skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Refreshing break from the constant mention that a desk needs to be clean. While I am someone who typically likes an organized workspace, I find there are too many articles nowadays that dismiss any other workspace. This is unfair as everyone works better in different scenarios and settings, just like everyone learns differently in school.
Yes, I think the 'done by the compiler' part is really important for takeup. You can see a good example of a variant of this in the article:

> diff time [ie in the standard code-review workflow] deployment saw a 70% fix rate, where a more traditional "offline" or "batch" deployment (where bug lists are presented to engineers, outside their workflow) saw a 0% fix rate

That's the difference between "static analysis presented as part of the workflow a developer goes through anyway" and "static analysis presented after the fact". If you're in a position to enforce a code-review workflow that tools can hook into then "at code review time" works, but "at compile time" is better still since it shortens the feedback loop and ensures that everybody sees the issues while they're thinking about the code, even for smaller situations with more ad-hoc or nonexistent code review setups.
> Why are people so against burning plastic? It's easily the most environmentally friendly option.

As someone who thinks they're pretty well-informed, I was under the impression that it would heavily pollute; so assuming what you're saying is true, it's a perception / education piece.
Most markets are open, it’s the more exotic/specialist metals that are closed. With lithium it’s just the way it’s always been. Historically the market for lithium was industrial uses (lubrication etc) and there were only 3-4 big players that produced it (and often as byproduct of other processes). The big 3/4 companies would produce and often even refine it internally so no need to publish prices. The ev boom is obviously changing that, and they missed it somehow, hence the hard rock miners filling in the demand gap these next few years
Right, but if the public wants to reduce X, and makes a tax on X a big contributor to city revenue, a city can improve their finances by increasing X, i.e. doing the opposite of what the public wants.

Why spend $$$ promoting and supporting recycling if a landfill tax is paying your wages?
You really don't need "supportive evidence" to stop someone from hurting himself using whatever power you have. You just need to be a human being with a functioning heart.
> de facto relationship after a period of cohabitation (6 months in Australia, for example)

I looked this up and it's not true. If there are no explicit documents, the court will interpret what the intention of the couple were in terms of ownership. If the property is in one person's name, that person tends to keep the property. If the property is put in both names then it is split 50/50.
>This is a weak argument, because it implies that by taking guns, people won't commit suicide, when they may just do it by any other method.

That argument is correct; a major suicide prevention measure is taking away methods. When countries switched from coal gas to natural gas, suicide rate went down for this reason.

Suicide is largely a in-the-moment decision and guns make it very easy to act on it.

>Which the high rates of suicide in several other countries with way less gun ownership than in US point to.

I don't think that's true, they may just have a different culture that leads to more suicide. Gun ownership isn't the only difference between the USA and other countries.
So my access to the economy can be terminated at the push of a button? That doesn't sound appealing. I suppose I could always barter.
When package owners change, or change names, would the original package namespace still stick around for all the existing versions? Also, would there be a pointer built in that let you know about the new owner namespace when you try to upgrade automatically?

If so, I really don't see the practical problem. Actually it seems like useful information. If I'm upgrading and the package owner changed, that's definitely something I want to at least be told so I can look into whether that's important depending on the usecase. In that sense, it is a potentially breaking change. Particularly from a security standpoint.

If it's not the case, and everything including the version history is ported over to the new namespace and you're simply forced to change stuff just to get it working again, I agree this is just pointless churn.
The free market working at its most efficient.
I attempted to cross an entire country in a straight line
Creating a Material Design Slider with Web Components. The Shadow DOM Concept
This is a very old project, and has been online for a long time. It started getting popular when TPB ran into trouble and they started to add OBT as a secondary tracker to uploaded torrents. They also got sued by Hollywood studios but it didn't go anywhere apparently.

- https://torrentfreak.com/publicbt-tracker-set-to-patch-bitto...

- https://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-appeals-decision-not-to-s...

- https://torrentfreak.com/court-refuses-to-order-shutdown-of-...
>>Since 2013, Boeing has paid $17bn (£13.74bn) in dividends to shareholders and has spent a further $43bn buying its own shares - a spending spree that has helped Boeing treble its share price in just five years.

Are share buy backs a common strategy for large companies?
I think this sort of shows what I'm getting at. Without plug-ins or extra scripts yarn and npm take the same inputs, and yield the same output. A yarn user can share a prokect with an npm user and neither will know nor care what tool the other is using our how too make the tools talk.

This isn't to knock clojure tooling, which is good, but I don't think lein and boot are drop in replacements for each other like npm and yarn (almost) are.
Well, not feeling anything is not enough. Specially because you're doing Confirmation Bias. Plants do not have the same amounts of nutrients as meat. Vitamind D, A, K, B, B12, carnite, heme Iron, etc. How do you plan to get those without meat?
Classic SemVer :D
Per the FAQ at https://www.treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/at_g..., consumer to consumer transactions, including sales of used cars privately, are exempt from this proposed law.
It's basically for performance reasons, as I understand it, not technical limitations or something like that.
> This is why it's okay to restrain suicidal people against their will

Well, it isn't.
> Assume Rubygems chose to operate in that way, where all gems must be owned by a group rather than an individual user.

Sorry, this wasn't my premise -- I meant to have this as an option. As in <user>/<project> or <group>/project>.

> Then, assume that the most flexible option is for each gem to be owned by a unique group: that way even if two gems are maintained by the same users right now, they use two distinct groups in case that ownership changes in the future.

> We might as well just name the “group” the same as the gem name, since only one gem is managed by each group. So now the “purescript” group maintains “purescript”, the “pry” group maintains “pry”, etc.

I don't agree -- even if it's always group-a/purescript I think the distinction is still important, because in this case previous-group/puresecript still exists, but is frozen/archived. Here's how I'm understanding the scenario you laid out:

1. group-a/purescript is created

2. purescript changes ownership, group-b is going to be publishing it going forward

3. group-b/purescript is created

4. group-a/purescript freezes/archives/deprecates itself

5. group-b/purescript is actively developed

The fact that "group-b" is the "right" purescript is arbitrary/subjective to some degree.

> I think there’s a pretty compelling case that package managers should support group ACLing on publishing (giving multiple humans the first-class right to publish using individual creds to a group namespace, with the ability to add/remove users from the group over time. But once you’ve done that, the distinction between explicit group-name-in-package-path and changing-name-to-fork (so the difference between fork-group/orig-name and orig-name_fork-group) seems to shrink.

I think these two issues are a bit separate. Letting people dynamically change who owns/can publish to a repository is one way to solve this problem, but I think it's more complex than the fork-and-move approach.

IMO if some user wants to give up/transfer their repo, they:

1. find someone else to take over if they want

2. freeze/archive/whatever their repo

3. let the person fork & continue their work

An ownership change should be opt in, unless it was known @ package creation time that ownership would be a shared/rotated/changing/nebulous thing (which would be demonstrated by a group owning the package from the beginning).
Facebook Connected Her to a Tattooed Soldier in Iraq. Or So She Thought
A human being with a real "functioning heart" would not stop somebody from trying to kill themselves.
I suggest Clojure too. I have a few years of webservices production experience with Clojure and must say that everything was more than fine.

You don't need to work too much with Java (even if you will have to work a little bit with JVM if you plan to support things in production). The toolchain is very good and the community is small, but nice. There are many outstanding production-ready projects; my first hand experience was with: MongoDB, MySQL, RabbitMQ and, of course, web servers, so if your stack includes those, it is definetly a go.

I have also tried to deploy Clojure on AWS Lambda and it is definitely possible, even if not sure if it production-grade yet.
I hate how hard it is to sort out truth from fiction when it comes to new science regarding health and especially dieting. One study says one thing, another says another. How does anyone sort out fact from fiction on these things if they've never been to medical school?
Tax everything the amount it costs to clean it up. That way a) people will reduce the pollution it causes so they can sell it cheaper, and b) people will invent cheaper ways to clean up pollution.

If it costs $1 to clean it up, but only $0.50 to collect and recycle, problem solves itself.
A lot of comments here are making counter-arguments by showing that some other improbable entity would exist by the same logic. This is fine, but be aware that Gödel was just formalizing a 1000 year old argument, and the first counter-argument using this form is also 1000 years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Gaunilo

The argument basically comes down to if you can define something into existence. If the definition of X implies that X exists...then X must exist?
Just the exact thought I had when I wrote this article. Cheers!
Exactly. The paper is here: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/15/1903001116

The context of thermophotovoltalics is very interesting - conventional heat-to-electricity engines are limited by Carnot efficiency, which relies on a "cold side" and generally has low theoretical maximum efficiencies. This approach takes any hot emitter heated by any process - fuel burning, solar concentration, nuclear - and extracts electricity directly from the mostly IR photons it emits.

> Here, we present experimental results on a thermophotovoltaic cell with 29.1 ± 0.4% power conversion efficiency at an emitter temperature of 1,207 °C. This is a record for thermophotovoltaic efficiency.
Ah, that makes sense.

Finding a road without mobile reception here would be difficult.
If you're operating a legitimate business maintaining proper accounting records, and dealing with other legitimate businesses who are themselves maintaining records and paying tax, I would guess that it's _still_ much easier to go to the bank and deposit your cash into an account than to pay your bills straight out of your cash.
Does recycled material in Switzerland actually get recycled, or does it eventually get shipped to the other side of the world to end up in landfill?
It would be a search engine of _______? I'm not sure there is a clear answer there and it poses a huge challenge to marketability.
Recycle what you can and burn the rest. That is the most ecological solution if it is done by modern standards. It works and is done in most of Europe.

Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Austria all put less than 5% of their trash directly into landfills.

Functioning trash handling is far more effective at reducing the ecological impact of plastic than any attempt to reduce plastic consumption.

Personaly I think Switzerland is the best model on how to handle trash properly.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/fact-check_is-switzerland-the-w...
Most people who buy Teslas don’t want “just” an EV, they want a TESLA.
Well, it did make me feel like I was "doing my bit". But knowing now that recycled material ends up in landfill, often getting shipped around the world first... well, now I feel cheated, disheartened, and basically like an idiot.
I'd agree, but I don't think the additional complexity is worth it. I was prepared to suggest stuff like company.com/

That said, it's worked well for golang as far as I can see, despite 99% of the packages are github.com/<creator>/<package>.

Here are some writeups on what the rust team decided:

- https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io/issues/58

- https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/crates-io-package-policies...

Their stance seems pretty reasonable though I'm not sure I would have done the same (and it's obviously very likely I would be wrong to do the opposite of what they did):

> Namespacing

> In the first month with crates.io 58, a number of people have asked us aboutthe possibility of introducing namespaced packages 90.

> While namespaced packages allow multiple authors to use a single, generic name, they add complexity to how packaged are referenced in Rust code and in human communication about packages. At first glance, they allow multiple authors to claim names like http, but that simply means that people will need to refer to those packages as wycats' http or reem's http, offering little benefit over package names like wycats-http or reem-http.

> When we looked at package ecosystems without namespacing, we found that people tended to go with more creative names (like nokogiri instead of “tenderlove’s libxml2”). These creative names tend to be short and memorable, in part because of the lack of any hierarchy. They make it easier to communicate concisely and unambiguously about packages. They create exciting brands. And we’ve seen the success of several 10,000+ package ecosystems like NPM and RubyGems whose communities are prospering within a single namespace.

> In short, we don’t think the Cargo ecosystem would be better off if Piston chose a name like bvssvni/game-engine (allowing other users to choose wycats/game-engine) instead of simply piston.

> Because namespaces are strictly more complicated in a number of ways,and because they can be added compatibly in the future should they become necessary, we’re going to stick with a single shared namespace.
For the last ~10 years yes.
Almost all big companies that are profitable do it.

This is actually a major problem for innovation and investments in general, there are lots of economist who talk about this issue: Mariana Mazzucato has some very convincing arguments for public investments based, among other things, on this very problem.

(neo-liberal) Governments lower corporate taxes to boost corporate profit in the (unfunded) hope that this will drive massive investments in innovation and create job, and bigCo just buy their stock back because it is by far the most profitable short-term for their shareholders and their executives.

Major reason is : they don't know what else to do.
There was a very cool article on HN about the specific Boeing case that went over how it changed in the last 20y to go from engineering company to finance-driven company
It can really be seen as another form of dividend (or payout) depending on how you look at it. And yes it is fairly common when capital is available especially when no major re-investment opportunities present themselves that would utilize the capital in more efficient ways than mere buybacks.

Edit: a bit off topic but this "discussion" between Theil and Schmidt in my opinion highlights why companies are buying back their stock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsXFwy6gG_4
I'm interpretating this as governments having set up these schemes to fool people into thinking they are doing their bit, so they won't push as strongly for other environmental reforms?
You actually proved it’s a story: for some people it’s news that couples can live in different houses and have any other type of romantic relationship than dating.
IMHO it all boils down to "unhireable... where?". Of course you're hireable, there are plenty of places for people in their 40s with plenty of experience.
There is a bias of course in Hacker News towards young fast&furious companies in Silicon Valley where it appears that if you're not a ninja bro coder you're out, but it's just a fraction of the cake.
I was thinking more about the fact that in many households, a gun is laying around. You only need to buy it once, then it can stay, even loaded, in a cupboard or something for years and years. It's a normal not very special thing which at any time can be transformed into a suicide tool.
Any traumatic experience will have an effect. Why is that at all strange?

Have you ever wanted to ask a girl out for weeks, months or years, only to realize you are completely incompatible once you get her? Life is like that, especially when you're younger :)
Thank you for linking to that dependency grapher.

The crab-grass like dependencies of many/most NPM packages is scary enough, and then they (or you?), I guess because of lazy loading, to improve responsiveness, update it as you watch.. It's like a scene out of an alien monster movie, where the creature keeps growing more limbs.
> According to Yablonovitch, this finding builds on work that he and students published in 2011, which found that the key to boosting solar cell efficiency was not by absorbing more photons (light) but emitting them. By adding a highly reflective mirror on the back of a photovoltaic cell, they broke efficiency records

> "What the mirror does is create a dense infrared luminescent photon gas within the solar cell, a phenomenon that adds voltage," said Yablonovitch

> Recently, his team recognized that this mirror could serve double duty. In fact, it solves one of the biggest challenges in thermophotovoltaics: how to exploit the thermal (heat) photons that have too little energy to produce electricity. It turns out that the mirror can reflect those small photons to reheat the thermal source, providing a second chance for a high energy photon to be created and generate electricity. This phenomenon leads to unprecedented efficiency.

Given these paragraphs and the name "thermophotovoltalics", that this is about solar power seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw. Also, googling around I am seeing figures for steam turbine efficiency of between 40 and 80%. How sure are you this is not about solar cells?
I wasn’t implying you claimed that all gems needed a group, I was proposing it as part of the thought experiment. My apologies if that was unclear.

To your list of examples: my point parallels your own, I think. I’m saying that given the “right” version is arbitrary and subjective, the difference between “group-b/purescript” and “purescript-group-b” is effectively nil. More concretely: if namespacing existed, you could fork “group-a/purescript” to “group-b/purescript”, but if namespacing didn’t, you could fork “purescript” to “purescript-group-b”. In either case, dependent projects need to update where they source their dependencies from.

Namespacing, in my experience, tends to make the forking process slightly “cleaner”, because you avoid having a potentially non-“right” “original” (for example, “purescript” tends to look more legitimate than “purescript-group-b”). But some comments in this thread seem to paint namespacing as a hard requirement, or claim that package managers without namespacing are missing a core, mandatory feature. The case I’m presenting is that this isn’t the case: namespacing is a useful feature for several workflows, but adding namespacing doesn’t fundamentally alter the issue.
Banks, credit cards and payment processors and off course NSA and friends.
There is an explanation in the article - basically, this is done for performance reasons.

Especially for large types (e.g. collections) in-equality can short-circuit very quickly, whereas comparison may need to see a large part of the collection before being able to return.

The most pathological example is two large arrays of different size, that are element-by-element equal for the first million elements. Equality can return false after seeing the size difference, but <=> needs to reach the millionth-and-1 element before being bale to return a value.

The commission was especially concerned because the two operators would be functionally equivalent - so, it would be difficult to rely on testing to make sure the equality operator is also implemented.
> I have had to interact with Java regularly from Clojure

I guess it depends on what you're trying to build. For majority of Clojure devs, I think that's not the case.
In the past these kinds of relationships were called "Living Apart Together", or LAT-relationships [0].

---

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_apart_together
I reckon that having a single operator would make it easier to pass through a custom comparer to whatever function you need. That is probably a better option than changing the default <=> of a type.

For what it's worth the mathematical definition of partial orders suggests having NaN equivalent to NaN. You're not really forced to but giving up reflexivity doesn't seem worth it (unless you want to view each NaN a it's own object).

Interestingly mathematics only defines <= for a specific kind of object. Although on it's own this doesn't give you much information about what kind of relation it is.
Isn't this creating huge selection pressure for weird-looking weeds?
Game? Sure, if you’re willing to spend a non trivial amount of time integrating with a graphics API, but that’s true of most non C++ languages. Kernel? Probably not, AFAIK there’s no subset of Julia that can run without an OS (like for rust and C++).
Tamagotchi and the Rise of Bots
Planes are ordered because companies hope they can make a profit operating them (the hope is important, it does not necessarily mean they can). Which planes they order depends on many factors other than safety. Costs and risks of accidents are externalized through insurance, executive and shareholder indemnification and. as a last resort. bankruptcy. Then again, if they are seen as 'strategically relevant', or have the right connections, they can rest assured they will not have to pull in the 'last resort and will be bailed out of any troubles.

A German automaker was caught gassing the world population. They're still around, even having the audacity not to even change the brand name.
I probably should have phrased it better - I was picturing [Furnace] | [Thermophotovoltaics] | [Boiler], so the PV part gets first crack at the light/IR from the furnace and then the boiler cools the PV gear as it boils the water. This is also how it's suggested to be used in a paper linked elsewhere in the discussion above: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191...
Art Arrived at Jackson Pollock
Create 3D Games with PureScript Native