skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> That's an opinion and that's fine, but I was wondering if it was the case, i.e., they are dependent on software.

Yeah, sorry, this is definitely an opinion and I don't think I actually agree with that in general. I meant that in the case of a Tesla or many modern cars with autonomous emergency braking or lane-drift avoidance or similar, braking and/or steering is generally software-controlled, often without a mechanical default, so given features like Autopilot it "should" be software-dependent.

> By `this' you mean "basic steering and braking functionality depending on upgradable software", right?

Yes, but just to reiterate, most manufacturers don't use OTAs and some models never receive an update, but it's not uncommon for an update to change steering and/or braking response and feel.
> The world is not functional

What does this even mean? If the world is not functional, then what is it? Is the world procedural? And what world are we talking about? Our planet, physically? Are you then discounting the worlds of mathematics and logic? You don’t gain performance? What performance? Program execution speed? Development pace and time to market?

Compared to the procedural version? Is your view that procedural programming is inherently better — for any definition of the word — regardless of context? Would SQL queries be easier to write if we told the query planner what to do? Is the entire field of logic programming — and by extension expert systems and AI — just a big waste of time?

So many vague aphorisms which do nothing to further the debate. And Haskellers are the ones getting called “elitist”!
http://learnyouahaskell.com/chapters
Germany is not building new coal plants so they are not going to burn more coal because of EVs. EVs indeed create more demand for electricity, which is met by deploying more clean energy.

Coal plants stopped being a good option economically decades ago and we are now getting to the point where keeping the existing plants going is also no longer economical. Gas plants are following pretty soon as well.
Yes, but I suspect euske, being unfamiliar with Haskell, just used an unfamiliar form.
Steve jobs was a corporate psychopath. He was cruel to the people he worked with. He ignored his own daughter almost his whole life. And made a lot of money over the back of children in low income countries. He did also not give back, no charity at all. Even Bill Gates runs a charity fund.

I don't understand why people keep calling him a visionaire and are still lapping the shit that he threw at them up.

Edit: Stuff like this: https://www.quora.com/Steve-Jobs-was-rich-but-why-didnt-he-d...

Makes me sick, quote from there:

"According to the man he hired to run it, “He clearly didn’t have the time.” Jobs’s friends told one reporter, “he figures he can do more good by expanding Apple.” And thank God for that.

What a loss to humanity it would have been if Jobs had dedicated the last 25 years of his life to figuring out how to give his billions away, instead of doing what he does best."

A loss to humanity? Really? Sorry for the rant, but I am sick of the quasi deep plunges into the beautiful structure of Steve Jobs personality.
It uses zero knowledge proofs, so it doesn't really give anyone on the way proof-of-destination.
tables are turning
AWS Instance Scheduler
>>Unfortunately the housing company does not allow installation of a wallbox in the garage...Large-scale adoption of electric cars is unrealistic when the majority of people have nowhere to charge it."

This can be solved with a law in a heartbeat. Installations etc take their time but the state itself subsidizes them--if they want to drive adoption rate up. So like they have parking meters they can put charging stations everywhere in the streets.
we made an important decision for our community

It’s interesting that “we”, “our” and “community” in that quote all don’t mean what they seem. “We” are the farmers and “community” are the sheep, is what she means.
As a counterpoint when wanting to promote any of the "new wave" (even though Haskell isn't new) languages like Haskell, Go, or Rust for certain use cases it's become too common lately for people to dismiss it as evangelism (or indeed, elitism), and that is also unfortunate in my opinion.
I related, scary thing that's lightly regulated is dietary supplements.
Crazy, wsan't aware of this. I stand corrected
Whois++ largely failed. Custodians of resources weren't great at keeping their services operational. Hence Whois remains the primary access protocol today.

RDAP has more legs to replace Whois than Whois++ did, but it solves a different set of problems: redirection, internationalisation, parseability, and consistency.

(I am an author of an RDAP draft, so probably biased.)
If non-binary people want a world which exclusively genders them (exclusive of man/woman) they have to pick their own word and stick to it. Adopting an existing gender-neutral pronoun doesn't work for anybody since they might mean cis-gendered people.

So I find it difficult referring to a non-binary person in singular or in particular. I usually just say "non-binary" or trans when it's important, typically only using their name, or not mentioning them at all for fear of misgendering them.
I don't necessarily dispute that Europe is a worse environments for startups to succeed, I just don't see why taxing equity incentives has anything to do with that. And I think taxing equity incentives is fair.
I enjoy Go, but I'm still searching for a way to do a GUI. Qt? Would like to avoid a web browser UI.
Plenty to choose from that don’t do things like that. E.g. Sony has a page dedicated to AOSP[1] and ASUS recently was sending their new flagship to LineageOS developers[2].

[1] https://developer.sony.com/develop/open-devices/

[2] https://www.xda-developers.com/asus-zenfone-6-custom-rom-twr...
> Account created: 13 minutes ago

Why do people do this?
Lucky ASO, from 0 to 500 active installs
HackerOne: The way to become a millionaire as hackers
It's not vague, processors are still procedural. Network, disk, terminals, they all have side effects. Memory and disk are limited.

SQL queries are exactly one of those cases where functional expression of a problem outperforms the procedural expression, and that's why they're used where it matters.
The behaviour I mentioned above, which runs counter to the "self-reliance" mentioned in an example in the definition.
Renault's doing a low cost EV. You don't get much range but it's good for the money. They'll sell them in China first:

https://www.thedrive.com/tech/29729/the-worlds-most-importan...
> What annoys me personally about rich Manhattan types with cars is mostly their political influence. Fewer than a quarter of Manhattanites own cars, but the ones that do have historically been disproportionately well connected in local Democratic machine politics.

I've lived in Manhattan pretty much forever and don't own a car. Most "rich" people I know in this borough are rich because they bought an apartment in the 1970s and are now millionaires on paper based on their apartments current value. They may have outsized influence, but they've also lived here for a long time. While I can understand your irritation, they are not exactly an insignificant constituency (22% of a population is not trivial).

The super rich have always been in NYC, and will be able to get around however they want. Transportation policy should not mix with classicism on either side.
I don't just agree with you, I'm taking the first few steps (on the AI side).
Fixing older cars with electronic problems is a nightmare everywhere. It is pretty much depending on getting the original spares which manufacturers might just stop providing at some time (and sometimes they get caught by some chip no longer being available).

On the other side, considering how many videos I see on youTube about people using batteries and electric motors from salvaged Teslas to build their own electric cars/conversions to electric, the technology seems to be quite hackable. In the end, an electric motor is easy to control and a battery is just a battery. So even a homegrown controller should be quite feasible, compared to managing ignition on a modern combustion engine.

I think the electric cars are rather going to trigger a wave of new small car companies emerging, as most of the required technology is quite commonplace. Which also should make maintenance and repair easier.
There was a Last Week Tonight bit that Guinness helps some sketchy actors break records for PR, but won't certify records that might point that out.
So why on earth does a Starbucks drip have so much more than even a double shot?
That's your opinion. And one that's not terribly well-informed. I find complicated loops difficult to read. Multiple things (besides the loop induction variable) are being mutated. I had to manually pattern-match whatever is in the loop back into well-known operations like fold and map and filter. And I can easily cut and paste portions of that expression into a REPL to see what it's doing.

Long before Haskell became as mainstream as it is now, C++ people have discovered the benefits of STL algorithms over raw loops.
Those details about the Netherlands don't actually form an argument in my view, other than "look how much tax there is". And your additional arguments still just boil down to "we should not tax high levels of wealth" so heavily.

I'm not saying that sentiment is wrong (although I absolutely do disagree with it), I'm just saying that this article is disguising "too much tax!" as "look, I've identified an interesting pattern in European policy and causally linked it to Europe's less successful startup scene".
> And, finally the flipside, if someone has an onerous or complicated preferred pronoun, that person is rude and can't expect others to comply or remember.

But the person with the onerous/complicated pronoun gets to define how onerous or complicated it is, right?

However I don't imagine many people with non-standard pronouns think they're onerous nor complicated. Seems like you're setting up a straw...thing.
If someone from the 50s told you "no one has ever been able to explain to me why I should use stored-program computers instead of my cables and plugboards", what would your answer be?

Maybe your answer will be that that the stored program is an abstraction of the cables and plugboards, so you can be more productive.

Today, there are several additional layers of abstraction on top of that, functional programming is one of them.
Pando – The Heaviest Organism on Earth
most people drive cars, and yet have very little understanding of how it actually works internally. As long as the interfaces are well designed, this works fine for most.

I say the same is for haskell.
well they are solving poor people's problems as well. if everyone is driving an ev i don't need to bike through the smog on misty rainy days. besides, this car is affordable for a large number of people as the numbers show.
I think you are wrong. But an all encompassing statement like that is probably easy to disprove. However I will limit my response to drug use specifically.

https://www.rand.org/news/press/2018/12/21.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/...
"My brain is 100% pure logic so I can't deal with the unholy messes of the unwashed masses. In fact I'm so smart that I didn't even notice that many many things are much harder to write in this language that requires you to think about unrelated math things, because I solve them for breakfast"
Agreed on fair prioritization, but most people care about Linux security, because that is the major platform. OpenBSD is an obscure platform that is not an option for massive majority of users, and no phone uses it.
Taking drugs isn't wrong, any more than drinking coffee or beer is wrong, or going rock-climbing or any other leisure activity.
What's wrong is the 'war on drugs' which kills people by forcing drug sales underground, so that people have no idea what they're getting.

We should be allowing our scientific companies to research safer compounds, rather than just moralistically banning the whole area - and condemning people to death, black markets, gangs and cartels.
I love this product and wish I had created it.

Here’s a podcast interview I recently did with OP about his product:

https://bootstrapped.fm/2019/10/04/109-andy-brice-founder-of...

Worth listening to if you are interested in the decisions that go into creating, designing, naming, doing usability testing and promoting a desktop app like Easy Data Transform.
The biggest lie about Haskell is that it's easy to learn. No it's not, and I do use it at work. Sure, it's not THAT difficult to get a basic understanding until you get to the usual Functor, Applicative, Monad stuff, which you can understand if you imagine them as context bubbles. Once you put something into a side-effect bubble (IO), you cannot take it out, so you're obligated to work inside of that bubble. This analogy should get you far enough. You're now ready to build toy projects.

But, even if you finish the Haskell Book(http://haskellbook.com), which is like 1300 pages, you're still going to be unable to contribute to a serious code base. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Now, you have to understand at least 20 language extensions which you find randomly at the top of files {-# LANGUAGE ExtensionHere #-}. Now you have to understand how to really structure a program as either a stack of monad transformers, or free monads or anything else. Then you get into concurrency and to do that you have to understand how Haskell actually works, what non-strict computation does etc. etc. Otherwise you're going to get some nasty behaviour.

You think I'm done? Let's get to Lens. You can use Lens after a relatively short time of reading the docs. But to understand Lens? Very few people actually understand Lens.

Don't get me wrong, Haskell has spoiled me, and I don't really want to touch any other language (I still like Clojure, Rust, Python, Erlang). Once you get past that the language is a joy to use.
Demand is only limited by travel time. The amount of traffic will rise to the maximum amount of time people are willing to endure reaching their destination.
"My coding practises are so good, I can't even write it the bad way anymore."
Now that we have Javascript modules, is all this trickery on top of a library like this one still needed?

This is how the Chart.js code begins:

(function (global, factory) {
typeof exports === 'object' && typeof module !==
'undefined' ? module.exports = factory() :
typeof define === 'function' && define.amd ?
define(factory) :
(global.Chart = factory());
}(this, (function () { 'use strict';
... now comes all the code ...

I have no idea how to read this, what this means and how to invoke a construct like this.
...but have no reason to.
Unveiling 3 Ways AI Is Disrupting the Media and Entertainment Sector
Medium to high-power lasers. Every part of a firearm that's not the receiver. More military hardware than you'd think. Indian reservations. Bir Tawil.
It actually does make sense to burn coal (or oil) in power stations to power electric vehicles.

You'd have to have a very dirty grid and keep it dirty for decades for it to be a bad idea, and in that case you have bigger problems and it's not the EVs at fault.

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles

> Even when the electricity comes from the dirtiest coal-dominated grid, electric vehicles (EVs) still produce less global warming pollution than their conventional counterparts, and with fewer tailpipe emissions (or none at all).

That quote is based on US grids but the general point holds worldwide.
It happens all the time to people asking me for help with their computers. They are a lot more annoyed by this than me.
From that article:

"I do believe that there is real value in pursuing functional programming, but it would be irresponsible to exhort everyone to abandon their C++ compilers and start coding in Lisp, Haskell, or, to be blunt, any other fringe language."

Even Carmack has a subliminal jab at languages on the basis of popularity from time to time lol
In Italy we have the "circumvention of incapable" norm against that.
But your argument is about political damages in general.
I know this sounds like a killer argument, and I don't know Manhattan, but in most of the cities I've been to you can't take a private car direct to a destination, park it nearby, and walk a short distance. The streets are already no-parking zones.
I think you've completely missed my point and have not answered a single of my questions.

In particular, I'd like you to not "leave aside the physics" - my understanding is that's quite important here - and specify what part of theory this will confirm or reveal.

I may well be "ill-informed", I'm happy for you to clear that up with an example along Higgs-discovery lines - the abstract and first dozen pages were unable to.

You reference the Apollo mission as a relatively minor affair in comparison, so that could serve as an example.

What is the "putting a human being on the moon" thing we are doing here? The abstract as it stands is more like "we're gonna shoot some multi billion dollar rockets into space and see what happens".
Really? Might i ask which places are you visiting, where you see this behaviour? I have rarely seen elitist behaviour in r/haskell or freenode #haskell. Mostly i see people complaining about eliticism on HN.
> I'd be very surprised if speeding up the buses doesn't end up a net win here, given the density.

I'm not so sure, especially on 14th street. 14th Street is one of the few east-west streets that has decent crosstown subway service, the L train. Even with faster buses, I suspect it's still faster to hop on the train to get across 14th than to take a bus.

But this doesn't have to be an rhetorical argument, it can be clearly backed by data. If, in 6 months, the MTA shows that more people are moving more quickly across 14th St than before the car ban, I'd support it. If it can't show that, I'll be against it. If it just says that its buses are moving faster without citing the number of people moved, I'd be very suspicious.
YALP and Aurora get the APK directly from the play store, that is the whole point about these programs.

Get the source to Aurora (or YALP) and find out how it downloads the APK from the play store. Now either build something which does what you want (e.g. feed it an identifier and it downloads an APK), simplify the existing code until only the required functionality is left or use Aurora as it is. You can feed it a Google account (if you have one) to log in to the play store or it can do so 'anonymously'.
Are you suggesting functional programming is somehow so resource intensive that it is impractical to use? Or that functional programming makes effectful work impractical?

Because neither of those are true.

You’ve conceded that SQL queries are one case where a functional approach is more ergonomic (after first asserting that the world is not functional, whatever that means). Why aren’t there other cases? Are you sure there aren’t other cases? One could argue that a functional approach maps more practically and ergonomically for the majority of general programming work than other mainstream approach.
> The world is not functional, as it turns out.

Have you watched the talk "Are we there yet?" by Rich Hickey? He makes a convincing case, referencing the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, that "the world is functional".

http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Are-We-There-Yet-Rich-Hic...
Political damages.
Lifelong lurker finally feels compelled to make a comment.

Active commenter makes a throwaway account for every potentially controversial comment to avoid it backfiring later. After all, the internet is forever.

Forgot main account password.

Just to mess with you.

Commenter is actually Steve Wozniak, much more disgruntled than he lets off publically, so makes comments like these anonymously

Etc. Lots of reasons.
> Idempotence means spending days thinking about how to rewrite large parts of your application to get in "stateful" actions (for example, logging?) or how to make your list processing actually fast (hint, it doesn't work with lists).

Idempotence isn't a golden hammer, it's not suitable for every task. It is suitable for 1 way purchase code, increasing robustness in faulty networks, initializations. It's not suitable for logging.

It's not suitable for making list processing fast (that was some guarantees of list comprehensions, I think you got confused there)

> Idempotence makes it extremely hard to control when something actually happens or how much memory is used.

No it doesn't, that's totally wrong. Idempotence doesn't dictate execution time or memory used, it's not an implementation detail it's an abstraction level higher than that : it's a system strategy. This sounds like you're confusing idempotence with lazy evaluation.

> Strong typing means you'll spend your time waiting for the compiler to finish,

Compilers are really fast these days, only compiling the changes. "Waiting for compiler to finish" hasn't been a problem since the 90's, even on larger codebases (100,000+ LOC).

Also - So you cant be bothered to wait for the compiler to check your code, then the entity that's going to do it will be your users, in production. So maybe you can spend the time you saved not waiting for the compiler answering the support tickets coming in?

> thinking how to unwrap this monad stack in a way that doesn't suck

Subjective, no examples. This is just whining.

> It also means large parts of your app will have very unstable interfaces with way too many dependencies, you'll constantly be fighting with cabal or whatever, you'll often have to do busy work to keep track with external dependencies, you'll constantly be tempted to represent a different or additional subset of your invariants in the type system using the newest fancy language extension (that slows your compiles down even further, and may have subtle interactions with some of the other extensions you're already using)

Unstable interfaces with way too many dependencies is not a language problem it's a system design problem. It sounds like you have inexperienced software architects making poor decisions.
The demo is broken on Macos:
"Streamlit failed to hash an object of type <class 'code'>.,

More information: to prevent unexpected behavior, Streamlit tries to detect mutations in cached objects so it can alert the user if needed. However, something went wrong while performing this check.

Please file a bug...
"
True, nothing like Luminati, I gather.

But the very idea of sharing my uplink is anathema. Maybe if everyone curated their own whitelists. But once people rely on whitelists from "trusted" peers, all bets are off.

A safer alternative would have users sharing access to each others VPN service connections. That would at least insulate users somewhat from malicious/illegal traffic routed through them.

Indeed, I routinely route traffic through nested chains of 3-5 VPN services. A common criticism is the cost of multiple accounts. And I typically have even more accounts at any given time, for variety.

But if a bunch of people pooled access to their VPN services, or to VPNs that they ran privately on anonymously leased VPS, each one could have a much larger variety of VPN paths and exit IPs. And you could multiplex and split traffic through the VPN network, to increase anonymity. Or aggregate links, using MPTCP, to increase throughput. And you could even implement something like Tor's process of switching circuits every 10 minutes.

I bet that I could implement a simple version of that with routing tables and iptables rules. And some shell scripts. Perhaps with network namespaces, for a little more security. Even Docker, maybe.

But not just sharing ISP uplinks. That will end in tears.