skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There is no such thing as unconditional love, even from your own children. For example if you have high trait neuroticism (vulnerable to negative emotions) then likely your kids will as well, so your family could very easily end up with everyone being miserable since nobody has the tools to properly deescalate setbacks, instead they'd just make it worse.
OK this is awesome! Thanks for sharing, it fits my nerd-brain like a glove. Wish it would generalise to everything in life like my own spreadsheets (I say that as a compulsive data-collector)
Can we not be allowed to have heroes without someone mentioning that they go to the toilet the same as us?
I had a problem I wrote a compiler Now I have 2 problems
Ask HN: Those with a Hi-DPI *nix setup, what desktop are you using?
Agreed. The whole 'IP theft' story is bullshit and founded on an intellectual fiction (that ideas can be property).
Not sure why you're downvoted. Parent is worded in a very confusing way.
Does this mean that using those brokers means that I 'nakedly' own those shares? I.e. if I actually pick a successful share and the price explodes, the shorter or the broker cannot buy it back and I end up owning nothing?

With all the people shorting Tesla, who will own Tesla if Tesla succeeds and the price explodes?
On the contrary, learning which corners may be cut safely and when/why is fundamental.

It's the same in every discipline, at some point you need to transcend the rules to go anywhere.
Seattlelite here. So glad to hear you found a better job! Those hell gigs can really crush you.

Just to warn you it can get dark and rainy this time of year but there's plenty to do.

Recommended:

- The Underground Tour. A fascinating historical tour of the seedy gold-rush roots of the city.

- Pike Place Market. It's an iconic Seattle spot that has great food, a great view and great people watching.

- The Ballard Locks. This is the mechanism that keeps Lake Washington from draining into the ocean while allowing fish to pass through. Go when the weathers good.

- Mt. Rainier, the Cascades, great for hiking and skiing if the weather permits

- Breweries. We have tons of great craft beer, and our coffee is legendary too

Not recommended:

- The gum wall. This landmark is the grossest excuse for a tourist trap ever conceived.

- Driving in, out, or around the city on weekdays between 7 and 11AM or 3 and 7 PM. You're going to have a very bad timmeee...

Have fun!
Considering we're all just going to end up "stealing" each others' technology in the end anyway, it strikes me that it might be much easier if we all just collaborated in the first place.
What were you using before?
wqewerwer
Friend of mine is always trying to convert me. Asked me to read this yesterday evening. This is my take on the article:

Most of my daily job goes into gluing services (API endpoints to databases or other services, some business logic in the middle). I don't need to see yet another exposition of how to do algorithmic tasks. Haven't seen one of those since doing my BSc. Show me the tools available to write a daemon, an http server, API endpoints, ORM-type things and you will have provided me with tools to tackle what I do. I'll never write a binary tree or search or a linked list at work.

If you want to convince me, show me what I need to know to do what I do.
Aka "science has found no official support for the 'ALL MEN ARE PIGS!' tagline dating back to circa 1996."

I "love" (/s) that science now has to justify that we're not a subhuman sub-species.

I also "love" (slash fucking S obviously) that this article is guaranteed "controversial".
Functional cookies are allowed without popup, and always have been.
> brand

Yes, its way better.

> design

Yes.

> interior fit

I much rather have the interior of a Tesla. I car much more about the cool features then complaining about a slight overlap of two plastic panals that are under the seat, or whatever car german fetishits obsess about.

> charging speed

They have a small advantage on a tiny number of actual charging stations but the majority of the time your gone charge much slower.
Well, I guess this is a chance you (all of us, actually) can profit from and learn that ethics is a convenience feature, just like the headphone jack.
> But nobody actually knows how to generate a true win, where we all live globally together in harmony and understanding - its all a big mess, and no one has the magic formula. At best, we only know how to slow our competitors down

Slowing down fellow people is also a loss, and I don't buy that our "best" purposefully takes us further from the goal.

>We might not like wars for oil - we might like the alternatives even less.

Do you think I'm arguing that the US should stop engaging in wars for oil but other countries should go for it? Everyone should find these wars to be despicable and avoided at all costs. Yes, this is difficult. It's impossible if you think that they're necessary to prevent others from doing it.
Remember the Snowden leaks where he showed that Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc... all the giant tech companies gave FIVE TIMES the amount of data requested by the US government ( Apple included ) in hopes of garnering lucrative government contracts by showing their compliance. It wasn't until after this that Apple took up their pro user privacy stance.
Sonic Battle (GBA) Renderer Series
> This reeks of whataboutism ... nobody has ever engaged in it to the extent that China has.

I hope you see the irony (hypocrisy?) in this statement.
They enumerate a possible set of valid values. Hence “enumeration.”

They are tagged unions, but sometimes, the tag doesn’t exist. Or rather, invalid parts of values can be used so that the tag isn’t an extra bit of data, but instead is built into the same space. “Tagged union” gets too deep into only-mostly-accurate implementation details to be a good name.
Go work for a Prof or a Research Lab on campus. Most of them are always short of labour. You will find interesting conversations going on day and night. In some labs more conversations than any work even.
I think the role was called "computer"?
Why didn't their upstream provider just blackhole their IP ranges?
Which part of my post was inaccurate?

Google still has access to the google.cn domain as well as several valid ICP licenses; a number of services (fonts, firebase and chrome/SDK downloads to name a few) are accessible from China hosted on a Google affiliated server in Beijing. AdWords have been thriving in China for a number of years and even the localised version of Google maps (ditu.google.cn) is still being maintained despite a nonexistent user base.

None of this would have been possible if the government is actually hostile to Google in the way you believe.
This was hypnotic. I just keep discovering more.
More and more companies are leaving China because manufacturing there has become way too expensive. China is focusing on the ultra-high-tech sector in their manufacturing growth strategy now. They are also generally turning away from manufacturing and towards a service economy.

10 years ago, I was working for a European electronics manufacturer producing in China. The Chinese production facility was already outsourcing low-level manufacturing steps to Eastern Europe because even 10 years ago China was already becoming too expensive and Eastern Europe was a better choice for unskilled labour.

Interestingly, most countries trying to move away from China have massive issues finding better manufacturing locations even though China is becoming ever more expensive.

Nothing compares to China in terms of infrastructure, know-how and quality. My current company tried setting up a plant in Vietnam but gave up after 3 years of trials because it just doesn't measure up to overall cost-effectiveness and ease of operations in China even though Vietnam is often celebrated as "the new China" nowadays.

Different countries have different specialties they can excel in (e.g. certain SEA nations that are great at textile manufacturing) but despite their government's efforts to make their countries more attractive, they just can't compete. China will be able to up those prices ever further for quite some time and others will only slowly move away from them. They are confident it will last until 2040 (when they want to be the number 1 ultra high tech research and manufacturing country).
Cool interface for user flow diagrams: https://overflow.io/s/9ST7SX/
Minor point: the prohibition actually goes back to the Old Testament (Leviticus 25:36), whereas the New Testament seems strangely OK with it (in the parable of the talents [1]). Also Leviticus explicitly permits you to charge interest to an outsider, which is why Christians outsourced it to Jews.

[1] http://www.yourfaithyourfinance.org/money-and-faith/usury-an...
On that note, I'd just like to add this thread from academia stack exchange.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/112509/legality...
Yes, it made no sense to adopt UWP when Windows 7 was still so prevalent. I'm still supporting it at least until next year, possibly beyond then.

You also have to wonder at their commitment, WPF wasn't that old when they started dicking about with Metro. WPF didn't even feel finished. Why invest huge amounts of time and effort in a platform you don't think they have a long term commitment to.
> The problem is, I believe in the company, even if my team is killing me.

This is the real problem. Don't trust company. It is not yours. They will throw you when then don't need you. Better spend time on your well being and get better job.
Haskell is a beautiful research language. Its usecase is to supply subjects for PhDs and MScs, which it fulfills perfectly. Also it's extremely fun to learn and play with.

I would never bring it to the production though, reasons being:

1) Production code should be understandable by an on-call person at 4 am. If business logic is buried under layers of lenses, monad transformers and arrows, good luck troubleshooting it under stress. And real systems do break, no matter type safety.

2) It's a research language, and a big part of the research is about control flow. And therefore haskell has _way too many_ ways to combine things: monad transformers of different flavors, applicative functors, arrows, iteratees, you name it. And libraries you find on hackage choose _different_ ways to combine things. In the business code you probably want to combine multiple libraries, and you inevitably end up with unholy mess of all these approaches. Dealing with it takes more time than writing business logic.

3) Developers look at these fancy research papers and try to reproduce them. As a result, very basic things become extremely hard and brittle. I saw a real-live example when applying a transform to all fields of a record took a team 2 days of discussion in slack, because "writing this manually?! it won't scale to record with 100 fields".

4) Architecture is extremely sensitive to the initial choices due to isolation of side effects. Because if you suddenly need to do something as simple as logging or reading a config in a place where it wasn't originally anticipated, you're in for a bumpy ride.
The point is that while of course they do make money from order flow, it's usually actually a small part of their revenue. Most of the revenue comes from interest on cash deposits (and other things), so even dropping trade commissions to zero won't materially reduce their profits.

Schwab's total 2018 revenue was over $10B; I expect they're more worried about losing potential and existing customers to the likes of RobinHood than they are about 1% of that revenue.
Why would that be, and what would be your point of saying so?

edit: oh well then. Your comment reminds of this dude living in $town who was later found to have done this weird thing. Good talk.
I work in this place where I've made quite a few nice products the management are selling, they are, in part, keeping the company competitive. However they spend all their time trying to convince me that the work I do is crap and they could do it themselves easily (they're developers to - its a small company).

There is this continuing comedy where a bug or enhancement arrives and they say they'll do it - we don't need you (implied). I say sure, and they fiddle around for days or weeks, occasionally a small one is fixed, but usually they just fiddle around the edges. Eventually they give up and I do the work, and they spend all their time trying to poke holes in what I do so they can prove that they don't need me.

I asked for a couple of pay rises initially and they don't want to pay me more. Here's the bit that really gets me - this has been going on for a couple of years, and competitors products are overtaking ours which were leading edge. They spend all their time saying they don't need me and to the extent that they're actually hurting their business.

I've given up a long time ago and have moved to part time and I'm developing my own business, so I don't really care, the cash coming in is enough to keep me going, so all good. They still keep asking me to go back full time, but they don't need me, and they don't need anything changed. It truely is the most bizarre experience.

(It feels good sharing this :-) )
Javascript-less seems weird these days yet you can build most sites without really needing Javascript.
The Millennium Village Project and African Development: Problems and Potentials
Didn't the CA governor recently sign a new law that says everyone in CA can put in a backyard living space and that local codes could not take longer than 60 days to approve plans for them?
Or something like that?
Sex is binary, with the exception some extremely rare cases of non XY / XX chromosome options.

Gender used to be a synonym for sex until the language got hijacked in the last few years to try and make it mean "gender identity" for political reasons.
Understood, thanks again for sharing and responding :)
Sorry to hear.

Look, I did not want to insult, sorry if it came across like that. I just wanted to point out that _in this specific instance_ you may exaggerate the cost of switching from your weird techy stuff to a commodity solution.

That doesn't say anything about your general principle - which is totally reasonable.
Minor suggestion that may help you get more responses... they way you phrased the question with the word "on" is a little ambiguous. I can't tell if you are asking which people/companies are investing 'in' side projects of other developers or if you are asking if there are individual developers investing their own time/money working 'on' their own side projects (and perhaps you're curious about what they're working on to potentially collaborate). If the former I recommend using 'in', if the latter I would use 'on'.

I'm not a grammar cop, I just literally could not determine which question you were asking.
No, if you short shares and the price rises too much, your account will go into a margin call and your broker will liquidate all of your positions. All brokers have complex risk management to protect their interests.

In the extremely rare case that you end up with a negative balance, the broker will cover the shares and collect the money from you like any other debt.
As with many historical figures, I feel we need to separate the person from their legacy & achievements more. Yes Gandhi was a dick, but the fight for a free India and the end of the caste system seems a good cause to me.

That doesn't mean it was 'all worth it' or 'ok, beacuse...'; it means the person and the effects they had on the world are not the same thing. A terrible person can do good & a good person can commit heinous acts.

The other way around the ridiculousness is more obvious: The nazis fixed the German economy and saved the country from collapse; so the whole genocide and war thing are no longer relevant?
Would still be cool though.
Haha sounds amazing indeed, I'll put it on my list : )
Not parent, but I’d be surprised if the answer didn’t include JavaScript, Ruby or Python.
Jetbrains have a new tool specifically for this purpose - https://www.jetbrains.com/mps/

I haven't played with it yet, it looks interesting!
ML seems to be a much more developer-friendly approach to me. Eager evaluation, no problem "escaping" to imperative code, no "purity". All the benefits of functional programming, a good type system, and a great module system.

I'm constantly sad that Standard ML is so outdated. No good tooling, no real unicode support, etc.

At least we have ocaml and F#.
I think Haskell is conceptually cool, but I just can't stand its symbols and grammars. To me, "=>" means comparison and "|" means an OR, and I'm cringed to see $s and \s in a program code that makes it look like LaTeX. I also prefer the boundary of terms and expressions to be consistently marked up with parenthesis. I know this is just a matter of taste, but sometimes it affects your motivation a lot.
Junk DNA do not encode information (that we know of as of now) but seem to have the role that pragmas/annotations/compiler directives have in code.

Edit: for clarity

Or maybe I am thinking of epigenetics...
So... is this a tentative win for the nurture crowd then? Or did they strictly only show that there is no correlation between testosterone, without going into alternative options?

EDIT: glaugh's comment[0] explains why it is not. TLDR: this research debunks earlier research with a similar scope, but more long-term effects of testosterone are not accounted for.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21143846
Thank you, I was trying to show by pointing out an example of low pay and high outcomes that pay is not corrected. But I don’t want to say that there’s a negative correlation.

I do think it’s fair, unless I see data that shows it, that pay is not correlated to outcome.

I think there are multiple factors for outcomes and I think further research will help figure this out. But for now, I think it’s false to say that we will get better outcomes if we increase pay. I can think of a few outcomes, but have no data, that would result in higher pay with worse outcomes (eg, higher pay crowds out more passionate but less credentialed teachers who aren’t in it for the money).
Show HN: Ebony - An easy to use, module-based, multi-channel chatbot framework
This a 100%. If Haskell proponents focused more on stuff that is described in https://pragprog.com/book/swdddf/domain-modeling-made-functi... instead of algorithms a lot more devs could use it in their day-to-day job.
>I don't think it's healthy to treat someone's bad sides as forbidden topics that should not be discussed because the good sides need to be preserved.

Except this doesn't happen in isolation. Every has their own agenda and bias. For example with Gandhi, his fiercest critics are among the Right Wing Hindu Supremacists, who see Gandhi as a traitor to his people. They blame Gandhi for allowing the Partition to happen, and agitating to give Pakistan a fair share of resources. They blame him for the death of Bhagat Singh and the other militant nationalists. The criticisms go on.

In India, you will rarely find the sort of fair discussion about historic personalities. People strongly identify with these heroes, and to cast any aspersions is tantamount to insulting their cultural identity. Try and have a balanced discussion about Ambedkar, and you'll find yourself in jail for a hatecrime.
Box<T> is a type, so it’s confusing to say it returns a pointer. It holds a pointer.

GP should note that C++’s unique_ptr isn’t an obscurity.
Node(A, Box<Tree<A>>, Box<Tree<A>>),

is obviously nested (a Node contains an A and two Trees) and the trees are optional (they are contained in a Box, whose purpose is obvious without even knowing the language)

| Node a (Tree a) (Tree a)

might or might not be nested, given the cheerful taste for currying and juxtaposition without punctuation that prevails in Haskell syntax, and it isn't obvious what purpose the parentheses serve (just grouping ?) and whether the trees are optional.
If you don't mind me asking, what kind of podcasts do you listen to?
seems interesting!
I get along with people who I disagree with usually when we both share goals. Actual achievable ones. Like winning at team sports, fundraising for x, putting up a play, shipping a product etc. I think initiatives like these need that component.
This is a good discussion of a problem that suits Haskell well, but it's unfair to Python in some respects.

For example: I haven't read or written a lot of Python in a while, but would Python programmers really want to implement mutation in such a class by copying dicts around? The hand-wringing about "oh no, I wrote the condition as not is_node" is silly since one could just define an is_leaf method that can be used without negation. And "changing heapToList to return a lazy sequence makes it no longer return a list, oh no!" is just as silly, since one would of course not do that but define a separate heapToSequence (and probably base heapToList on that).

Also: "pattern matching and algebraic data types which have massive, clear benefits and few (if any) downsides". They have downsides whenever your data is not tree-shaped. Yes, a lot of data is tree, but then a lot isn't. I work in compilers, which is often touted as a prime application of ML-family languages, and this is very true, but not 100%. If you can have sharing in your abstract syntax tree (like a goto node that might refer to a target node somewhere else in the tree), you start to have difficulties. And you get even more difficulties when you try to model control flow graphs and the like. Nothing insurmountable, but still things where it's suddenly good to have other tools than only algebraic datatypes. OCaml is good in this regard.
Your friends can start off buying Investor Shares in the fund(s) they like. Once they hit the Admiral Shares minimum, they can convert over to them[0].

Many of their funds also have corresponding ETFs, and I've found that most (all) have similar or lower expense ratios, and the minimum buy is a single share (of course, you can't buy fractional shares like you can with mutual funds, so that can be annoying).

[0] https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/convert-to-admira...
I said the body was different. Tesla standardizing on Raven is not really a counterexample.

These other differences (eg. a few extra battery cells) are so chickenshit that if a factory level product engineer was making these changes 99% of the time it would be signed off by max one other engineer. I know because I used to be one of those engineers. The gist of what I'm saying is totally true. It's not like they are using different battery chemistries on their different models. All their big stuff has moved or is moving to a common platform.
Mostly python and C. With python I didn't really have a type system and with C I never truly realized what the typesystem could give me.
All the critical comments on this. Why are all these critics so scared that there might be an easier way to do web dev?

Are they really just protecting their archane methods because they see that as protecting their income and any simplification a threat to that?

Or is it more tribal, cult like adherence to an overbloated way of creating web UIs?

Or is it people don't want to learn yet another tool and they're just resigned to the fact the these are the tools they have because really, they don't get to decide that anyway, their employer does?

Or is it people don't like being reminded that actually, they're "forced" to use these tools (which they perhaps wouldn't if it wasn't mandated), but because the workplace uses them, they use them, so the existence of other options while accurate is a painful reminder of their own limited autonomy to individually decide the tools they use for their work?

Is the same cultish zealotry seen in other languages and frameworks or is it just (what compiles to) ECMAscript and Web UI/state frameworks?