skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's worse than theft. When you steal a car, only that car is lost. When you infringe copyright on a massive scale, it dilutes the value of the original work and reduces the value of all future copies.

This can be seen with music today. Rampant sharing made it so you can't really sell albums anymore. If you want to make a living, you almost have to go with a big label.

It's also why most software companies have now have SAAS and we now are renting software by the month instead of being able to buy a copy.

All of those people I remember a decade ago who claimed they were sharing music to help the indy artist are nowhere to be found and their actions have only hurt any chances of an Indy artist to make a living.
How China infiltrates colleges across the globe
Then I don't know what they are talking about. People is already paying for those extra users.
The story behind this manga single-handedly catapulting sales of French Burgundy in Asia never ceases to fascinate me ;)
DNS-over-HTTPS will roll out in all major browsers, despite ISP opposition
> I also suspect a reason the tools were revised to reject apps with use of these internal functions is that some of them are going away in March.

This is the thing, there are good reasons Apple should reserve certain libraries as private and not support them. The fact that Electron dipped into private libraries and didn't have a fallback plan for WHEN Apple clamped down on this is just poor planning. That said... a small amount of communications and/ or tolerance from Apple would go a long way towards developer good will here. Lots of small developers getting burned here.
Transcoding video won't work on a Raspi (in any realistic sense), and video streaming is pretty I/O intensive if you have multiple clients.

You can certainly get a similar thing working on a Raspi, but you'll likely notice buffering issues. Especially if you try to stream different content to different clients.
Most of the incidents described here are strongly indicative of a terrible manager who’s learned to play the office politics game well. There’s little evidence here that points to systematic discrimination, but also nothing that refutes that theory— these few anecdotes are simply not enough to draw such conclusions from. I have seen and heard of similar behaviors at many companies, targeting people of all descriptions.

The most damning part is probably HR’s response and the inability to get out of the sphere of influence of a manager that is actively working against the interests of their report: if managers can block team changes, anyone who ends up in the reporting chain of a manager that doesn’t like them can feel very stuck.

(Note: due to a technical issue I was not able to read any of the posted screenshots, and so my opinion was formed only on the basis of the text).

(Note 2: I’m not saying there isn’t a discrimination problem, only that it hasn’t been demonstrated. This looks to me like grounds for an investigation, but not yet punishment.)
How Swift Achieved Dynamic Linking Where Rust Couldn't
Company accused of selling Chinese-made security equipment to U.S. military
On the bright side, it will reduce the number of most obnoxious pricks on Twitter. Indian twitter army is one of the worst "communities" on internet.
He did not do anything.

The first offense is from his twitter account:

>Latter Day Saint (Christian), Conservative

The second offense is that there is a picture of him with a MAGA hat somewhere on the Internet.

That was enough for someone to say they're uncomfortable attending the same conference as him.
Because he is a Mormon, he tried to solve the issue the Mormon way, offering them to discuss the issue. This was considered "tone policing" by the anonymous "Linux Foundation" account.

The raging assholes enforcing this fake social justice nonsense must be unambiguously called out by anyone with half a brain.
Don't Name Internal Systems, Sites, or Applications After Org Codes
Thanks for this, I unfollowed Charles Max Wood. Thanks for making me aware of this Uncle Bob.

https://twitter.com/ElijahLynn/status/1192957093822660608
I don’t really think this rises to the level of free will arguments. Your limbic system acts as a passive filter to the cortexes fact retrieval capability’s, constraining available options for applying your agency.

It’s not appropriate to behave like a violent tyrant in a grocery store so your emotional systems won’t flare up.

The whole concept of free will in a world where we know there’s no sky wizard feeding us motives & a well defined biological system of constraints on us seems like an antiquated notion.
> This approach is quite scary to me...

No kidding. My first thoughts went to referential integrity, and getting misbehaving apps successfully past testing...
Are your engineers omnipotent beings who never fail, never make mistakes and understand the system entirely (even all the parts they don't know about)? Is your QA process perfect? Your servers never crash in weird states?

Lucky for you!
It's a good route, if you're running your own. I'm mostly in clouds, and they've got lower limits
I would disagree. I'm not a Republican myself, but it doesn't seem any different than wearing a Bernie hat or T shirt. He is expressing his political beliefs. You may find them offensive, and he may likewise find your views offensive, but I doubt either of you are doing so with the intent to offend.
It's not just my personal line of thought.

Your line of thought is the narrow "Chicago School" thinking Robert Bork in the US in the 90s where the sole focus is on the benefits to consumers and overall efficiency.
It is sad how inconsistent Apple's documentation has gotten. The lack of a list of types that can be used as CALayer contents is particularly bad given how useful it is in macOS applications. But these classes and properties are in the public SDKs and listed on Apple's API docs website, making them public API.

As an aside, I originally found out that they used IOSurface and CALayer from reading that post.
https://www.foxla.com/news/undercover-video-reveals-brutal-t...
“I want everything for $9 that used to cost $99” is perfectly reasonable in markets where technology has dramatically lowered costs. It’s certainly what I expect when buying computer hardware, but it should also apply to the market for distributing films that have already been made. If the service you want is the ability to watch one movie a week from a huge catalogue, streaming technology has brought the cost of delivering the service way down, but the cost to the consumer has gone up compared to DVD rental!
Gotcha... depending on size/scale of numbers, Python is probably the only general purpose scripting language I would trust for that (though don't actually use Python, it's not what I work on).
Electron doesn’t run on iPhone?
I'm not sure complexity itself gets in the way of human agency so much. It's more the risk and fear of problems, including job security, when trying to wrestle with that complexity and invariably breaking unforeseen things.

Maybe that's what the FP people mean by DDD and bounded contexts. If you constrain the complexity into something bite-size that in turn has well-documented interface points, then it all starts getting easier to manage again.
If I have a library, I must be a player. In that case, how do I get -5/-5? Players don't have P/T.
So let's rephrase that.

"Expecting people to pay for your service is childish."

They aren't going after people, they are just resetting passwords.
Rise in Poor Millennial Health Expected to Have Long-Term Economic Consequences
Yes, what I was going for is:

Elder Dragon Highlander + Two Headed Giant = "Two Headed Dragon"
Google Play AudioBooks Are Not Hampered with DRM
Mark Rosewater (the head designer) commented on this very issue in the most recent State of Design article:

> Two years ago in my "State of Design" articles, I said we'd let complexity get a little too high. Last year, I said we overcompensated and ended up with complexity a little too low. I'm happy to say that we've found the middle ground and have been producing sets that seem to be hitting the sweet spot.

> The key to this success seems to be us towing the line of complexity at common, but upping the amount of complexity we allow at uncommon. This allows us to take in-theme things for the set that would normally be rare and pull them down to uncommon to allow us to raise the as-fan of the theme. A good example of this would be the planeswalkers in War of the Spark. The uncommon planeswalkers, in a vacuum, would probably be rares in a normal set, but by allowing ourselves to lower their rarity, we were able to infuse War of the Spark (especially Limited) with the planeswalker theme.

> Another component that allowed us to pull this off is a willingness to be more aggressive with the power level of commons, especially answers, to help make them more relevant without having to up their complexity.

( https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/s... )

The power level of commons was long one of their primary defenses to the question "why do you print bad rares?". Combining the introduction of Mythic rarity with the axing of staple commons did terrible things to the balance of power across rarities. As alluded to in passing here, they seemed to believe that powerful commons made the game more confusing to play and/or less fun, hurting their potential market.

You can track the issue on Doom Blade ( https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multive... ). In M12 (2011) it's a common. In M13, as part of their commitment to continuously rotate which cards fill which roles, Doom Blade is replaced by Murder ( https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multive... ), which is also common. In M14 (2013), Doom Blade is back! But it's an uncommon, where it stays for the next several years while they publish articles about how their new philosophy of design means you shouldn't have broadly useful removal at common for under 5 mana. But between M19 and M20, Murder shifts from uncommon to common. Murder is still much weaker than Doom Blade. But the philosophy of "no common removal unless it's either intensely situational or too expensive to play" has disappeared.

They're trying to balance money extraction, player demand, and the broader health of the game ("after playing 20 games, do I still like this?"), and feedback on those three issues has very different patterns of immediacy and accuracy. (And, of course, money extraction and player demand are in direct conflict with each other.)
And yet this is the system we all implicitly consent to in exchange for a job until people much more powerful from us are suddenly compelled to prevent this from happening
> Why would a sense of justice need to come from God?

Is justice absolute or (culturally) relative? The Nazis† thought they were doing good: were they not? Were they "wrong" just because they lost WW2? If they had won, would they have written down that they were "right" and have history remember that 'fact'?

If they were morally wrong, regardless of winning or losing, where did that 'objective' moral fact come from?

You can certainly be an atheist and me moral and act justly. But where do you pin your morality to? If someone is an atheist, and probably a materialism (i.e., the only thing that exists is matter), where is justice in the scientific realm? What does a molecule of morality look like?

† Let's just invoke Godwin's Law and go for the extreme case.
Which is why it’s so fishy that all the press and everyone keep focusing on Neumann. No interest in defending him, but he didn’t put a gun to anyone’s head.
I think they recognised Pelt Collector was important enough to my own strategy to be worth the trade. I did regret it later. I think I lost that game actually (too many bloody knights).

Edit: I mean, Pelt Collector is like the creature kill magnet. It seems players know it's a powerful card and do their best to get rid of it as early as possible.

Edit 2: Oh, I remember now. They just played another one next turn. They probably had it in hand from the start. I should have waited with the Collector.
For me, and this is having grown and maintained some large functional code bases, the fact that your day-to-day code does have an enhanced low-level correctness is exactly what helps you attack what you describe as the major problem: complexity.

The way I've dealt with complexity in large code bases is through being fearless about refactoring. Refactoring may not reduce complexity in terms of what the software does, but it reduces the complexity of understanding the code base tremendously by realigning the structure of the code with the actual problems being solved.

Refactoring gets a lot less scary when you have greater confidence in the low level correctness of the code.

On your second point, yes, I have found that FP has some, shall we say, interesting jargon. But I have trouble thinking of succinct names for a lot of FP constructs that are nonetheless useful, such as monads. A lot of more colloquial terms that come to mind in brainstorm sessions might even undermine understanding by providing a false equivalence. I think the same argument can be made for mathematical notation.

In summary I'd turn around your last sentence a bit. Yes, the #1 problem is complexity, but you can reduce complexity significantly by applying correctness and modularity and other programming 'buzzwords'.

You can rail against complexity itself, but I think we're probably on the bottom end of a very large complexity slope over the next decades. So we'll need better and better constructs to deal with it.
Third party doctrine is a known loophole to the surveillance state for getting around pesky privacy laws, and my gut instinct tells me this third party sms gateway is a goldmine for whatever prism has become these days. TOS/EULAs probably say they can do whatever they want with your data including sharing with third parties so they have a legal out because it's not just the corporations influencing congress via K-street, but because the military industrial congressional complex has a vested interest in providers not protecting our privacy, and will railroad any provider that tries to stand up to them (see: Quest).

Congress on both sides is utterly corrupt and unrepresentative and until America wakes up to that fact and stops playing the two-party game nothing will change. (duvergers law has many weaknesses)
I would if you uploaded the .stl
I was subscribed to Netflix for years until recently. I’ve given up. It’s the high seas for me. And anybody who argues I just want stuff for free is twisting the narrative. I was and still am more than happy to reward content creators as long as they make some effort towards ensuring my convenience. All I see now is maximum rent-seeking, so I’m out.
“It’s only acausal if you thought that awareness is what causes movement”

Exactly, people believed that the thoughts they are aware of when making a decision to move were actually how they decided to move.
Mr Bean: how to get started in UX/UI design?
A honest look at society forces us to recognize the trade-offs that exist between values. Politics is how we negotiate conflicting values.
I'm quite familiar with them. But the colloquial term "computer" isn't the same as the historical term, and that's the point here. We aren't talking about the job, or a design that wasn't implemented, or a mechanical computer because nobody means that when they say "computer".
> Apple doesn't make any money from the "web,"

Yep. Apple makes most money on $1k+ high end mobile devices, smart phones, tablets, watches, laptops. And now original contents, subscription services and financial services. Most Apple software are given out for FREE [1], macOS, iTunes, iWork, bundled Mail / News / Stock / Preview Safari apps, etc.

That reason alone it making Owen William's claim of "Apple’s control over its app ecosystem is a new type of monopoly" a moot point. Apple smart devices is less than 10% of the total market share.

And I agree with locking PWA and prefer native approach is a good thing for consumers - because if Apple didn't insist that, we'd be still running Adobe Flash on our smart phones these days.

End user cares more about user experiences, battery life and seamless integration working across all apps and services.

[1]: https://support.apple.com/downloads/
> But Apple has a reason not to like this recycling of web technology.

Yeah: native apps consume fewer resources and generally provide a better user experience. This is like, Apple's whole schtick with iphones. The hardware is historically low spec compared to contemporaneous android, but the device performs better, and old devices perform better on new ios releases.

> It wants its Mac App Store to be filled with apps that you can’t find anywhere else, not apps that are available on every platform.

Sure, that's a take.
And if the answer is yes, be very very suspicious!
Hrmmm - well, I remember seeing HBO ads on all the networks. But your basic point is valid.
Venezuela (rightly) gets most of the attention in South America right now, but I find Brazil's path from seemingly stable and booming to where it is now is much more intriguing as a case study.
Ok here it is...

> In Renaissance-era Amsterdam, the surgeons used the colored stripes to indicate that they were prepared to bleed their patients (red), set bones or pull teeth (white), or give a shave if nothing more urgent was needed (blue).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber's_pole
False equivalency. Changing private APIs without warning is not the same as actively breaking clients.

This distinction does not matter in the public sphere. When Apple releases an update — any update — that breaks a popular app, they are blamed for it. By putting their foot down, Apple is putting the onus back on developers to play by their rules.

This situation is essentially the normalization of deviance [1]. If you do not enforce a rule, that rule becomes invalid and unenforceable. Apple does not want to lose control of their platform. If they give away all of their private, low level APIs, then cross platform frameworks like Electron will render their platform a commodity.

[1] http://danluu.com/wat/
>Modularity should be based on high level business concerns and abstractions. The idea that one should modularize low-level algorithms shows a deep misunderstanding of what it means to write modular software in a real-life context outside of academia.

Modularity in functional programming languages penetrates to the lowest level. Functional programming encourages the composition of powerful, general functions to accomplish a task, as opposed to the accretion of imperative statements to do the same. With currying, a function that takes four arguments is trivially also four separate functions that can be further composed. The facilities for programming in the large are also arguably more general and expressive than in OOP languages: take a look at a Standard ML-style module system, where entire modules can be composed almost as easily as functions.

>It seems that FP induces confusion in the minds of its followers by blurring the boundary between implementation details and abstractions. OOP, on the other hand, makes the difference absolutely clear. In fact, the entire premise of OOP is to separate abstraction from implementation.

I'm not sure I understand you here entirely, but implementation details matter. Is this collection concurrency safe? Is this function going to give me back a null? Is it dependent on state outside its scope that I don't control? Etcetera. Furthermore, when it's necessary to hide implementation details, it's still eminently possible. Haskell and OCaml support exporting types as opaque except for the functions that operate on them in their own module, which is at least as powerful as similar functionality in OOP languages.

>Referential transparency is not abstraction, in fact, it goes against abstraction. If your black box is transparent in terms of how it manages its state, then it's not really a black box.

Yeah, I've lost you here. Would you mind clarifying?
That's a question that cant really be answered. If Electron made sense to the author, then it should be used. If it makes efficient use of hardware resources, that's another question.

You can get a list of apps here: https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome-electron/blob/master...
This isn’t about the mobile market...
Running a database written in go in the browser
I see, points well taken.

Python is great anyway, a language's intrinsic quality has nothing to do with whatever else the programming scene does. In my view it takes many languages to make a better software world, and while we don't want 250 (...), a couple dozen on a normal distribution seems quite adequate.
Who needs foreign keys... or relations?

Documents do well for a wide variety of applications ;-)
Careful with that, in some countries, anti-piracy outfits are monitoring torrent releases and sending out c&d letters in bulk to people who they catch downloading/uploading with a domestic IP.

Particularly a problem in Germany, that's why it's best to use a torrent-friendly VPN in countries like that.
Honest question: who actually uses the macOS App Store?
Many of the apps in question are free apps... I tend to have Spotify and VS Code open most of the day. Then again, I replaced Mac on my home desktop with Linux, and getting rid of my rmbp in a few weeks.
No. The pathology is if the torque is in the reverse direction (as someone else mentioned in comments, the result is a stutter).
> I am very clearly focused on the notion of "nothing".

You're taking "nothing" very literally. My point was that he was not born into the crown, and that based on his birth, he could never have hoped to wield much of any political power, had it not been for the Revolution.

> an exclusive social tier

It wasn't nearly as exclusive as you're making it out to be. There were hundreds of thousands of people with higher social rank than Napoleon.

> his subsequent study at École Militaire, and finally being commissioned as an officer, he would not have had the opportunity to shine

That's probably true, but not because studying at the military academy at Brienne was anything particularly prestigious. It's because the Republic was in desperate need of competent officers and under extreme military pressure, so people from fairly low social stations and with little military training were being put in command of significant forces. Lots of people from outside the ruling class rose to high stations during this time. Napoleon was simply the most extreme example, because of the seeming military miracles he pulled off and a great deal of political shrewdness.

What you're arguing is a bit like saying that Albert Einstein was just lucky to be born to a family that could afford tutors. But being born to decent circumstances were just the beginning, and the vast majority of people born to those circumstances go nowhere near as far as Einstein did. Napoleon wouldn't have been who he was had he been born a serf. But he was also probably the greatest military mind in history, and without that we wouldn't be talking about him here.

> almost all of the major spiritual and secular figures in history, regardless of period or locale, belonged to (or were closely attached) to the upper classes.

I don't think that's true at all of the era we're discussing. The people who rose to prominence in France during the Revolution tended to be decidedly middle-class: lawyers, penniless minor nobility, journalists, army engineers, minor clergy, and so on.
For many years now at least once a week there has been an announcement of a breakthrough new battery technology that is going to revolutionize energy storage. But in spite of all these purported breakthroughs, we are still stuck with li-ion (though it has been improving steadily).

I think it would be nice if there was a site that tracked all these announcements, that is had a listing of all of them and how each has done in the following years.