skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ask HN: Is this industry stuck in a bugtracker?
I'm not against using Jira, but I feel like using it too much leave too little space for taking responsibility and getting things done in general (ex.: «There is no Jira task, so it's not my job»). Creating a Jira task for every small incremental improvement is a PITA. Work outside of Jira is where we get most NEW things created, because we are not trapped in Jira bureaucracy. In the long term, out-of-jira work can bring more value than fixing bugs and closing tasks. The act of measuring work slows it down drastically from my experience.

While you close 100 small bugs per day and feel productive, another business can appear with a new vision/approach and make a better overall solution. Jira makes you reach local maxima. Vision and priorities bring you to the global maximum.

There could be a tool or method to pass down priorities and goals instead of tasks to developers. Developers with goals accomplish things towards this goal.

Have we become the slaves of a big bugtracker?
Does your company work 100% of the time in Jira or a smaller percentage?
Yeah the problem was entirely with Obama and the city officials, never mind the fact that Governor Rick Snyder had put the city under emergency management with his appointees deciding everything.
My submission was recently rejected.

The problem statement was:
Create a simple web crawler which creates sitemaps in a textfile.

I am wondering where I can improve it, and how not to be rejected the next time.
Piracy Crackdown May Be Next Front in Streaming Wars
I certainly wouldn't of the Mona Lisa. But I do sometimes snap pics of artworks and information displays so that I can remember to read up some more on them when I get home.
>The difference is in the awareness of the "fraud". A religious teacher truly believes in the existence of god, therefore they're not a fraud.

So as long as the psychic actually believes they are psychic, it's 100% not fraudulent. Got it.

It can't be fraud if your intentions are good, apparently.
Gets down too a case of people want to talk and have somebody listen and tell them the obvious that the person talking is so emotionally blind to see that themselves and even when those close to them have already told them that. Case of people need somebody removed from all emotional attachment and to lay it out to them (talk) so that they can point it out over a friend who already knows all the talk just giving the answer to them when their mind is less receptive.

Now to translate that into something comparable to the HN community:

We have rubber ducks ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging ), whilst they don't talk back, they force you to focus and in a way that lets you cut thru the fog and mist and listen to yourself.

With that, people really do talk to their plants and pets and better of for it. But whatever process allows you to cut thru the brain fog of whatever form, run with that.

However, I do not recommend pulling out a plastic duck upon public transport and talking to it, as society is just not advanced enough to handle. But we all have a dream.

[EDIT - ADD reference URL]
Optimizing server distribution across the racks
Technical debt is debt. It provides leverage but accrues interest. Technical debt is wiped away in bankruptcy.

The last is important. Technical debt accrued in pursuit of a bad idea goes away when the project is abandoned. For a startup that is scaling rapidly, technical debt goes away because the problems of scale require rewriting even the best tuned small scale code.

Even in ordinary business cases, the cost of carrying technical debt is very often lower than the cost of eliminating it. One extra engineer to deal with it, is less expensive and lower risk than rewriting the code base on moral grounds. Carrying it contributes more to the bottom line and cash flow than an effort to eliminate it.
> Historically, monarchy’s seem to be more stable and result in less open warfare.

How did you come to that conclusion? It seems like ahistorical nonsense to me.
I read his biography by Isaacson. Seem to remember something about trouble in Italy so went to France and got next round of patronage there. Don't care. Napoleon is probably at fault somewhere in there.
Ohhh, so that's how my github account was stolen.

One day I received an email saying that a third party app was added to my github account, they in an instant it says my password has been changed, key was stripped, etc.
> I do not care about safety (memory or otherwise) - my code doesn't take arbitrary input, run on shared hardware, do much of anything over networks or have memory safety crashes.

This is a common misconception — safety and security are different things. If your simulations make extensive use of parallelism (and I can only assume they do), memory safety also helps you ensure correctness.

I can absolutely appreciate that you might lose other things to achieve that, and that this is not a trivial tradeoff to make (and I'll take you on your word that it is the wrong tradeoff for you!), but it's not as clear cut as "I don't need safety features because I have no security exposure".
Quarkus 1.0
Predictive policing lacks accuracy tests
Right. Should’ve said “unless they've significantly changed things for the worse”.

I doubt they have now:

* Surrounded the ML with other masterpieces

* Placed it in a room that’s only accessible by going through each other room in the Louvre and significantly disturbing the people that want to view the other masterpieces on display

Unless, of course, they made the Louvre smaller.

The premise of he article is just wrong. If you must view the Mona Lisa, a very pretty picture, btw, you can. Just come early. If you want to see something else in the Louvre - and there is plenty of choice - you can as well.
>"hey, maybe we could care just a tiny bit"

Likewise, maybe you should care just a tiny bit about people who support car then. You easily dismiss their concern, deemed it as unimportant. Regardless, I still acknowledge your position, its just fact of life that every issue has some supporter and hatters.

There are few solution for congestion, build more road, elevated road, underground road, tunnel. Elon Musk has interesting idea with his boring company.

"Adapt or die" is not shitty attitude its the reality of life.

>A good friend of mine and I were living on Long Island, NY. We were students, and couldn't afford to have a car. Insurance in NY is hella expensive

For some people, its just mean you have to work harder/smarter to find the way to get it.

Whatever solution I purpose, you will just counter it with, what about this other group of people, an so on.

No I don't have all the solution for all kind people, no one is, at some point these people have to figure out themselves.

Yes at the very worse case, if you can't adapt you die, thats the reality of life.

Similarly, there are tons of other situation where current environment is not what I prefer, nonetheless I have to adapt or I'll die.
Looking at the team doing the test's web page doesn't provide great evidence for neutrality:

https://imgur.com/ZUoXQ52
http://flintwaterstudy.org/about-page/about-us/

In fact, they look like an advocacy organization, not scientific group at all. Something stinks to high heaven here, and it's not Flint's water.
Its important to remember the time constraint in these conversations. Engineering is about constraints, and if you simply remove the biggest one (time) it becomes facile and easy to endlessly talk about future, hypothetical, optimistic "someday" solutions. It is vapid empty happy-talk.

When you factor in the time constraint, specifically the timeframes outlined in the IPCC SR 1.5 report, then you simply cannot claim that direct air capture fuels are a meaningful part of the conversation of what to do with air travels footprint.

I am 100% in favor of continued and increased investment in R&D for DAC. I am 0% delusional that it will be a viable solution in the timeframe we need it to be (same goes for thorium and fusion).

If you're not solving for the time constraint and the curve shape in this graph, you're not talking about "solutions" you're just chit chatting about (cool) tech:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...
Tighten the Feedback Loop with Published Storybooks
> the act of taking a picture enriches the experience

I guess if you enjoy photography maybe, but I see a lot of people with just their cell phone. And it's not like you can take your time with the picture, you have to compete with everyone else in the room.

> pictures one takes oneself are more valuable than the ones you can go find on the Internet

I guess the value implied is sentimental? If anything I imagine that would bring back horrible memories of being stuck in a room packed with people trying to take pictures of a painting. But hey maybe that's why most people leave disappointed.
Peano Numbers? Srsly?

Look, I love Rust, but what one can expect of its type inference is unpredictable and poorly documented. It gets confused often, and frequently cannot explain to the user why it failed to guess the type ascription. And manual ascriptions within subexpressions (i.e. not just at bindings) are still an "unstable" feature.

Peano numbers work (sorta) in Haskell because Hindley-Milner is so damn predictable, and they work in Coq because you can bust out the Ltac stick and administer a beatdown when necessary.

People should not be trying to do type-level programming in a language whose awesome new type system has run so far ahead of its type inference.
> I've been thinking about this a lot trying to root out the unintended consequences of such a plan, but I can't think of any.

Record keeping, administration, etc.

You could replace it all with simple calculations:

Landing Tax: (tax rate) * (landing weight) * (distance traveled within US airspace)

Takeoff Tax: (tax rate) * (takeoff weight)
If the folks at GitHub are half-decent engineers (and everything I've seen suggests they know what they're doing), they'll have request logs that would make it very very obvious someone had done this.

Would advise sending a support request in, if you think this happened to you.
This is big! Turns out that syntactic support for asynchronous programming in Rust isn't just syntactic: it enables the compiler to reason about the lifetimes in asynchronous code in a way that wasn't possible to implement in libraries. The end result of having async/await syntax is that async code reads just like normal Rust, which definitely wasn't the case before. This is a huge improvement in usability.
In general, projects like these are great — they unify a lot of underlying architecture and, with time, can make them ubiquitous to use. LocalForage[1] is a great example of this, and I would recommend using that over regular local storage for every serious web project.

This project raises my eyebrows at two technical points, though:

There is no mention of "Promise" or "async/await" in the readme. I know the project tries to mirror the current Node filesystem, but that also offers Promises[2] — something I would call the industry standard for writing readable async code these days. Despite being in beta, I would argue that this project should also aim to support Promises over nested callback pyramids as the default pattern.

Secondly, maybe I'm just not familiar with the idea, but I'm very sceptical of the AsyncMirror backend — when you use an asynchronous service synchronously, how do you guarantee all writes are flushed before the user leaves the page?

Other than that, a project of this scale is no small feat, so godspeed to all contributors.

[1] https://github.com/localForage/localForage

[2] https://nodejs.org/dist/latest-v10.x/docs/api/fs.html#fs_fs_...
They did the math
I tend to agree with your wife. Whatever works!
It's probably more dependent of the competence of the psychologist vs the competence of the psychic.
The way I see it, is that's two sides of the same coin.

The psychologist would be the "do no harm" side, the psychic would be "try to cure" side.

The psychologist will assign you to a box. The psychic will let you float around.

The psychologist is convinced he isn't a crook. The psychic is not convinced he is a crook.

The thing is once any system is complex enough, it's quite hard to know what impact it may have.
Many ways can be good, and some ways are definitely bad.
Only when the two sides are balanced, is the path illuminated.
Which is exactly what I was trying to convey in my original comment. I feel like the base that has a problem with the updates are a small vocal minority, which seem to be present any time Windows is mentioned on any HN thread. I have met plenty of people who develop/work on windows every day and don't have that problem.
> Right now, users can only post a conversation starter every eight hours. The premium tier, which costs $4.99/week, allows users to post as frequently as they want, and also includes a few other premium features, like the ability to talk to people in your location.

Woah.. That's really expensive...
This assumes that there are no negatives to introducing and supporting anti-science en mass. I think society is at a very real risk when it embraces false reasoning and anti-intellectualism. We need more logic and fact based thinking in our world, not less.
Why would you want to ask the user to authorize an app they already authorized? IMO that would be a bug and definitely unexpected behavior.

It would give the end-user the impression the app was not authorized when in fact it was, which could create its own issues.

So now you’re designing a whole different page which shows the app is authorized with a POST form just to do the redirect?

And if the entire purpose is to try to avoid any place that you can GET a redirect to the app, you better hope that’s the only place where it could happen.
I like the idea, but 2 things.

1) where did they get the prices of $4.99 a week? Facebook's average revenue per user per quarter is ~$25. That's approximately $1.50 a week, for their most profitable section. Elsewhere, FB makes $6 ARPU per quarter, or around 37¢ a week. I'd be willing to pay $1 a month for a social network if it manages to get around the network effects etc. but ~$20(!) for something Facebook enables at no monetary cost? Yikes. But, I suppose that may just be the patreon effect.

2. Why is this iOS only? Limited resources excuses can be answered with 'do a mobile web so all mobiles can'. Is it the 'sometimes iPhone users tend to pay more for the same things Android users are too cheap to'?

I know the above can come off as somewhat harsh, but I do really like the business idea overall, I just want to discuss the implementation challenges.
Iirc, once the solder is exposed to the wrong conditions the damage is done. It’s a mechanical process after that point. But even if I’m wrong about that one, simple awareness isn’t enough and municipalities lack funding to properly monitor and treat their water supplies. Hence the need for a redress of the social contract at the national level.
Seaweed is efficacious in cow digestion to lower methane emmissions.

Perhaps it works in horses too ?

https://www.dairyreporter.com/Article/2019/08/14/Could-Austr...
Those are probably books from Academic Library partners, since they tend to have the rarest and most valuable stock.

Every book that comes in gets scanned and assessed to one of a few possible streams:
- List for sale across all markets
- Donation (too many of that title in inventory, desired by one of the specific literacy partners)
- Recycling (too many of that title in inventory, not desired by literacy partner, or condition too poor)
- ARC Books

That last business line is the Antiquarian, Rare, and Collectible group. These books are diverted to a team of people whose sole job is to manually price these books and work with rare book dealers as well as some of the more high-end marketplaces to move them. This went for more than books as well, as sometimes there were interesting related pieces that came in the door.

Also, fwiw, when I was there any book like this that sold for > $500 had a whole separate commission structure where at least half of the sale price would go to the group that sourced the book. So if an academic library sent a book from the early 1800's, and that sold for $15,000, they library would get $7,500 back.
But they almost surely wouldn't have liked you to do that (to cut the magic and talk honestly). That's why people go to clairvoyants. We're all embarrassingly expert at self-delusion.
There's a difference between assuming that similar properties are connected because they appear similar on the surface, and rationally connecting similar properties because they are caused by the same physics.

Modern thinkers will ask "Why/how does the moon influence the ocean", and expect that "how" to apply to other things, not the "what". Modern science has convenient answers like "F = G x m1 x m2 / r^2", you apply that and expect the moon to exert 2.7 x 10^-3 Newtons of force on a person, not to generically lift and lower something about their mental or medical state.

The critical question to me, though, is what a person does when presented with a question to which they don't have a "how" available to answer it.

Presented with a piece of equipment that uses sensor technology or algorithms they don't understand, or a street performer that uses slight-of-hand tricks they can't catch, do they assume it is just 'magic' and extrapolate its effects to things that might not be achievable based on the actual mechanism behind the demonstration? For example, one might expect a voice recognition app that can detect someone saying "Hey Google" to also understand "Excuse me, Google" and natural language processing, or expect a street performer who knows what card is going to be flipped over to know other things that will happen in the future. Another might observe that "Hey Google" causes the device to respond, and either ask questions about how that works until they learn about microphones, digital signal processing, and hidden Markov models - and eventually about natural language processing, and might expect the street performer to simply have performed a card trick with a normal means of knowing what card would be turned up (looking at the card at some point in the past).

I honestly don't know what you or I would do in the past. With so few effective concepts of basic physics, chemistry, or medicine, not knowing the mechanism and requiring hundreds of years of scientific observations to discover it leaves "assume it's magic and extrapolate" as the only viable world view.
I worked a lot with client side bugs earlier, and clearly this trick has crossed this line. Browsers cannot say in one scenario that "content-type:application/json" are unsafe and in another allow completely unnecessary HEAD method that nobody ever used to be sent with 3rd party JS page.

Seriously who needs HEAD in their client side development? It's purely a technical method w/o clear use pattern. It's not even valid in <form method=""> so why would it be valid in fetch()? Oh and PATCH/PUT are still invalid in fetch().

We're lucky that this code pattern is only common in Rails. Otherwise it could open a whole class of bugs.
I find it strange that Postgres has features like these, but lacks bit_count, which is required for hamming distance. It's easy to write a C-Language User Defined Function, but then you can't use RDS.
This is great news!

I tried out Rust for a typical server-side app over a year ago (JSON API and PostgreSQL backend), and the lack of async-await was the main reason I switched back to Typescript afterwards, even though Diesel is probably the best ORM I've ever worked with. Time to give it a try again.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/neuronarrative/20140...
The crazy part about inflation isn't that the governments are focusing on a narrow definition of inflation. The crazy part is the idea that inflation is global. If you pump in money into the financial sector it will immediately propagate to consumer prices. The outcome is obvious.
Terminal Phase: building a space shooter (in Racket) that runs in the terminal
I find it curious that we are attempting to create an automated car, but we can't seem to make an automated train that is on a defined rail?
I work in a domain where memory defects do matter, but with moderately disciplined development, that is no naked news/deletes, no naked array access, no locks, etc, we hardly see any memory problems in a high concurrency, high throughput, mission critical environment. At least for my group, Rust's memory safety focus would not move the needle.
The suggestion that I've heard to solve this problem is if the wealth tax applies to you, you have to offer to sell your property to the government (not all of it, but you could claim so much under a threshold that isn't being sold, this isn't the full idea).

If the government believes that it's worth more than that, they are allowed to purchase it for that price, and resell it at auction. If they think it is reasonably priced, or over priced, you have to pay the wealth tax on your proposed price.

This will drastically simplify the problem. There won't be a negotiation on the price, there would be two independent evaluations, rather than one complex one where there's a large amount of back and forth.

I don't know where I heard it, but it was mentioned offhandedly as a simple solution to valuations for a wealth tax.
I hope you kept it ;)
+1

it's like saying gambling (or alcohol, or other vice) is just fine. most vices are fine in moderation. the problem is that some people can't moderate, and for those people the harm is quite bad.

the purveyors of such vices are absolutely knowingly taking advantage of these people will low self control. most prominently (but perhaps least acknowledged) in today's attention economy.
At my previous job we had a method that became known as a "superset". It would fetch a record and all data related to that, and then a lot of other data related to that. It would return tens of MB of XML every time. It was huge, but so many services came to depend on it because it always had that piece of data someone needed.

All the data you needed was there, but every request caused a lot of memory usage and lots of database queries. GraphQL allows you to just ask for the fields you need without necessarily incurring the cost of returning anything else.
If I was an eccentric billionaire, I'd reward good documentation with an open source doc prize.

It's so difficult to impress upon some people just important documentation is. And when they do it, they half-ass it by copying stuff from source code and not adding any context.
Yeah mostly. It's a complicated area frankly.

Company, accountant, valuation committee, valuation team, investment advisor and possibly external administrator all sorta play for the same team. They collaborate to get to an approach and a number. Then the auditors roll in and check whether they think the approach is reasonable, assumptions are reasonable and calc was done right. If they don't like it they might force a change.

What's acceptable driven more by industry specific norm than anything hardcoded. So I might be looking at two similar debt contracts but do something wildly different because the one is back by real estate deeper in the structure while the other is part of a private equity structure.

Not really something an outsider can easily look into - cause it's often in the context of a interlocking web of controls - that again differ by entity/sector.

DCF - yes, though more complex isn't necessarily more accurate. In fact I dislike it because it's so easy to manipulate & difficult to call bullshit on.

>net assets-approach (why is that even an approach)

It depends on what in it basically & how those in turn were valued. Plus nature of the entity - for income/cash generating entities you do something like DCF or EBITDA peer multiple instead.
This will be a paradise for social engineering