skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Simply, what makes it special is I had a hand in it. Every time you fly on one, you're betting your life on my parts. I know how it works, and I know why it's safe.

I worked specifically on the stabilizer trim system (like the one in the news on the 737MAX), and did some work on the elevator system. In particular on the latter, I did many calculations to prove it would not flutter (dynamic instability).

My very first assignment was to size the stabilizer trim jackscrew. I panicked and told my lead I had no idea how to do that. He laughed and said of course you do, it's a simple column buckling problem. Which of course it was, and I sized it.

A couple years later, and the first jackscrew gearbox assembly came off the line, and was doomed to be subjected to the ultimate load test. Any buckling, cracks, deformation, etc., would be a failure. The test guys told me they were gonna bust my jackscrew.

They hooked it up to this big ugly iron I-beam with a hydraulic ram to compress my green BMS10-11 painted gearbox and shiny chrome steel jackscrew (made by Saginaw Gear, who made the best kick-ass forgings).

They started cranking up the pressure, while I stood around anxiously watching it. Slowly, the I-beam bent into a nice curve. We didn't have to make any changes to any of the stab trim system due to test failures. Whaddya know, the math works! So I am not a bit afraid to fly on a 757. The seating can be cramped, but that's the way it goes these days.

As far as know, there have been no in-service failures of that system. The 757 itself has a fantastic safety record, of which I am proud to have contributed to. The last D conference I flew to on a 757 operated by Iceland Air, yay!

At the time I bought a bunch of Boeing stock as a result of my confidence in Boeing, and it has paid off handsomely.
Per Wikipedia:

>Howze is credited with starting the convention of naming US Army helicopter types after Native American tribes, because he found the names suggested by the manufacturers too insipid. The Bell H-13, which had already been in service for some years, was renamed "Sioux" at his suggestion and the tradition continues to the present day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_H._Howze
Your story reminds me very much of a coworker of mine. He mentioned how they'd start an analysis job on it and get a printout of the results delivered to their desk later in the day by a messenger. What a difference.
>Some people might say that young Bezos did nothing wrong. They’re just facts, and the truth hurts. How else do you expect someone to recognize the seriousness of what they’re doing to themselves? There’s something to that, but it captures the central conceit of a dangerous assumption we seem to have made as a culture these days: that being right is a license to be a total, unrepentant asshole. After all, why would you need to repent if you haven’t committed the ultimate sin of being wrong? Some say there’s no reason to care about other people’s feelings if the facts are on your side.

People do believe the above, but if one thinks rationally (Vulcan style) about it, it's a bizarro idea.

What would be the logical necessity be that makes it OK "not to care about other people’s feelings if the facts are on your side"?

What matters to people is what people decide that matters. Whether that's the facts or the delivery of the facts or your tone etc, is a subjective decision.

So why would a 100% logical person assume that being correct should trump everything else? It's an illogical conclusion to arrive at. By what logical reasoning / axiomatic induction etc did they conclude that being correct is enough?

I say there's none. Instead it's their prejudice towards accuracy and correctness that makes them consider so. In other words, those people think they're logical in that assumption (that being right trumps your tone/delivery/etc), but they're just all too human...
In defense of the Korean airport staff, they might have been more accommodating if the "ö" was completely and obviously broken, like "£‡�". Spelling it as "oe" makes it look like there are no encoding issues, in which case strict checking makes more sense.

It's much easier to identify mojibake (they tend to be extremely obvious in CJK encodings) than to remember canonical spellings and other variations in a whole bunch of different languages. Airport staff probably know that "oe" and "œ" are interchangeable, but that's about it.
DocDelta: Healthcare Provider Database for Easy Sales
> Already covered that.

Where? I didn’t see it.

> Programming languages can save their data as unions or structs, and take the minimal hit to switch on the type. DB's persisting data on disk can do the same but will take a much bigger hit.

Yeah, of course. Disk is more expensive across the board. Same applies for storing ints, but databases don’t punt on that. And anyway, the sum types still exist in the schema, they are just implicit, as hoc spectacles built on the fly by the user. So you’re still dealing with performance issues, but they’re worse.

> On the DBs side, it does go away. The DB only has to guarantee what it says it supports (only store one specific type in a column). So for the DB implementors, that's a great invariant for their implementation ease and performance.

This applies to every feature for every tool. You don’t have to solve the problem if you just put it on your users.

Of course, tools have charters, and the relational axiom is that users shouldn’t have to manage their own storage and retrieval layer, but rather they should declare a data model and interface with it and the RDBMS would make search and retrieval fast and correct. Sum types are necessary in data modeling, so it fits clearly and neatly into the charter.
Maybe a dumb question, but wouldn’t you have expected it to break at the target max load? I would have thought it being stronger than required would mean it was heavier than necessary?
In another field Wendover is pretty good as well and insightful. But you can probably count this kind of channels on one hand, per topic.
Show HN: The Social Media Publisher for Teams: New Landing Page – Open Beta
> I think (simple) type systems have many good benefits (code organization, documentation, tooling, AOT-compilation performance), which is why I like them, but correctness just isn't one of them

Most of those impact correctness (amongst other benefits), otherwise we wouldn't care about them. None of the studies that have been carried out tested the long-term benefits of types, which is precisely where types would shine,so I cannot agree with your conclusions in this thread.
The mask is a real thing.

>You're right that love and disgust can both be good or bad, but nobody said otherwise

You did when you made disgust a fundamental negative and love a fundamental positive. But whatever.

>If you're addicted to a feeling then that is a pathology.

Not necessarily, some people deliberately go through bad feelings for the sake of getting to the bottom of something and integrating that answer. That can seem like an addiction from the outside.

You do you.
> > And if you treat the database as the source of truth for managing data, then the idea of making it an application engine would be anathema.

> Why? Could you elaborate more on that?

Sure.

Your previous declaration of:

> We argue that all "business logic" is in fact "data logic" and they're the same concern.

Is both the source of my position and your question.

For at least the last 50 years of which I am aware, the idea of "data rules all" has inextricably lead to migrating system logic closer to where the data resides. In the last 35-ish years, this meant defining application logic in stored procedures executed in an RDBMS (such as what you describe).

This architectural philosophy is commonly know as "client/server", or "two-tier systems," and has been studied extensively (as I am sure you are aware). What makes this relevant to the argument found in the "Motivation" section on the PostgREST site is:

Using PostgREST is an alternative to
manual CRUD programming.

And then:

The PostgREST philosophy establishes
a single declarative source of truth:
the data itself.

To achieve that, the logic must reside within the RDBMS in order to fulfill the project goal set forth in the very first line of the site's home page:

PostgREST is a standalone web server
that turns your PostgreSQL database
directly into a RESTful API.

For all intents and purposes, PostgREST could be considered an RDBMS connection pool, with the connection protocol being HTTP. Note that this is not a judgement, only an observation.

Now, consider a different system architecture commonly known as "three-tier" or "multi-tier." The philosophy of this type of system is largely defined by separation of concerns. This is to say, have each tier be responsible for a single "layer" involved in system definition.

In multi-tier systems, the persistent store (RDBMS) is solely responsible for ensuring data integrity. It may, in fact, service disparate components as well as disparate components may use more than one persistent store. An example of the latter is PostgreSQL and Redis deployed in concert. Programs, components, and/or systems which interact with a persistent store are responsible for providing the behaviour expected by their clients whilst the persistent store is expected to enforce rules regarding the relationships it manages.

Since the persistent store is only asked to fulfill a data integrity contract, having it also attempt to be an application engine would clearly conflate concerns, limit what persistent stores could be used, as well as result in assumptive implementations. Hence anathema to those who would treat the persistent store (database) as the source of truth strictly for the one concern which it was designed to address:

Managing data.
Hello, looks like a cool project.

I had a quick read and here is what I picked out:

* I can stand up my own server ( Java REST API + PostgreSQL)

* I then need to update each app to my server URL

* Application source is released under MIT https://github.com/NearbyShops/Nearby-Shops-End-User-Android...

* I require a license to modify them https://nearbyshops.co/pricing.html
* I don't think that's compatible with MIT license?

I think this will result in like 20 different apps..
Maybe a better approach would be something along the lines:

* You host a 'cerntal' api, and my instance must register with it. You can handle billing / fees you want to charge me there.

* It will inform the mobile app to connect to my backend when in the area served.
Installing brew is basically curl|ruby. But that's somewhat forgivable because you need to install a package manager before you can use a package manager.
"Every benchmark on that page is faster for PHP"

Let me advice you to benchmark it "accuracy" on your machine setup, don't rely what is on that page.

Make sure the error with --jit-verbose=1 which will show whether it uses MJIT correctly.

ruby --jit-verbose=1

- N-Body single core

Ruby 2.6.3
6:22.00s

RubyJIT 2.6.3
3:58.18s

PHP 7.3.xx
4:10.90s
respect :-)
I do fullstackjob.com (plus some other boards) and must say... great job of integrating such a huge amount of boards
Not particularly close. The feature seems to be progressing slowly, but very deprioritized (which is understandable - Rust has a bit of a reputation for being hard to learn and too feature-heavy, so it's natural for them to focus on stabilizing the language instead of adding new features)
Thank you. I was unaware of this and have updated the PrefPane and its invisible daemon as a result.
Yeah. No guidance, no nuclear codes for authorization, no way to abort the launch, nothing but a "handle with care" message on the nuke itself. The only reason humanity survived is nobody dared to actually use this stuff.

They also made backpack nukes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device

The USA also has chemical weapons stockpiles that haven't been fully destroyed to this day. The Honest John rocket could be fitted with sarin warheads:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Demonstration_clus...
Pinterest Runs Kafka at Scale
> A halflife of 5 years means 10% of the radioactivity is still there 16 years later.

But it's very likely that 10% is irrelevant.

Radioactivity is not a all or nothing thing. It exists all around you right now.

Camping out at a old abandoned nuclear power plant 20 years after it's decommissioned probably gives you less radiation exposure then you would get from a flight from California to Hong Kong.
Personally, I would be really unsurprised to see the hispanic vote start to match the traditional "bible belt" vote in the next few decades. That might be republican, it might be something else - but the idea of a conservative catholic demographic voting similarly to another conservative christian demographic makes a lot of sense to me.
I wrote a blog post about an Upwork contractor trying to scam me. I found her Facebook but never contacted her family:

https://mtlynch.io/upwork-scammer/
Note these were developed before MAD was really a thing. The Soviet nuclear arsenal in the early 50's was still pretty small, they had few bombers and ICBMs wouldn't be deployed till the end of the decade. On the other hand, they had a gigantic conventional army, and an obvious geographic advantage over the US in a convetional war fought in Europe.

So US strategy was build around using their nuclear advantage to stop a conventional Soviet invasion of Europe before it could get out of Germany. Hence the development of tactical nuclear weapons like the M65, which seem bizarre to us today, as we're used to thinking about nuclear war in terms of MAD, but made sense (or at least, more sense) at the time.
How Content, SEO, and PPC Can Play Well Together?
I would really love to meet the person that knows the English language well enough to understand that dumb can sometimes mean simple but also would interpret that sentence to mean “world simplest Load balancer”.

Very strange axe you have to grind for a very unlikely hypothetical. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is probable.
The Davy Crockett made an appearance in some 1959 plans for an Army base on the moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Horizon):

> The base would be defended against Soviet overland attack by man-fired weapons:

> Unguided Davy Crockett rockets with low-yield nuclear warheads
> Conventional Claymore mines modified to puncture pressure suits
This whole discussion thread has really made me disappointed with the HN community. Almost every reply is expressed in the same, alt-right terms ("SJWs", "free-speech", and mock outrage, as evidenced by the outsize number of f-bombs). Inexplicably, the scapegoat throughout seems to be a woman.

Take stock of your anger. Our industry is dominated by men, in a culture that has repeatedly shown to be hostile to minorities of all kinds, women, and people of color. Is this the best you can do? Even if this particular incident is unjust in your opinion, you are certainly not the victim here. At most you are asked to moderate your already dominating voices, slightly.

I never saw nearly as much engagement with posts that document actual abuses of financial or professional hierarchies: systemic rape, discrimination, harassment. But god forbid someone got reprimanded for being a bigot in public (or whatever this story is about). Conferences are well documented source of toxicity in our profession. The means to remedy the problem may be clumsy, but instead of punching down, try understanding what these policies mean to address and suggest something constructive.
Electric cars cost double the price of other cars on the market today
I wonder if the environment the car discovers includes elevation. Would be necessary for handling many carparks.
Bean counters keep me from spending all the money.
I obviously haven't tried every library, but my experience has been they all have some problems. You have to expect things like differing text wrapping and scroll behavior because it's hard to completely abstract the underlying UI frameworks.

The alternative of custom painting everything tends to come with more difficult to fix issues however. AWT's successor Swing struggled with things like respecting system user preferences and accessibility. You can find some old Java 1.5 write ups about it: https://web.mit.edu/java_v1.5.0_22/distrib/share/docs/guide/...
>> Makes you wonder, what are we currently doing that is evil but the entire world supports it?

Nearly everything.
His team is hiring;

https://www.tesla.com/careers/job/software-engineerdeeplearn...

https://www.tesla.com/careers/job/machine-learninginfrastruc...

https://www.tesla.com/careers/job/machine-learningscientista...
Really liked this talk.

Looks like they are really nicely orchestrating workloads and training on numerous nets asynchronously.

As a person in the AV industry I think Tesla's ability to control the entire stack is great for Tesla... maybe not for everyone who can't afford/doesn't have a Tesla.
I hope you don't use Linux.
> Some bizarre hair-splitting here.

I was trying to be explicit as to my reasoning. If that came across as "hair-splitting" then I suppose I failed to adequately do so.

The whole point I was trying to make is that people find code in all sorts of ways. And my opinion is that if a public repo, such as GitHub, has a project which could easily be both desired (due to need) and misused (due to intent), then it might be a good idea to put a simple declaration in the project's README.

Given all the blow-back this concept has incurred, I would think the concept is either wholly immaterial or now proven as needed.
Smith is spot on with his analysis of why no number of mods and modules will make the 737 into a 757.

Here on HN I have ranted about the wobbly bobbly handling, obsolete hydraulics, and noisy crappy cockpit of the 73, versus the modern and comfortable 75.

Pay attention to what the article says about takeoff and landing performance. We used to load the 75 heavily for trips between NY La Guardia and Chicago Midway, or Midway to Washington National. We could NOT load a 737-NG heavily due to field length or climb limits. Boeing made a bad, bad decision to push the 737 instead of advancing a fresh design.

Just wait and watch. They won't abandon the 737 until one or two more are lost due to runway overruns or something else related to its shortcomings. That is WITH better than average pilots, all the sooner to happen with typical ab initio crews.
Yes, if you will use anything that doesn’t say “NEVER USE THIS IN PRODUCTION. SERIOUSLY THIS IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY” then you are going to get burned by a lot more than a LB.
Thanks Tim!
Would love to apply, but still a student. Hoping to join in the future given how nicely orchestrated your team has been training nets.
1. There's no way to prove that. We aren't a pure meritocracy. There's a huge element of luck to becoming a billionaire. So it's very likely that there are > 600 people out of the 330 million non billionaires who are at least as good or better at investing than the current billionaires.

2. Even if we do assume that the current billionaires are better at making money individually, there are still advantages to collective action. That is to say that taking 10% from the most individually productive members of society and building an interstate system likely produces more societal and economic benefit than whatever they would have done with the that money individually.
I think it really needs an official router, on-par with vue-router, and of course Sapper doesn't count because it is a full framework, requires you to have a server and its too complex anyway
This is about a sandboxing utility for Windows that is being sunsetted by its creators.

If you were looking for a cool new toy to appease your Docker addiction, go elsewhere.
I didn't get that feeling from this article, but I share your feelings about doing a startup as a fashion.

It's definitely real. I used to coach at a bunch of startup events, and many people were definitely drawn to the hype. E.g., the fresh college graduate who was trying to decide between going to grad school or doing a startup. The people who were sure they had the "next Facebook". [1] The people who want to be the next Steve Jobs, or whoever the press is lionizing these days.

And really, I think a lot of the "Uber for X" wave was of that style. How many of those really had plausible unit economics? Versus just being a bunch of people playing disruption dress-up with a tide of VC money behind them?

It is my fervent hope that WeWork's the peak of that bubble. That with less hype and froth, we'll see more companies focused on serving users and creating long-term value.

[1] In my view, there will be no "next Facebook": https://www.quora.com/Is-it-foolish-to-go-to-Startup-Weekend...
Suppose someone does email themselves. What makes you think that there is a product opportunity in that? They may be in that behaviour pattern because it works well for them.
That is a fun question. Boeing had two groups - the design group, and the stress group. The design group does the design, the stress group checks it. I was in the former.

One day, I got called into the stress group, where they told me they were unhappy with my parts. I asked why, they said there just barely strong enough for the ultimate load, only about 1% over. They said they'd feel more comfortable with 10% extra strength.

I said this was no coincidence, I used math to size the part to the load, rather than guessing at a size and checking to see if it was strong enough. The requirement was the ultimate load, which is 150% of the maximum load that could ever be expected.

I asserted that I designed to the design requirement, and an extra 10% would make it overweight. Brat that I was, I said if you guys were unhappy with the design requirement, increase it. They grudgingly signed off on it.

The reason it didn't break on the test stand is because all parts vary in size due to manufacturing tolerances. It was sized to pass the ultimate load test under the most adverse size allowed under the tolerances. Odds are, it'll be a little stronger.

For comparison, spacecraft have (I think) an ultimate load of 110% of the max load. The margins are awfully thin, but they have little choice. If you really want a math heavy engineering job, design spacecraft.

BTW, the stress group signed off on the jackscrew size. If it had failed the ultimate load test, both them and I would have had a black eye. As it turned out, the test guys were embarrassed by their bent rig :-) and fortunately that wasn't really a problem.
for its network effect. I got way more followers than I ever had before using different platforms.
DNSSEC ensures a hostname resolves to the right IP address. But when you make a TCP connection to that IP address, a MITM can listen in on (and modify) that TCP connection.

Another problem is I believe DNSSEC is only validated by the recursive resolver. So if the end user is using an external recursive resolver (e.g. 8.8.8.8) then the data between the user and the recursive resolver can still be spoofed by a MITM, and also the recursive resolver itself could behave maliciously.
The Littlest Boy: American troops with nuclear weapons strapped to their backs
> this is worded on a way that suggests that because the Irish one isn't particularly racist, or at least not in a particularly bad way, that an equivalent law in the US shouldn't be considered racist.

I’m pretty sure it’s worded to imply that the Irish one is pretty racist, but they just don’t realize it because the Overton window in Europe is very skewed on this issue.

> That ignores the difference in immigration and emigration between the two countries. in Ireland, it enables ethnic Irish to return home if their ancestors moved away, whereas in America, it would promote migrants from one non-ethnically American country over another, which in the context of prioritizing white immigrants over anything else, makes it pretty racist

Why should ethnic Irish migrants get preference over anyone else? Would it be okay if the US did something similar for ethnic British?