is swallowing the error or spitting it to stdout, so why bother
Sometimes... VAC can kick you mid-game for very obvious things. But in other cases you may be able to play for hours until a report goes through and gets verified. That delay (as a side-effect) guarantees that you can't quickly iterate and get immediate feedback on whether you're detected or not.
1000% this.

I've been in many orgs where root cause was either completely missing or completely missed the point. Recently I quit a company that thought they were doing RCA. The fact they sent out an email that there was an outage and then N number of hours or days later another email to say it was "fixed" and that they scaled or thought they found the problem and don't worry about it anymore. Literally we had weeks where the exact same outage occurred multiple times. And with every outage the exact same response.

So... I asked simple questions of leadership as to why RCA process was not implemented. Why RCA did not require a standardized template to be filled out as part of a production outage. Why a "5 Whys" approach wasn't being considered to truly expose the actual root cause. Why there wasn't any accountability.

At the end of the day failure cause is not root cause and many struggle conflating the two. Honestly when an organization doesn't hold true RCA as a critical part of engineering process I, personally, feel as though that organization will innevitably hit a glass ceiling. Among other problem areas the disconnect with RCA, for me, was why I couldn't stay at that company anymore. It was embarrassing watching from the inside as the same mistakes were made over and over with nobody the wiser.
Indeed, Go has no RAII.
I would be interested to see a risk analysis calculating the cost of loss of life and property damage in the event of a worst case scenario for each proposed solution (trucks, realigning tracks, or drilling a pipeline).
Well before pyramids, they built "mastabas". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastaba

And before that, they "buried their dead in pit graves dug out from the sand" (same article)

That _does_ indicate an increase in sophistication over time, from pit graves, to mastabas, to pyramids.
With sufficient thrust pigs fly, but that doesn't mean you should totally ignore aerodynamics when making a plane.
I'm just trying to illustrate what happens when you have an agent-principal relationship, which is the situation that public corporations are in.

Now, perhaps my boss and I have an agreement such that if I see a suitably sympathetic looking homeless person, I can alter the coffee mission and give them the money instead. But the the number of potential situations that could arise exceeds the number of prior agreements we could conceivably have, and ultimately in the face of uncertainty my default position has to be 'do what the boss said'.

The scenario was between me and my boss, but the analogy is for the relationship between the board of directors and the shareholders. It's not practical for the (millions of) shareholders to communicate their specific desires in every potential circumstance to the board. The board's default mission is 'enhance shareholder wealth'. Thus _on average_ the board's decisions will probably be less charitable than those of any individual board member or individual shareholder if they weren't acting on someone else's behalf. See the Milgram experiment, for example.

The reality is that for most shareholders, the company is just an anonymous component of their retirement fund, and all they want is for it to go up. Super funds generally don't even tell you what companies you're invested in.

So the average shareholder does not want the board of directors they've never met of a company they don't even know they own to decide without consultation to give THEIR retirement money to a (figurative) homeless person who the board decided was more worthy of the shareholder's money than the shareholder. They just want their retirement fund to grow, and this is what the boards of these companies have been tasked with: if the shareholders want to be charitable, they can do that on their own.

Enhancing shareholder wealth doesn't have to be zero-sum: in a free market, transactions should be beneficial to both parties. You give customers something they want, and customers pay you for it. Everybody wins. It's up to regulators to set rules such that legal methods of enhancing shareholder wealth don't include exploitation.
Agree to disagree that is a reasonable interpretation.
> Worse, everything that happens in a try block is 'flattened.' Not only does this mean you may need many try blocks, sometimes it can even be difficult to take individual statements and put them in one try block.

Go has exactly the same issue. But with exceptions at least you can group multiple statements together and handle them with one catch block. With Go you have to use multiple if blocks to get the same semantics.

> Go doesn't even really force you to check your errors, it just makes it harder to accidentally not check them.

Go doesn't make it harder to accidentally not check errors. If you call a function that only returns an error, such as os.Mkdir(), then the compiler will not warn you when you forget to handle the error.

> Language ergonomics are complicated, but the benefits of Go's approach are hard to deny.

I don't really see any benefit to Go's approach over exceptions or result types. If making it obvious that errors are handled is important, there's a solution for that that's much more elegant than if-err-nil blocks everywhere. It's precisely the solution that the Go community just rejected.
Google Banned Major Chinese App Developer CooTek from the Play Store
Aug22 Kolkata Event-Sramana Discusses Man and Superman:Human History Bifurcates
Accessible Password Input
Google attacked over rule that limits internet company liability