skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I like to draw software. Nothing tells people what's going on at a glance better than a bunch of boxes and arrows.

Some 5-10 years ago when UML went out of vogue (for good reasons; much of it is overspecified and overcomplicated), and around the same time FP started getting traction, I think we accidentally lost something.

I like FP and I also like using FP principles in not-strictly-FP language's such as JavaScript, but I miss OO's drawability.

If anyone knows of a compelling diagram syntax for FP style software, I'm deeply interested.

The best I've seen so far is abusing class diagrams for modules, which kinda sorta works when you follow a convention (common in eg Elixir) of having each module export one struct type plus some functions that operate on that struct. It's basically OO without inheritance that way so not surprising that it fits. But that feels a bit like shoehorning my FP into class diagrams rather than anything else. Any takers?
Does that include the new Mac Pro?

If so does that mean PC games would theoretically run faster on an iPhone 11 than on desktop PCs (ignoring GPU speeds)?
Perhaps things are different in Canada, but I've donated both to political parties and to multiple charities for various causes, and I've never been 'hounded' as I would describe it. I've received mail, but any time I've asked to be removed from their mailing list, that's the end.
> Other animals, even extremely intelligent close evolutionary relatives like bonobos and chimpanzees, treat sequences of words as sequences, not as hierarchies. The same is true for modern artificial intelligences based on deep learning.

That's only true when you think about LSTMs, but stacked CNNs, tree-LSTMs, graph neural net pooling and attention layers can do hierarchical aggregation. Hierarchical representations have been at the centre of many papers. There's even hierarchical reinforcement learning for describing complex actions as composed of simpler actions.

And trees are not good enough to represent language. Graphs would fit better because some leaf nodes in the tree resolve or refer to nodes on other branches (e.g. when you say He referring to the word John present in another place in the same text).

http://www.arxiv-sanity.com/search?q=hierarchical
And your problem is that absolutely anything can be explained by malicious intent.
Almost every single native RDBMS API provides parameterized queries / prepared statements where the parameters are sent separately from the query text. Here's one from MySQL:

https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/mysql-stmt-bind-para...

String escapes should have been dead a few decades ago -- I don't think any modern platform requires it; they all support parameterized queries natively.
Sure, because adding a touch button is free there's UI overload and lack of tactility.

You have to switch multiple screens to do what you want. That's no good, it's only perhaps ok for things you should never do while driving.
The A12 has better single-threaded SPECint2006 scores than EPYC7742 almost across the board. It's about 10% worse than the 3900X, and 20% worse than the i9-9900K, so if the 20% uplift holds true for SPECint scores then the A13 should be pretty much par with the i9-9900K.

ikr

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13392/the-iphone-xs-xs-max-re...
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14694/amd-rome-epyc-2nd-gen/9
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14664/testing-intel-ice-lake-...
> Transitioning from subsidy to transaction fees to reward miners existed as an idea before nullc.

That's a completely different idea than having full blocks where users compete for fees. You can also fund miners via lot's of transactions instead of few transactions with large fees.

> Lightning channels can go offline and be completely fine.

That's only because the other party didn't do anything. It's like saying leaving your door unlocked and open is safe because you did it once and nobody walked in to steal your stuff. You were lucky.

> Lightning is however in a state where it is more or less safe to use.

I did post link to a recent bug where LN is exploited to steal users funds didn't I? This kind of misinformation that "LN is more or less safe" really downplays the existing issues. It is beta software and should be treated as such.

> So to sum it all up, your post is pretty inaccurate.

To sum it all up, I was saying transactions in LN are different than Bitcoin transactions and that LN is only in beta, which you also confirm.
It was a Flask app using SqlAlchemy (so Python). I'm not sure functional programming would have changed the situation much. I imagine there would still be repeated patterns involving reading and writing to the database in slightly different ways, and it would still make sense to use some sort of library. But I haven't used functional languages much, so I can't say for sure either way.
The issue (as I understand it) was not that any one company failed, but that people lied about or ignored warning signs that failure was imminent for specific companies (edit: and that this may have been done due to conflict of interests). The actual policy issues and implication are hidden behind the partisan wrangling and spin that surrounded this topic.

There are legitimate concerns about conflicts on interest for people who have large investments in green companies while also lobbying strongly for particular "green" public policies. The risk is that if we uncritically accept these people at their word, we may end up with policies that do less to protect the environment and climate and more to line the pockets of the advocates.

Of course, these issues are endemic to our current political/economic systems and don't just apply to investment in climate friendly companies.

I would be much more inclined to trust the motivations of environment advocates with large investments in environmental companies if those investments were purchased and administered through some sort of blind trust to alleviate conflict on interest concerns.
Ruby on Rails’ ActiveRecord, for all its heft, is excellent at this. You can use raw SQL any time you like. It was an explicit design goal from day 1.

There are times I dislike things about it, and it can be quite heavy, but it’s very easy to mix and match ActiveRecord ORM code and raw SQL even within a single model class.
How to Make a Telemedicine Application
The funny thing is, it doesn't matter. "2nm" is just marketing; nothing about it is actually 2nm in size. But that's okay, because that was true at 7nm and 14nm and even at 28nm.

So what 2nm really means is "better than 3nm".
This article makes no effort to see if the bug is also replicated on tweets by non-left or non political. There is scant evidence to support the idea that this is more than a bug. If a hard to fix bug is going to occur, of course you can expect that it might appear on tweets with many replies. Is there something more I am missing?
IBM z15 (8561) Technical Guide [pdf]
Either way I can't imagine this can be very comfortable in the winter with basically zero insulation, unless you plan to run the wood stove all day and night. For summer it's great, but it sounds like the author wants to live there all the time (he mentioned not having to shower at the gym after installing the shower).
for f in *; do is cute but what about those idiots who put spaces in the filenames?
> This kind of doctrinaire thinking, this sort of broad and bold declaration, is the stuff of high-traffic blog posts but not good advice for real world developers.

> A fool is someone who would set out to build a simple-to-intermediate CRUD web app by writing SQL.

\u{1f644}

SQL works great for simple-to-intermediate CRUD web apps too.
> Even if OOP really were a great way to model your data, to express relationships and property types and such, it's all just going to end up in a database anyway.

Of course. But when you operate on it. When you end user is typing into a screen. When you're validating the contents. You're doing in the application, not in the database. RAM is where the data lives when it's being acted on.

It's like saying your Word processor should have no internal data structures different from how the file stored on disk.

OOP is a great way to model data sotred in RAM and operated on. And an ORM is a great tool for persisting that structure to disk as needed.
It’s to help prevent voter fraud. Anybody who cares can check who voted and when.

Also, your name, birthday, and address will never be very private. You give it to so many different people/companies.
Charter of the Forest
CBD Edibles Gummies
They can’t even get their phone batteries to last a full day because they’ll continue to prioritize form over function.

I had several smartphones I didn’t need to charge more than every other day or even every three days if I wasn’t using them nonstop. Apple could do that today.
I think we're all specifically asking how the heck you monetize extensions
Normal house tax structure: $800k land / $400k structure. This: $800k land / $150k structure. What's the point?
Right, that’s kind of the point of the thread. That is one side and not based on facts. It’s important to consider those communications with reality to assess what change should be made.

Only considering my needs as I say them without any further context will likely lead to inefficient decisions.
>> If money alone fixed social problems

Your argument changed from "throwing money at social problems doesn't work" to "money alone doesn't fix social problems".

Moving goalposts like this does not constitute a good-faith argument.
Carbon nanotubes, graphene, photonic chips, more involved silicon designs.

There's no shortage of ideas, just uncertain ROIs.
As much as people love to rip on StackOverflow for being unfriendly, it is in an entirely different plane of existence from all the little php forums that it replaced.

You haven't seen arbitrary, shitty moderation unless you were on the internet in the early 2000s.

The craziest thing is, those people are almost all still on the internet, but they've aged out of the worst of the terribleness.
No sides as afar as I am concerned. I just pick the best tool for the job. I love ORMs. I love plain SQL, be that via an ORM "jail break" or a lower layer.
Reminds me (coughs) of a similar app made by a certain (coughs) startup that refused an acquisition from (coughs) Twitter called (cough) (cough) Frontback [0] (cough). Sorry (coughs) I'm allergic to Deja Vu.

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/frontback-app-shuts-down-201...
Yes there's even iOS app like Pythonista which provide Python and n IDE.
But it's the wet dream of people willing to spend a lot of (not theirs) money and maybe rigging the results.
Paper ballot, electronic counting. Best of both worlds. You get a quick count, but also if there’s shadiness/hacking going on you can always recount the paper.

Some states seem to be moving towards absentee voting over the internet, which will be a mess when accusations of hacking start flying.
> It is saying "it makes easy things easier".

No it makes simple things easy. Simple things in raw SQL are bloody complicated. Even just getting data, manipulating it, and saving it is at least twice as difficult in maintainability and lines of code than using an ORM.

> An ORM converts one paradigm into a completely different paradigm, which is why it fails and is a terrible idea.

I'm not sure where people get the idea that ORMs fail at their job. They really don't. They do it very well and we're all quite happy.

All the anti-ORM arguments here about how ORMs fail at completely different jobs other than mapping objects to RDBMS operations. Well duh. Nobody complains about cars that can't fly and planes that can't fit on the highway but when ORM can't cook bacon it doesn't fit the paradigm.
I am not sure your use of "in contention" doesn't really make sense to me here. Did you mean something like "incompatible" or "in conflict"?
In this framework, you can think about a morpheme as being a tuple of features. Like you said, it is sort of akin to a type system, where passing the wrong type to a function won't work. A morpheme will select for a feature or set of features from whatever its merged with, and won't merge with something it doesn't agree with.

I think using a language which doesn't care much about word order will be illustrative here, so let's use Latin:

puella vidit canem

The girl sees the dog

We can break this down into:

puell - a vid - et can - em

girl - NOM.S.FEM sees - S.3 dog - ACC.S.FEM

So 'puella' is the tuple of features [+NOM, +S, +FEM], 'videt' is [+PRES, +ACTIVE, +S, +3], etc.

Here, we want to do a Merge with 'puella' and 'videt': we say that 'puella' selects for the features +NOM, +3, +S (nominative, third person, and singular) in its verb, but doesn't care about the others. It can still agree with its verb if the verb is passive or in the past tense. But if a verb is conjugated in a way that violates the features it selects for (eg the verb is conjugated as first person plural), 'puella' won't merge with it.

As you said, a phrase level structure will have the features of its constituent parts bubble up to it. So once we've done the first Merge with 'puella' and 'videt', our structure is now selecting for a noun phrase that has the feature +ACC. Because 'canem' meets this requirement, we can get the final Merge necessary for our finished sentence.

{ { puella, videt }, canem }

Note that this account still works if we change the order of the sentence to any configuration, we just need to reorder the merges.
Well, the difference is that in a data oriented language, you do not need to map Objects to relations. You can get the data back in the relational format and use it as is in your app. So you don't need an ORM. You might still have a library to help you build dynamic SQL queries, but no object-relational mapping needed.
ORMs seem to be a typical example of over-engineering. Often you don't need all that complexity they come with and when you do, you are probably better of understanding exactly what you are doing.

So maybe building a minimal API, wrapping your SQL queries isn't such a bad idea after all.
Zuckerberg’s famous MacBook with tape over web cam and microphone jack has a lot more context now.

I guess this says everything about corporations caring about security.
5-level page tables have actually been in the kernel for a couple of years now.

The issue listed was definitely a concern, but was worked around by having the kernel only allocate userspace linear addresses that aren't 48-bit-canonical in response to a mmap() call that supplies such an address as the hint argument. See the commit message in this commit for example: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/796025/

So for a program to get an address above the 56-bit limit, its memory allocator has to specifically indicate to the kernel that it supports that.
>This was expected at least 3 months ago

Here's the Quanta report they quoted: https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-nevens-law-describe-quan...

I remembered seeing that and still feeling a bit skeptical. It seems like you could perhaps achieve "quantum supremacy" and yet not have quantum computing devices that are actually "useful".
Why do we all go along with this charade? It’s so silly and unscientific. Why can’t we just call the things correctly?
I don't know. I've been building database backed stuff for 25 odd years now, and I've never experienced this Object/Relational Impedance Mismatch that everybody talks about in any of my designs. I sometimes wonder if it's just the approach I take that has ended up dodging that bullet somehow.

My initial design is always done in the database. Whether it's a little feature or a green field new project on a blank sheet of paper, that sheet of paper is the Schema Designer of my db (or a schema.sql if I'm in postge/mysql land).

Once the schema is nailed down, the object structure flows out easily. You can follow foreign keys, many-to-many tables and non-identity primary keys to figure out your children, relations, and inheritance. It's so well defined that for my own stuff I just point my code generator at it to get a pile of base classes and stored procedures for all the CRUD. (And re-run it at build time to ensure that everything always matches up.)

So when it comes to pulling down records, modifying them, saving them, grabbing sets of them to spin through, etc. There's never any mismatch because what you get from the db will naturally look just like what you need. Because you designed it to be that way.

I may hazard a guess as to why so many people do run into issues, and it's because I notice that nearly every ORM I've seen in the wild expects you to define your schema someplace other than the database. It'll have some wacky XML config file that you're supposed to keep up to date, with even wackier "migrations" for when that changes. And it'll then either build your db schema for you or expect you to have something in place that matches what it wants.

But that's silly.

There's already a perfectly good place to keep your schema. In the database.

And I guess it follows that if you don't design your system with a sensible relational data model in mind, you might find that your object structure doesn't in fact fit in a database correctly. Could it be that that's what people are describing when they talk about Impedance Mismatch?
> You can say someone can buy their privacy by avoiding Gmail, Facebook, etc., but no one should feel like they have to choose between privacy and voting.

But again,

>> By law, voter registration lists are available to the public

Someone may have stolen information they are legally entitled to have. That's not a scandal.
The hardware - at least, x86-64 hardware - does raise an exception on use of a non-canonical address.

So to use these dirty tricks successfully, you have to mask out those bits before you dereference your pointer.
Go far enough up the mountains, even in the coast range and there is definitely a frost line.
Not a good week for intel
Unless you don't have objects... then no need for an Object-relational mapping, not a well maintained one, and not an ad-hoc one. All you need is a DB connection pooling library, some helpers or libs to help you build dynamic SQL queries and that's all.
I agree. The problem is that "true scepticism" demands a disciplined mind in a relatively stable emotional state. That's not what usually what happens in our daily lives.
Emulation works as a transition layer, and they've done it before (see Rosetta from ppc->x86 and the 68k emulator from when they switched to ppc), but native binaries will be significantly faster and more energy efficient.
The term you are looking for is "assurance contract": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract
The problem in many cases is actually in the OO part, in my experience - in the vast majority of cases where databases and persistence is concerned, staying in the procedural/structured + relational world keeps things simple, whereas objects often obscure what is actually happen, and invoke opaque magic such as ORMs.

I wonder what your experiences had been if after dropping the ORM you had gone one step more and dropped the objects.
The 7-5nm was said to be so much a barrier before. I'm sure this will unleash a ton of capital and brains to keep digging.

ps: I heard spintronics and neutronics caught some wind on paper
There's no doubt that Apple is currently making the best SOCs for the consumer smartphones. But, we should also be careful when comparing it with Apple Computers as some of them are underpowered e.g. Core M3 in Mid 2017 MacBook is same as the that found in intel based SBCs such as LattePanda Alpha.

It would be interesting to see the single thread performance of intel Xeon W-3275M CPU from the Mac Pro 2019. The Cascade Lake architecture supposedly increases single thread performance by decreasing the base frequency of certain cores while increasing other cores as part of its Speed Select Technology (SST). Of course this depends on the power configuration set by Apple, I wonder whether they would voluntarily keep it under max performance in order to project the single thread superiority of their AX chips.
>Leibniz (inventor of calculus) used this method very heavily in his own work. Before computers--and even into the 1960s--it was the most important way of automating data processing. Back then, you used cards that had a row of either holes or notches along one edge, and selected matching cards from a stack by inserting a rod through the stack at a selected spot, and lifting.

Hey, do you have a reference for that? I've been doing some research into Leibniz's calculators, and I've been finding few sources.
It's disappointing that they decide to work with the Euclidean model (HSL) when many years of study in human reception have yielded things like CIELAB, or a variant that's easier to work with like CIELCH.
... according to geekbench that was always favoring iphone cpus.
Actually, DDD recommends that domain object in general should be loaded by id only, and complicated query for grid should load projection
> They can’t even get their phone batteries to last a full day because they’ll continue to prioritize form over function.

Well, to be fair, smartphones have much, much smaller bodies to carry around a battery. If Apple makes a notebook with the same A13 processor I’m pretty sure it will last more than two or three days.

BTW, one of smartphone’s function is that it’s portable. You really can’t blame it being form over function when talking about battery life; there are many, many people who want light phones. If you need longer battery life by sacrificing weight, you can get yourself a backup battery (or a battery case)

> I had several smartphones I didn’t need to charge more than every other day or even every three days if I wasn’t using them nonstop. Apple could do that today.

My experience is that my iPhone XS survives a day and a half without any charging. YMMV, of course, but for me that’s enough.
People think doing mathematics means you solve equations all day, but they're wrong - sometimes it's about finding that you've drawn the arrow the wrong way in a diagram...

At 4am, in bed, breaking out in cold sweat.
Curious as to why Pacific Yurts didn't make the yurt companies page.

https://doityurtself.com/choosing-a-yurt-company/

if you've ever stayed in an Oregon State Parks Yurt they were built by https://www.yurts.com/
All very good responses. Thank you.
A fun little app to make: "Would you rather trust <company A> with your <piece of information X> or <company B> with your <piece of information Y>?" Two lists. Issue a uniqueid cookie to filter duplicates. See what comes back. I bet the order comes out, roughly, Apple, Google, Amazon, a bunch of others, with Facebook somewhere down at the very bottom. But I could be very wrong.