skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The thing I detest about discussions of code aesthetics is the idea that the quality metrics you speak of have such a direct relationship to the "product features" of the language, that we can simply know it's good by looking at it, and we are hapless simpletons unable to write this so-called "beautiful" or "clean" code if we do not have the feature available. That is all bullshit. Most of the features are shiny baubles for raccoons and magpies, I do NOT know what good code looks like(I can only state whether the coding style eliminates some class of errors), and what matters the most is the overall shape of the tooling.

Some languages have a big bag of tricks, other languages let you extend them to the moon, and still others make you work at it a little. In the end it's all just computation, and the tool choice can be reduced to a list of "must haves" and "cannots". If you need more expressive power -- make your build a little more complex and start generating code, give it a small notion of types or static invariants. It only has to generalize as much as your problem does, and that leads you to build the right abstraction instead of dumping an untried language feature on the problem in the hope that it is a solution.
How do you handle responsive with inline in react? Case switching in js?
So how do you handle chip & pin without a card reader?
Why is it always space? Space technology requires lots of energy and our society is currently in the middle of realizing that our current way of getting energy is going to kill us. Of course we're not making large-scale investments in energy-intensive exploration.

I wish EDS maglev, fusion power or quantum computing generated so much excitement, to say nothing of grid batteries, magnetocaloric heat pumps, or electric impedance tomography. I guess QC has done well lately.
The healthcare system seems to be optimized towards extracting as much money from older people as possible. I just hope we can move the ball forward and try to make it good at healthcare instead by the time I get old.
A C++ compiler is not guaranteed/required to inline the comparison (just very likely to do so if it's small). Can you explain what advantage you see in doing things the qsort way over a (possibly but not necessarily comparison-inlined) templated sort function? What difference does it make to have multiple (differently typed) std::sort instantiations vs just one type-agnostic one (qsort-style)?

If the comparisons are expensive enough to warrant not inlining them, then I very strongly doubt you'll find a meaningful speed difference between qsort and std::sort. I don't know if you're concerned about code size and instruction cache etc., but I doubt that matters if comparisons are expensive.
NASA lost all reels about moonwalk ?

Oh. What a lies again from NASA
It didn't have to be done this way. In case somebody to fix this, here is an alternate implementation:

There is a separate library, or a part of libgcc, that can be mapped in multiple times. This allows trampolines without any limit other than memory. Alternately, just decide how many you want in advance, and place them into the executable.

Trampolines are conceptually in an array, to be allocated one by one, but there are actually two arrays because we'd want to separate the executable part from the non-executable part. On a 64-bit architecture with 4096-byte pages we might have a read-write page with 256 pairs of pointers, an execute-only page with 256 trampoline functions (which use those pairs of pointers), and possibly another execute-only page with helper code. The trampoline functions can use the return address on the stack to determine location, though x86_64 also offers RIP-relative addressing that could be used.

These arrays could be done as thread-private data or done with locking. Pick your poison. The allocation changes accordingly, along with the space requirements and cache-line bouncing and all. Be sure to update setjmp and longjmp as required.

There is also a much simpler answer to the usual security problems. If the stack will become executable and the option hasn't been given to explicitly allow this, linking should always fail at every step. Propagating the lack of a no-exec flag should be impossible without confirmation of intent.
This is why I really like tailwinds, because for all the dynamically generated classes (90% of their utility classes) you can choose to use their scale (1unit=0.25rem) or just switch them all wholesale to a smaller increment so that when you need more specificity it's there.
Around that time accessible, rider-friendly bicycles that look like today's were just entering the mainstream. Besides being fun in general, they also accommodated women's fashion and benefited women's safe, solo transportation and gave them a big boost of autonomy at the time.
The problem that I see is that by making the decision that something needs to be pixel perfect the designer is often "volunteering" the engineer for an hour or more of fighting with CSS. In my experience the engineer is then expected to spend that time in addition to their normal workload.

The only ways I can see it working are either:

- Designers are obligated to follow the DLS.

- Any divergence from the DLS is pointed and therefore takes away from the number of points the engineer commits to for other tasks during a sprint.
Depends where you live. https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/facebook-is-the-internet-f...
> the 30k car is never coming

Never is a strong word. We may not get 30k electric cars in 5 years, but we will eventually. We may not get full autonomous vehicles in a decade, but we will certainly have it before the turn of the century.
It sounds like people are forgetting the world before Facebook. Isolated, repressed locations, limited flow of information from tiny amounts of sources. The Connected-Information Age seems to have brought on some great advances

What exactly has this given us? People have smart phone addiction. Studies have shown that people feel more isolated than before, because the coherence of local communities is dissolving.

The Internet has brought us much. A kid somewhere can learn a lot of things that you could not easily learn before in a small town in the middle of nowhere. We have FLOSS software and people that cooperate on large, open, projects.

But to me Facebook and other advertising-based have been a net loss. Of course, there is community and communication, but they existed before Facebook in Usenet, e-mail lists and forums. However, now all the communication is spoiled by advertisments, people being driven subconsciously to get likes, and numerous attempts to induce dopamine shots. I really liked the internet more from 1995-2008 (before Facebook got very big in Western Europe) than from 2008-now.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21554045
Show HN: Send Slack notification when row is inserted on Google Sheet
That's a very well run auto shop.
This looks really great. Do you plan on releasing a Firefox extension?
No, it's more analogous, but worse so, IMO, to copying all the sentences of the book in a manner like this:

"Jack and Jill ran down the hill."

into

"Gil and Jacky descended the mound."

It's exactly the same story just with different implementations that exhibit the same behavior. They didn't make something compatible with Java -- they replaced Java with something exactly like Java.

It's even worse than the example above, because they kept the same names of the classes, interfaces, etc.
Facebook (and other web advertising companies) isn't leading most of the advances in computing power. Moore's law is much older than Facebook.

And they certainly aren't developing the software that space agencies and companies are using. If anything they're likely diverting talent away from more beneficial work towards selling ads.

There are maybe 2 projects on this list that could possibly be beneficial for space exploration, and they aren't groundbreaking.

https://opensource.facebook.com/
I'd (conservatively) speculate most of us here are in the global 1% in terms of "ability to understand math".

Have tried multiple times to follow his work (from the blog). But I'm not math-fluent enough to understand or otherwise appreciate the content. Possibly I could but it requires so much effort.

It's much easier to enjoy Bach's or Messi's genius :)
You would be surprised how many people do not know that the order of classes in the source file, not the class="" attribute, matters.

See my (totally unscientific, yet scary) poll of my audience, which heavily leans towards frontend with a focus on React: https://mobile.twitter.com/mxstbr/status/1038073603311448064...

Only 43% got it correct!
And he doesn't even touch on the inefficiency of public research spending which has ballooned since 2000 with disappointing returns
I'm firmly in this camp as well. A strong code quality metric is how easily understood something is - we write code in all sorts of states of minds at all hours of the day. If others can read your code and understand it, it means you can too when it's time to extend/modify it. This is also why things like Ruby's over reliance on metaprogramming bugs me - sometimes duplication is fine, and I'd much rather have some duplication than a wrong (or hard to discover) abstraction.

The argument that "all code gets sloppy so let's just have very verbose code from the get-go" is pretty insane to me.
What I really need is a very concise methodology to help idiots like me understand why I would need yet another web framework.
In my experience Amazon is designed to block reviews that call out questionable products, Amazon is designed to make returns difficult for fraudulent products. "You pay for the shipping", hide all customer service options related to seller issues, etc etc.

Amazon is complicit in the fraud committed by their sellers. They restrict critical reviews by people who bought fraudulent products under the guise of a tos violation. They should be retroactively contacting customers who purchased products they have removed for fraud reasons.
PWAs and Capability Highlights (Chrome Dev Summit 2019)
Urges won't translate into practice so easily. The abstractions of servers won't be so easily reduced to stateless method calls. The design of a cloud-based service is still so relevant that there is no abstraction which can possibly reduce it at the current moment.
I want to see generics and real enums (I.e., Rust enums, not C/Java enums) added to Go, but as far as it being unsafe or inefficient, these concerns are overblown for many apps. People who levy this criticism are often fine with Python and/or JS for similar categories of applications, even though they are far less safe and less performant than Go. We should be clear when we criticize Go that we’re talking about addressing the last 1% or so of type-related bugs and/or extending the performance ceiling a bit higher. We should also give Go credit for permitting a high degree of safety, performance, and productivity when other languages make you choose one.
Please explain to me how it's worse? I find it offensive because it's discussion of sexuality and a sexually charged topic in a massively inappropriate setting. If I was a female, why should I feel worse? Just because the performers there are female?
It's wild to me that most of the discourse around CSS-in-JS is about personal preference for how separation of concerns should be when its biggest advantage is totally orthogonal to that--it almost completely solves the issues of scope, specificity, and mapping styles to markup that so many different libraries and methodologies have been invented to cope with over the years.
There's unreasonable hostility towards Go because it is eating the lunch of some folks' favorite languages.

It's not rare to see people feel offended by others being productive with Go and liking it.
For me it encouraged curiousity in a poorly understood field of science. The bit about her own behaviour was very short. And actually a lot of the mitigations make good sense. Burning as a leisure activity (in the case of candles and a lot of wood burners) is not a great idea.
This is the most oddly written article ever. Look, these normal humans also take breaks to eat and socialize together. Hahahah how bizarre!

Anyway, the agile scrum lessons we can take from these subhumans that also communicate effectively are A, B, and C.

Just awkward and condescending as hell. I doubt this person actually worked in a blue collar role in any real capacity.
That's not how marketing works. You don't try to make reusable interplanetary rockets just to sell cars. That would be the worst marketing tactic of all time.
He certainly does know more than me and is more successful than me and is smarter than me. But there are many areas of research in computer science. I'm saying Rob Pike is likely not to have been familiar with sum types and type theory in general (which is more Math then computer science). The design of his language looks that way.

Someone knowing much more or having clearly a higher rank does not mean they know everything. And there are certainly things that you, I or Rob Pike doesn't know. Idolization of people and assumptions based off of reputation are highly biased and unrealistic. Counter my arguments with logic and evidence. Stuff like this person is "better than you" therefore you must be wrong is weak.

Never have I ever directed a direct insulting statement AT someone on HN. You literally called me ARROGANT. Do not insult me. This is a place where we discuss things not a place where we insult people. I will have no further discussion with someone who directly and explicitly insults me. Don't bother responding, I will not discuss anything with someone who cannot be civil.
Nobody's stupid because they're not sure about something. It's totally cool to ask for help or opinions when you're thinking through a hard problem.

To answer your question you should understand what creativity and practicality mean in your context. I would generally think that being practical and creative aren't at odds with each other.

When working through a problem for work I tend to err on the side of practicality. We could be coming up with a new way to do data transformations, building out distributed tracing tools, or trying a new way of scaffolding our projects. Each of those solve a real problem and have practical implications. They also require creative thinking to imagine and design new tools and workflows.

These projects are practical in the sense that they need to solve an actual problem (e.g. deliver a net benefit to customer UX or development velocity). Contrary to how they sound, they often aren't obvious projects to take on or straight-forward solutions. It usually required days or weeks of lateral thinking to cook up one of these. In this context, creative thinking complimented practical thinking and produced a better result than one of those modes taken in isolation.

Sometimes it's helpful to circle around the problem you think you want to solve to better understand what your actual problem is.

Be careful reading other's ideas since it will affect the way in which you see the problem. Your view of the problem may be skewed after reading other information. OTOH, it's common that you can piggyback on existing ideas (see taco bell/duct tape programming).

There are lots of good resources on this subject:
John Cleese talk linked elsewhere - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y70nbDJI5Uk

Rich Hickey Hammock Driven Development is a more direct application to software development.- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84n5oFoZBc

Another good Alan Kay talk from YC - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id1WShzzMCQ

A Mind for Numbers

How to Solve It

Psychology of Intelligence Analysis is interesting too but less applicable (eschewing the Einstellung effect) - https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intellig...
>where you define a class and use it in multiple places

If you're doing this in React, you should probably be reusing a component.
The most used feature of docker in our org is image distribution. Make an image once, and you can be sure the same code runs on stage, prod, and dev desktops.

This feature seems to be missing here.
Find licensed, commercial kitchens to take your food business to the next level
> some folks' favorite languages

Java/.NET, Python and Ruby? I say bring it on.
Video demo of where the checklist left them after completion: https://youtu.be/aoNOVlxJmow?t=606 (preceded by explanation)
Yes, their point is clear enough.

My point is that the politics of landuse are hopeless enough that other mitigations will be more beneficial for quite some time to come.
If the caller of your interface does not specify a value for your enum, they have implicitly specified the zero value. Whether that’s desirable behavior or not is up to you. For most clients, this behavior can be surprising if the zero value is a meaningful one (i.e. one that implies an intentional choice).

IME it’s useful to explicitly define the zero value’s meaning as “UNSPECIFIED”, to simplify the problem of trying to guess if the client intended to pass a zero value.
People won't use such a scheme because it's too complicated. And the people doing medical research need everyone's DNA in a big database so they can analyze it in bulk. There's relatively little scientific benefit in just a few people's DNA. And that concentration of information is where your concern is.

How about, if you want socialized healthcare, you pay the cost of privacy. We guarantee to pay for your healthcare, but your DNA is freely available in everyone's database? Signing up for Medicare/Medicaid? Submit a DNA sample. That will give a huge population for study and the rest, people who aren't on socialized healthcare, can protect their DNA if they want. If the government is paying for your healthcare, you already lost your privacy to them anyways.
At least a few IMO gold medalists have younger brothers who are good enough to be involved in math activities in high school but are not remotely close to the same level. They are in fact different in terms of mathematical ability. You would be more aware of the value of natural ability if you had put work in, but then couldn't come close to winning prestigious math competitions.
> I've told myself countless times lately, that it is simply not possible for young graduates to come to work knowing basically nothing, surfing fb and youtube all day long and then go buy cars and going to Greece as their very first vacation. Something, somewhere, just stinks badly.

What is this in reference to? Where do buying cars and holidays in Greece come into this article? Is there a stereotype of programmers holidaying in Greece?! And tech types mostly hate buying cars don’t they?
> ...it'll lead to more use of transportation.

> This is a good thing.

Why? Wouldn't it be better if we could reduce our dependence on (mechanised) transportation overall?
Certain items just have a danger level that requires an elevated sense of responsibility and awareness and I don't just mean firearms. Workshop tools like power saws or table saws need to be handled with respect and care and those that cannot provide it should just not use them. Those that have worked in some kinds of environments know what I mean. Some factories or manufacturing places have lots of extra safety regulations. Those that have been in the military also know of dynamic and changing circumstances of their operating environment with all the specific equipment they use.

Even on a sailboat you need to be aware of the boom.
i m not against facebook , but no, the world was "more" connected before facebook and mobile (which i think both represent a shift in the way internet was used). People were connected in open pseudonymous platforms and engaging in continuous explorative mystery with each other, everyone, not just their friends. It's fair to say i haven't read radical ideas online in a decade, and a lot of the edgy stuff of the old internet has been censored / outlawed. Real names BS and phone numbers turned the internet to a phonebook.
Readability to me is about clarity, not aesthetics.

How easily can people understand what this code does and how?

This is at least conceptually objectively measurable, though I don't know of any actual attempts to do so.
What does that mean?

Will my daily "apt update && apt upgrade" get me this?
Just as a followup, I just realized that the Measurements.jl package does know how to deal with non-real uncertainties, so one can instead do

using Unitful, Measurements
const m = u"m"
const k = 2π/10m

f(x) = cos(k * x)/(k^2 - 1/x^2)

julia> f(10.0m ± 0.1m)
(2.5989 ± 0.0014) - (0.0 ± 0.16)im m^2
good luck competing with AWS sales org when they decide to offer your own APIs as a service

If the only advantage you have over AWS is that developers would have to change the function names in their code, you're dead anyway. And copyrightable APIs mean that you can't offer an API compatible with AWS as a way to get developers to try your platform in the first place.
I appreciate apps like this, but each time I’ve tried a simple editor like this, especially for the markdown support, I end up not using it more than a few times because organization becomes messy.
Mars colonies don't come from the private sector, Elon and Jeff notwithstanding. The problem is that public science has been starved of funding for decades through tax cuts.

If the author would take off his (it's always a he) blinkers of technocracy he might see that profitability is not the only measure of "why." Some things are not profitable, yet are still worth doing. Andrew Yang-lite doesn't account for this at all (see "blinkers" above), which is pretty much par for the course for the "Facebook is the be-all end-all" attitude.

To paraphrase JFK, we pay taxes for public benefit not because it is cheap, but because it is expensive.
Pretty much ignores the fact that once society adapts to having driver less cars they will lapse back into their standard habits and pattern on use fairly quickly.

let alone ignore the fact that many services will pop up doing the driving for many different people across all hours of the day freeing many from own the vehicle in the first place. you might even have the modern day equivalent of time sharing where you pay to have priority access to a vehicle.

the test was so bad as to be laughable, seriously, drawing such conclusions from such a small control set is only useful for proving something a select group wants to believe.
What misery is Earth enduring now, because we built Facebook instead of building next-generation mass transit to link continents and cities? Instead of optimizing food and water logistics, so less food is wasted and more of the world were fed? Instead of taxing petro and plastics companies for the externality of destroying the climate? My point being that if you or most people really gave a damn about human misery, there would be far fewer people tolerating the kind of unfettered capitalism that exists today.

I don't completely demonize Facebook's general concept. I appreciate and advocate for the idea of a federated Internet with single identity and no central authority on content. I'm not attacking that. I am challenging your idea (and the article's) that profit should be that important, or that the existence of Facebook is mutually exclusive to costly research/welfare/exploration.
The weed zealots have been denying this for awhile now.
You can also argue that Facebook was the death of local communication and socialisation and thus a step back for that goal.