skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is "just" for the rest of the world?

That of a regular human being with rationalized opinions through the lens available to them? For some reason only because Google has a lot of power to control the dialogue you ask them to bury their head in the sand? Or are we going to pretend that there hasn't been an arms race of sorts to game search results across nearly every topic and as such one might consider removal of what one considers to either be harmful, false, or manipulative to be a part of doing the "right" job?

What's the quote again, " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing " -- Edmund Burke

And as far as Google goes, I think it would be easy to rationalize that (if I was a Google member) I have access to better tools than most to make a decision (more information).
So they throw people in jail and end up having the same outcomes as Portugal that doesn't?

Gee, you are making it very difficult to choose which policy I prefer!
That wasn't there I'm pretty sure, and even still, it doesn't say sponsored anywhere, just a plug for it. Yes, it is obvious to us what it is, but to an outsider or child? It is manipulative to those people.
I think he's saying they buy supplies, which they then turn into things to sell (versus reselling what they are buying).
> This is a divide we need to resolve.

The question is how much of that needs to be hammered out at work.

Part of the problem may be that we've tied the workplace so intimately into our lives that it's cramming out activities vital to the civilization's health, like participation in local civic, religious, or charitable organizations, where such topics are generally not only welcome but often the rasion d'etre.

Employees have a very understandable impulse to do something to influence social health for good, and if work becomes the only place where such an impulse can feel effectively fulfilled, it's no surprise that political discussion spills over irrespective of management dicta.

Rather than decreeing political discussion off-limits, maybe Google could consider something like reorienting and/or resurrecting 20% time to focus on allowing employees to effectively practice good citizenship, rather than using that time to generate new IP for Google to hoard.
This is pretty strange to me. I've worked in a bunch of very different places, including Intel Corp. and also defense contractors and US government installations, and people generally stayed away from political discussions unless they were around people they already knew were like-minded. The only place I saw political discussion turn really sour was at Intel when we had a contractor who was extremely religious and conservative, and would talk publicly about how homosexuals "offended" him, etc. We ended up not renewing his contract because he was toxic.

At government places, political discussions were generally avoided. The Hatch Act might have something to do with that (it's illegal to campaign for any political candidate at a Federal workplace), but mostly I think people just had good common sense. They did talk a little among themselves in the run-up to the election, but it was in-person, with a buddy, not meant to be a public discussion.

What's really shocking to me here is this revelation that there's actually "global mailing lists" within the company where political talk is happening. This, I cannot imagine ever seeing at any of my prior employers, ever. I honestly can't imagine why any company would tolerate such a use of its equipment this way. It's just a recipe for trouble.
A couple weeks, according to folk wisdom, which matches my anecdotal experience.

I'm curious if you went home to cooler temperatures, or if your whole summer was spent in warmth? I definitely have experienced harder times going back and forth vs. always being in the warm environments.
Datadog S-1 IPO Investment Prospectus
I have worked at a large company that actually did that we had internal newsgroups at BT bt.misc

And even externally the only thing that was verboten was the uk.telecom hierarchy - this was more to not encourage some of the internet kooks.
Cleaning Your Glasses Shouldn't Be Hard
Technically in Star Trek I believe transporters recreated you at the destination, and no particles were moved either.
> I think this can be quite difficult to do just because of the political views involved. For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death. In such a case, I would say that even asking the first individual to tolerate, much less respect, the second is itself a form of disrespect.

But if politics are not allowed at work then you wouldn't KNOW what your coworker's opinion is on the subject. That's one of the main points of not discussing politics at work, it's hard enough to get many people in one place to agree on technical things, it's impossible to get them to agree on everything and as every one of us feels strongly about one issue or another sooner or later we'll find things about our coworkers that we strongly oppose and that would make working with them hard.
I'm sure you feel this is a really strong argument to make but don't copy and paste replies in a thread like that, it's spamming the thread.
His argument has been widely debunked, and subsequent followup found that Leavitt had a huge data error that way overstated his conclusion.

I personally find the lead/crime argument to be much more convincing
The Dynamic Duo: Product Management and Product Design
I do agree that O-O design was fetishized starting in the 1990s and the results have been terrible. But this is strange to me:

> In fact, his essay ends by touting functional programming as the superior alternative — a competing paradigm in which problems are modeled not with objects but with pure mathematical functions and an emphasis on avoiding changes in state.

O-O is a way of encapsulating abstraction. That's it. It could mean actors, message passing generic functions composition and/or inheritance. There's no reason you couldn't program in a purely functional O-O way.

I build hardware that uses a variety of different kinds of fasteners, and circuits with different kinds of components. I could build all my logic circuits with only resistors and diodes (people used to do so, after all) but the fact that that's no longer a good idea doesn't mean I should try not to use resistors or diodes at all.
Because it’s a constant mental struggle to keep everything in mind when doing “classic OOP”. Inheritance, mutability, weak type systems with nulls. All that adds to the mental overhead.

It is possible to program in a classical OO language without so much struggle but it requires a level of discipline that takes 10 years or more to aquire.
It's hard to imagine that any discussion of Koch's legacy won't be political, which is something HN's moderators generally prefer to avoid.
I just checked my contract again. If the patent is outside the scope of my work activities, and I don't write up the application while I am at work, I don't see how they could claim it.

But then Americans have these funny "all your intellectual property are belong to us" clauses in work contracts....
i had the previous generation of this device.

incredibly good, but incredibly expensive and incredibly fragile.
Doesn't that speak more to how divided we are as a country, not some fundamental flaw in the system?
Illinois patient’s death may be first in US tied to vaping
> I remember reading C++ intro books in my early teens. Class Train prints choo choo. Class Car says honk honk. Both inherit Vehicle. I thought, why do they do this dumb shit and how is it related to programming?

As someone who was once a known C++ and OOP zealot that later found their way to functional programming and now sits middle of the road on things, I am curious how exactly you would go about implementing polymorphism in C++ for, say a video game, where different entities had different sounds such that a single function can play the sounds of many entities without using this "train is a vehicle" and "car is a vehicle" text-book inheritance?

I'm not saying I cannot think of other ways to do it, but I am not really sure what the deficiency in your example actually is -- that seems like a pretty straightforward use of inheritance, and I can see it being useful in say a game as I made an example of.
What about products used in the production of items for sale?
Thr CCP owes a lot to Americans, especially Roosevelt. Misguided optimism really.
She actually did pretty well considering many thought she would get primaried out. All the other incumbents look pretty secure as well
If your opponent has view you consider intolerant, and the majority of society agrees with them you're saying the right thing to do is use suppression to enforce your minority view on the rest of society. Do you really realize what you're saying here?

Under this logic if I think abortion is murder, and I consider everyone who supports abortion is intolerant then I am justified in suppressing pro-abortion speech even if the majority of society is pro-choice.

The end result of your line of thinking is civil war. Coexistence with people who have values and morals different from each others becomes impossible when people's response to views they find wrong is to be intolerant toward those views.
Totally agree on that. Premature generalization is the root of all evil. It breaks the YAGNI principle. Over-engineering is often seen in java programming, because creating a new class is so easy, that people often create huge amount of ridiculously small classes.
The geography of homelessness in Seattle still eludes me, but Belltown just isn't one of the high-concentration areas. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Pioneer Square and the International District are hotspots. This may be due to shelters and missions (places to get food and housing) being more concentrated there.

Homelessness and drug use also comes in very different forms even within Seattle; I live in Ballard, and most of our homeless and drug-addicted community lives in beaten-up RVs parked on the side of the road.
I grasped the concept of OOP pretty easily. Can't say the same about FP.
> How does one "over-engineer" a functional environment? By breaking functions down into even smaller pieces? By minimizing side-effects even further than before? These are all good things to do no matter what.

Off hand, overly tight coupling of unrelated by superficially comparable functions. Of course one can also do this in OOP environments as well. This is related to "God Functions" that are meant to handle way too much.

There's also those who fundamentally fail to understand what the point of FP is. The belief that it's just "my function isn't in a class."
No incentive for Hogg to deny it, makes him look good.
At this point people should really understand how to read a statement from Trump. It actually is important to read all the words.

“Hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative” does not mean he is trying to say companies must cease importing from China, even if that’s what the headline will read tomorrow.

It simply says that companies need to start looking for alternatives to China.

Trump is saying it’s going to get increasingly expensive to import all our stuff from China going forward.

Can he make things increasingly expensive to import from China? As long as he’s President, yes he can.
Understatment of the year? Yes, Donny Two-Scoops is indeed not using language correctly [0]. Watch the video there. It's really something.

[0] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-sentence/
The trade war specifically is not addressed in the poll; “free trade” is, and it has broad support. Free trade is directly the opposite of a tariff policy, so superficially that's directly contrary to your characterization. While you could argue that the policy is designed to produce an outcome which would feature free trade as a future state, there's nothing in the poll that suggests that the public supports that position. So, no, while there is a potential argument that your source doesn't directly contradict the point you cite it for, it absolutely does not support that point even a little bit.
I think you can accept or be neutral on the assertion that "the personal is political", without it entailing that you actually live in a state of political engagement. After all, the professional ought not be personal.
50/50 doesn't necessarily mean 50/50. If I give to my preferred candidate and give to an opposing candidate that I think would be easy for my candidate to beat, then I'm not really giving 50/50.
I don't grasp why Trump thinks these kinds of messages are any good. Maybe it's okay for his campaign but if we're talking the country, it's clear it doesn't help. All it does is it make companies great and small have to scramble for any kind of contingent plan to deal with him. I'm not a fan of capitalism but I'm a fan of keeping myself fed. The more he meddles in these affairs in such a haphazard way the more it makes the economy unstable. All I can say is that he better pray to whatever god he believes in that it doesn't wind up leading to a recession or a depression.
I feel like there are two effects here: Most code you will encounter in the workforce is poorly written or is now used in ways the author didn't intend. Because of it's popularity, most code you will encounter there is also object oriented.

The second effect is, pay and hire-ability is often linked to years of experience in languages and tools for developers who don't have large projects or exits on their resume. That means that you are incentivized to learn new up and coming tools and paradigms, where your years of experience can quickly become competitive vs more established technologies, where people have years of experience on you.

Now, I happen to also prefer functional programming because it seems to more closely match the way I think, and I find it easier to responsibly manage state in that style. But I believe that these two potential causes have a larger effect than my personal preferences. I don't know how to measure this though.
Evidence-based demonstration is not insinuation.

How HN decides to address that is a separate matter.
People seem fine adding each other on Facebook without using a phone number. When I add people on LINE messenger I use their ID not their phone number. When I meet a new person and exchange some contact details, it is rarely a phone number. I would also like to talk to some people who I do not want to know my phone number. I think this tradeoff was a mistake for Signal.
> For example, how should a gay man respect a colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality should be punished with death.

How should a Muslim man respect a gay colleague who honestly thinks that homosexuality doesn't deserve a punishment?

Probably neither will respect the other, but they'll have to live with that.
Pretty much every OO language has implemented lambda (anonymous) functions in recent years.

It's actually a very enjoyable coding flow to create closures in stateless objects using C# or Java.
"...constructing a custom micro-CT system capable of scanning the larger Herculaneum pieces is feasible using existing technology."

Unbelievable. Are we really that close?

If I might ask: what texts do you secretly hope might be found?
Offering a choice of jail time or compulsory residence in drug treatment facility seems like a good compromise
Large community sites need never censor anything, then. For any subject even slightly controversial, there will always be at least some users flagging/reporting to justify removing it.

Wouldn't you consider selective enforcement a type of censorship?
There's a ton of news articles about WhatsApp responsabilites:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/technology/whatsapp-brazi...

Google and you'll find a ton more.
More than that, you have to trust every seller for the product you're buying, because all inventory from all sellers (including Amazon itself) goes into a single bin. You have no way of knowing which seller actually put the item you get into the bin.
It's amazing how much this applies to fiction writing, too. Having a clear outline and keeping it updated really helps - especially if you're not a linear writer and work on multiple points in a single session.

Then again, if more amateur fiction writers did one thing well, I think that fiction in general would be improved.
The Lovely Chinese Watchtowers Built with Proceeds from the California Gold Rush
Level 10 EOS Meeting Agenda Template
"Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend" podcast does this really well. He has totally unrelated ads like State Farm insurance and a glass printing company, but he turns them into comedy bits with self-deprecating jokes and riffing. I'm usually very sensitive to ads, but I've never felt the urge to skip any of his.
I wish I could talk to you 5 or 10 years down the road when you have discovered and internalized the reality that
a) there are no good programmers
b) the programmers you're complaining about will never go away
c) you're one of them

My contention against OOP is that it is a pattern that encourages critical mistakes that composition-based systems does not encourage.

My contention against FP is that it discourages small amounts of state (e.g. that doesn't leave the scope of the current function) and instead encourages many mental leaps to wrap your head around the transducer or whatever.

But if I had to pick one, FP tends to produce higher quality code.
> If your opponent has view you consider intolerant

If my opponent thinks I'm intolerant, then ME increasing my level of tolerance does NOTHING to fix the problem.

> The end result of your line of thinking is civil war.

Not if the other side down backs down first. Which is usually what happens. Why should the onus be on ME to back down?

------

Yeah, its complicated. But play with the game-theory of the model. That's the current direction we're marching towards politically. My point is that your philosophy of "tolerate the opponent" does NOTHING to stop this game-theory matrix. My optimal move is to be intolerant, especially if my opponent is intolerant.

Yeah, its a prisoner's dilemma. But that's the reality of politics.
> But thanks to their scientific innovations, they feed the world. It's difficult to realize how many lives they have saved or improved, but they are probably on the top 10 list of most impactful entities for increasing well being and diminishing suffering.

How can you be so sure about this?
Monsanto's GMOs depend on the use of their tailored pesticides. It's their whole USP.
The negative impact of the current use of pesticides, of which roundup is a bestseller, is _immense_. The vicious cycle of pesticide use, GMOs and debt is horrible for farmers in low- medium-income countries and often leads to suicide. Just pesticide poisoning accounts for a yearly death toll of 200,000 to 250,000 people according to the UN [0] and the WHO [1].

This does not even go into the topic of loss of biodiversity where pesticides play a vital role. According to the OHCHR, if we were to eliminate bees by using neonicotinoid pesticides as usual, we will likely see a collapse of "the very basis of agriculture as 71% of crop species are bee-pollinated."[2] Monsanto and its practice have been directly linked to the demise of bee populations [3].

Monsanto and the like are again, cashing in all our chips for short-term gain. This is not innovation. This is a growth hacking at its worst.

[0] - 2017, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF... "pesticides are responsible for an estimated 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year"
[1] - 2006, https://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/en/Pest... Worldwide, an estimated three million cases of pesticide poisoning occur every year, resulting in an excess of 250,000 deaths.
[2] - https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
[3] - https://www.globalresearch.ca/death-and-extinction-of-the-be...
Even buying brand name items shipped and sold by Amazon doesn't guarantee that your item will be safe. The way Amazon commingles their items with 3rd party "fulfilled by Amazon" items means chances are high that you will end up with a Chinese knock off.
Should people act in ways that disagree with their sense of justice?

Should people be allowed to speak out against things that other people do, but that disagree with their sense of justice?

I don't see how you can call it "arrogant" for people to act in accordance with their moral and ethical standards. We don't have the power to force the world do line up with our personal sense of justice. But we do have the power to make our lives and the lives of those around us more just, according to our own personal interpretation of that concept. Do you really think that striving for justice isn't OK?
The larger problem is that the IP assignment clauses are way too broad in the US. When I worked at Microsoft I had one that theoretically covered everything I wrote regardless of when, where, or on what devices. As an hourly worker, though, Microsoft was never going to exercise that due to overtime issues.

I rechecked my contract and under the terms of the contract, if it is specific to my work at my employer, they could claim it, but frankly we prefer to release everything that isn't specific to our industry open source anyway, so.....
Some people have different opinions. I oppose deceptiveness, and am not too opposed to tracking.
>We import > 500 billion from China and export under 130 billion to China.

It's not so simple as, "Hey, lets pocket 500B - 130B = $370B and put it in the bank or spend in what we want".

First of all, prices will increase, and production will move to other countries.

If you ban imports from other countries, many things will become unaffordable to many people, which creates knock on effects. PCs and Smartphones getting more expensive means fewer people will use them, which means a smaller market for software. People will have less money to spend on, say, restaurants. People living off the $130B of exports will be out of jobs and some will go on unemployment and social welfare. Others will be hired with lesser pay, so will buy less. There will be so many knock on effects beyond this. Tesla is down 4% just today based on new tariffs announced by China for the future.

We are already paying new subsidies to farmers, from taxpayer money that can used to, say, build super fast trains in the US like China has.

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-trump...
Certainly a 100,000 person company is going to have characteristics that someone who generally prefers a 1,000 or 100 person company may not much like. But not all large companies become "terrible" companies--whatever that means exactly.

As the peer comment notes, there are also companies that remain private and mostly small and march to their own drummer. Of course, those can easily end up in family control spats and the like.

Nothing's perfect but I'm not sure the lesson is everything sucks or dies in the end.
> it would have been better solved by a manager asking him "do you really think it's a good idea to post this at work?"

Are you aware that Google solicited that feedback?
When I was something around 13 years old, Oracle made a presentation for its SQL database in a hotel in my hometown.

I signed up, and the presentation should be a few days later. One or two days later, Oracle called my home and asked to speak with me. It was what my background was, and I told I enjoyed programming and told them my age, explaining I was still going to school.

They said that unfortunately, the event was for grow-ups and that I couldn't attend it. But no worries, when it did an event for kids, they would call me.

Thankfully they never called me back. Now I'm a happy PostgreSQL user and only queried an Oracle database a few times during my bachelor in Computer Sciences because the teacher of database systems forced us to use it.