skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The only assertion I need to make (and have made repeatedly), is that `noun.verb` and `verb(noun)` are subject to the same constraints. In terms of mutability, we can say that both functions could mutate `noun` or both functions could not mutate `noun`. It is a straw-man to build an argument against a premise which arbitrarily asserts that `noun.verb` _behaves_ differently than `verb(noun)`. The behavior of the function(s) is not relevant to point you were trying to make or my point of clarification (of course two functions that behave differently are different!). Again:

>The function would not be tied to state and that function can be executed in the context of anything

The above is the claim which prompted this lengthy discussion. It has nothing to do with the definition of OOP or mutability. To rephrase your argument in my own words:

Separating data and behavior (state and functions resp.), in the form of `verb(noun)`, is superior to combining data and behavior, in the form of `noun.verb`, because it means `verb` is subject to fewer constraints and, as a result, is more portable.

The above is not accurate. There _are_ problems introduced by encapsulation. But one of them is not that functions are tied to state. This remains true for any function no matter how it is written (the semantics).

I'm not sure why you continue to insist on moving the goalposts here, especially to an argument for which you are so obviously wrong. The definition of OOP makes no claims about mutability. Furthermore, many of the most popular OOP languages provide built-in support for defining objects as immutable (while at the same time implementing immutable objects in their own standard libraries. e.g. `string` in many languages). Even a cursory google search on the subject unambiguously yields this information. I'm not going to waste my time debating this when you are fully capable of researching and revising your position. Especially because this has nothing to do with the claims that provoked this discussion in the first place.

My original comment was rather innocuous. It was intended as a point of clarification towards a claim you made as part of your broader opinions on the deficits that OOP impose on a system as it relates to functions, state, and modularity. You essentially say the same thing later in your post in your comparison between the OOP model and microservices:

>The difference here is rather then unionizing action and state with Code it unionizes state and action with real cold hard metal. The actual machine that holds state and "does stuff" is the object. So all the problems of realizing how to divide or unionize services and state in microservices are exact same problems that existed when trying to figure out what methods belong with what object in OOP...

Just replace "microservices" with "FP" in that last sentence and you will have basically synthesized my argument:

"all the problems of realizing how to divide or unionize services and state in FP are exact same problems that existed when trying to figure out what methods belong with what object in OOP"

For what it's worth, I agree with your ultimate conclusions.
Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/e2itn7/saas_found...
Break-point debuggers take too long in most environments (with a few exceptions). I use linters, compilers and type checkers as my first line of defense. Next, logging and unit tests. Lastly, I like to have in interactive command line REPL with good tab completion if one is available and not to difficult to setup.

In python, for example I use: pycodestyle, pyflakes, mypy and logging, and bpython.

For web apps, reload time is the most important factor. Work on reducing the time to compile, reload and test.
It is not that Michael Shellenberger is wrong, he is mostly right and I also like to point out to people that we are not facing extinction.

However I have a major issue about how he goes about presenting this message. He is unnecessarily provocative and dismissive in a way where he ends up being a useful tool for climate deniers.

While his nuclear power advocacy is absolutely a relevant alternative to discuss, he spends so much energy attacking renewable energy solutions such as wind and solar that all he really ends up doing is providing ammunition for climate deniers.

Far too many of the nuclear fans don't actually believe in climate change. They push nuclear as a way to dismiss efforts to introduce wind and solar power.

Michael Shellenberger simply cannot read his audience.

And civilization collapse is absolutely possible. The way he reasons about numbers is wrong. It is the equivalent of arguing that the 1929 crash was irrelevant because hey were were richer afterwards than in 1900 and we managed just find back then.

He thinks just in terms of absolute numbers, when relative change is usually MORE important. If you suddenly get a 50% cut in your income from one year to another that will have huge impact on your family. It makes no sense to argue that 10 years ago you made 50% less and managed just fine.

Back then you had adapted your lifestyle to those costs. Now you are paying for a bigger house, car, college for your kids etc. A sudden 50% drop in income is a big hit to adjust to.

Germans in the 1930s were much better off than poor people in Africa. Yet the decline in income they experience radicalized the population and led to the rise of Hitler. France on the eve of the French revolution was richer than in classical times. But crop harvest failures due to climate change radicalized the country and led to the French revolution.

This is the danger of climate change. Sudden changes in living conditions in various countries can tip the scales and spark revolutions.
Come on, Christian. Daniel van Vugt at Canonical did a huge number of performance fixes on mutter and gnome-shell this release. Some of those I had to personally vouch for because your colleagues wouldn't land them otherwise.
Yeah but the AI could pretend it knows.
That actually might be the largest part of the solution.
All these compounding projections assume business-as-usual. What will be the effect of global thermonuclear war on projections? How about megadeaths from famine? Or global transition to fascism in response to mass migration? What about all the frozen methane at the poles thawing, and the permafrost decaying, causing a runaway vicious cycle?

All of these things make the sedate trend predictions nonsense, so all are routinely discounted as part of the projection. But in sum the risks of these events make the probability of the projection's accuracy nil.
The problem is that the definition used to match the capabilities. The capabilities changed. Should the definition? If I say I haven't retouched or post-processed a picture of myself, you used to be able to assume it hasn't been airbrushed or edited to make me look fitter. In fact, that used to be how you'd say it. Linguistically, it's extra weird when you're announcing a new auto-retouching and auto-post-processing feature.
I didn't say anything about legality.
Disable JavaScript. Everything becomes fast (or doesn’t work at all).
In 2018 alone 70.8 million people were forcibly displaced by war, persecution and conflict. The most recent number I recall seeing regarding climate change displaced estimated 143 million by 2050 which is about 4.6 million a year. While certainly not ideal, it doesn't strike me as a particularly significant increase in overall displacement. So the question is: why would climate displacement have such an outsized impact on civil unrest and global societal breakdown?
I saw this coming even before Alpha Go won 4/5 games vs Lee Sedol. Imagine if you worked all your life to be the best software developer in the world and won all official competitive tournaments with spectators in the field. Then along comes some newfangled ML that not only writes programs faster than you, but the programs are qualitatively orders of magnitude better organized and using algorithms you could only begin to imagine. If your interest is in what's the best, you may as well stop and switch to ML research.

The comparison to sports isn't 1:1 as sports is about physical biological limits vs games which are more about the thought processes. Also human+AlphaZero < AlphaZero so why would I spectate a human+machine vs human+machine match?

Much later when it's commonplace for machines to be better than people at many things, things will change back, like we're amazed to watch people recite digits or make numerical computations.
I'm not at all upset (and you're projecting again) -- I'm being sarcastic, and it whooshed right over your head. Look up: All 28 domains. Why didn't you point out what a failure it was in your argument (which has already been severely downvoted), unless you were being disingenuous when you evangelized Namecoin as a properly decentralised more secure solution, and not a failed improper insecure vulnerable dead dysfunctional boondoggle, as my quotes and citations proved?
With regards to

> Measuring per capita carbon

being better...

It is not clear to me why this makes sense.

If person A drive 2 miles per day in an SUV, and another person B drives 100 miles per day in a sedan -- person B pollutes more.

Why would driver A considered to pollute more ?
3.34 wasn't a one-person show Jasper. This article reads like it was a one company thing.
I think in all these cases, reasonable practitioners would be pleased. If an AI could generate good diagnoses, a doctor would be happy, because they would know that many lives would be saved.

Neither art nor music are competitive activities. Good poetry is a wonderful thing, no matter the source.
Yep, big problem with the repo model that Linux insists on using for everything. Offline is a 5th class citizen because of course everyone lives in SV or a university dorm.
Intel’s Behavior Is Pathetic – Core i9 10980XE Review [video]
See also:

+ ocean acidification

+ fisheries collapse
Literally speaking, I don't know what is not true about my statement above.

But your point is well taken; it is also applicable to this article as well: maybe Go is not the game people can beat machines, but StarCraft 6 could be. Or maybe I can fold my laundry more efficiently than any machine available.
They make adapters to allow rotary on such systems:

https://www.dialgizmo.com/
For the people that use it to navigate their lives, a map is most useful when it shows realities on the ground and calls places by the names most useful for the people going there.

If you're talking about legitimacy, of course you could be interested in different maps. But why should Apple care much about that? Why not tell those users to "shove it"? Why should these users get to foist their impractical map on everybody else?

The wall between Israel and Palestinian territories is disputed and internationally condemned. Still the most useful map is the one showing who controls what parts. The demands of restoration use very different maps that would be impractical to navigate day-to-day. Imagine going to the West Bank with a map showing the never-implemented borders of 1947.
The problem is interpreting what "it" means when someone says "it sucks." All software and the internet, like GP uses it? I don't think that's a fruitful line of thinking.
Yes, I also noted this. The question is what does it show for people in Ukraine?
One can argue which country's part the Crimea is - in other words, the reality is the same, but can be described differently. In matters like this what opinion is considered correct matters a great deal - so great it can start or stop a war. So no wonder it's important.
Put:

*.facebook.com

in the address field, and:

*

in the port field.

The way I wrote them above is how they are displayed after successfully submitting the form.
Another big one: naming of oceans in southeast Asia. There's the South China Sea / West Philipppine Sea, for example, or the Sea of Japan / Sea of Korea / East Sea.
It is indeed disconcerting when even a place a reasonable as HN will downvote without (as of yet) a single substantive argument.

I'm fairly ignorant on the matter and by default am very skeptical of this, but damn would it be nice to have a real answer instead of some interesting very light text at the bottom of the screen.
Sarcasm should be labeled.
Unity2D was super fast. So sad that they didn't continue to develop it, and instead went for GNOME. If Ubuntu GNOME is now quick, good – it took a long while to get there. It's important for Linux and FOSS to have well known and widely used software. Without Ubuntu, we would probably have no Steam Linux client.
> For sake of argument, is there any evidence that people voted differently before catastrophist framing?

Perhaps one could find some "evidence" that hints at it, but the unfortunate reality is that some things are beyond our ability to know. However, it does not logically follow that we should then assume one way or the other and categorize that conclusion as true or false. An objective approach would be to classify the idea something along the lines of: "Status": "Uncertain - needs further investigation", "Importance":"Potentially High". Of course, this isn't how we evolved to be, but it's worth pointing out.

> It seems to me that Republicans have always voted against addressing climate change.

This may be true (or "true enough", to be pedantic), but is it useful? It's likely useful sometimes, but at other times might thinking and speaking in such terms be harmful (counter-productive to our goals)?

These seem like worthwhile questions to me, and the point the author is trying to make if I'm not mistaken.

> I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with you that the discourse of many activists isn't great, but I think that's because they have lost confidence that the other side will argue in good faith or even can be reached.

If you speak to the other side and you are not reaching them, it may be worthwhile to examine the manner in which you are speaking to them and consider new strategies. The fields of psychology, psychiatry, communication (conflict resolution), etc have a fair amount of expertise in this area, yet I don't recall any of them being consulted on this matter.[0]

[0] EDIT: Based on voting, I infer that my theory above is not considered popular by readers. Perhaps this style of thinking is common across those who have influence over what disciplines shall be included in the public persuasion initiative that has been underway for several years now, which would explain why the initiative is limited to only a subset of the plausibly relevant intellectual disciplines, which may in turn be a root cause of why the initiative seems to be falling well short of the desired success rate, that logic indicates should be an expected outcome.

Oh well, what can ya do! I'm probably taking this whole climate change thing way more seriously than the circumstances call for.
Counter-example: Machines can make perfect music, play an entire orchestra, and know every song I've ever heard of and millions I don't.

But that doesn't detract from people playing Ukelele.
Someone was tried for downloading a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook last year in the UK, IIRC.

Sorry, it was 2017.

Amazon didn't get shut down for selling it though, strange that. It's almost like totalitarians like to keep laws on the book they can whip out when they want to use them.

Reportedly you can be charged for "possessing information that could be used by a terrorist", a cached copy of a Lockpicking Lawyer vid from YouTube, maybe. Lock me away!
Go was considered anti-machine for a very long time due to its extremely high branching making the search approaches which are successful at many other games (such as chess) ineffective.

One might imagine a sociopolitical task as sort of the ultimate machine incompatible goal. A look at how well spambots do at getting dating matches, or at how often clowns get elected to be leaders of nations makes me doubt even those sorts of tasks can't be won out by a well constructed domain specific optimizer.
>>Question to that guy: What act specifically would establish that trust?

I'm "that guy", and yeah I feel ya about "most press statements". Anyway, here's what we think would be a good start in establishing trust ... do you agree?
1. Consumer visits a website or app they like.
2. Website/app offers standardized privacy preferences/controls that are easy to understand, and apply globally.
3. Consumer indicates their preferences, realistically based on their inherent trust in the website/app ... could be anything from ghost mode ("no tracking at all") to limited ad targeting ("ok, you can retarget me for 3 days only, that's it") to measurement only ("count me as a distinct user, but no ad tracking, profiling, etc.")
4. those preferences are propagated to any/all downstream parties working on behalf of the website/app or the advertiser, all of whom have to submit system-level log file samples daily (a blood sample, if you will) to a central processing system NOT governed wholly by ad industry
5. ongoing data analysis, with data exhaust, provides for open accountability
6. oh, and consumer empirically sees that their preferences are being respected

We'd also love to see a significant reduction in the amount of JS and third-party requests. But these are all hard problems to solve while also maintaining an open web/ecosystem.
That wasn't planned as a battle force and it certainly wasn't the "full force of the US military". And what was so shitty about their AKs?
I encrypt as much sensitive information in the database e.g. recipient email addresses, descriptions etc.

Someone suggested the idea of creating hashed aliases, that are generated and hashed on the client side so that even I do not know what they are, then incoming emails are compared against this hash to determine where to forward emails.

The only thing is there would probably need to be an additional column on the hashed alias that is client side encrypted so that the user can still view the actual alias in their dashboard.
There is an article [1] by an Ubuntu engineer that describes the performance boost.

For Ubuntu 20.04, there will be extra work for performance boost on high-end computers.

For Ubuntu 20.10 there will be extra work for performance boost for low-end computers.

1: https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/boosting-the-real-time-perfor...
You are free to leave at anytime
...except when the authoritarian regime successfully paints dissenters as enemies of the state.
> So you can build opening book databases to exploit their patterns.

And then program the computer to use that opening book directly. Now what is your cyborg player going to do? After you patch all these easy rules, you will have to discover harder rules, and the computer can discover them faster than you can.
you can acknowledge that it sucks, refuse to accept it and try to make it better
Yes, the "real" check would be made against the vendor's server.

I was a little unclear about what I meant by "replay/rollback attacks", though. My concern was that someone editing the Wikipedia page could vandalise it to remove the reference to a newly released app version, meaning the app never checked the vendor's server. They would be rolling back the article to a previous edit, or "replaying" a previous edit that was no longer truthful.

Moreover, an attacker could add a spurious reference to a version that hasn't been released, in order to trigger an app to make unnecessary requests against the vendor's server.

Fortunately, both of these types of vandalism would be ignored by a system which checked the revision history and knew the user name associated with the vendor.
>Most improvements in 19.10 can be attributed to the latest release of GNOME 3.34, the default desktop for Ubuntu. However, GNOME 3.34 is faster largely because of work Canonical engineers put in

At least everyone can stop hating on Gnome now. Secondly, Fedora 31 has had Gnome 3.34 for more than a month now. This article does seem like a disservice.
the UK one has no teeth.
Stockfish on efficient hardware should handily beat humans even if capped to comparable runtime energy usage. I don't know if the same is true for alphago.
As a person who likes music, making it, listening to it, breaking it down and hacking it...

Making a classical arrangement that evokes a particular expression in the listener is the job of the musician. If an AI system helps you explore the possibilities there, it's more like a studio musician that's able to improvise. You're still the person, the human, the emotional filter, that picks "This sounds right" or "This doesn't" for a particular situation. It's a judgement call. An emotional one.

An AI might be able to fake it, communicate with it, but it will never replace humans choosing the sounds that please them more than others. Humans communicate through music. It wouldn't surprise me that an AI would be able to as well. I don't think it would necessarily write emotionally strong music, not without human training.

Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is, sure, computers might be able to make music. Ask any guy who messes with modular synthesizers. But they're a tool. The fact an AI can express itself through music is sure as hell not gonna stop me from also expressing myself. It's like arguing "Since AIs will be able to comment on Hacker News, humans won't."
Ultimate Thanksgiving song - in case you've never heard it.
I did that for a couple of years and it didn't work for me. I ended up quitting after a couple of years out of frustration. In part because big decisions were taken unilaterally without consulting other departments outside of management and sales so I couldn't really protect my team.
I read the examples of dangling modifiers you give as assuming "Speaking" at the start of the sentence. So, e.g. "Speaking as a new (1 year) coder ... this sounds very similar...".
Well if we're going to get nitpicky I think you meant "consonant" instead of "constant" ;)
Uncle P Challenging the Unknown by Jr) Uncle P. (Alfredo E. Phipps
Sure, there was a ton of great collaboration, but "mis-attributed" is wrong. Canonical's desktop team definitely lead the charge of compositor performance. Be nice; there's no reason to keep the Canonical/GNOME rift open anymore. They did absolutely fantastic work this release.
I think a lot of that perceived tin-foil-hat-bear thing comes from the way you look at Tesla. If you look at it the way I, and I suppose the OP does, as a car manufacturer, in deed a lot of things seem odd. Odd enough to be bearish. If you look at Tesla as a tech company, things are largely different.
I tried one of these and I just found it was constantly drawing out 100mA+ of current. They're really not made with portable efficiency inside.

In the end, I just found that portable wifi solutions to be more power efficient.
What do you mean by “re-gained” independence? They were part of Russia for centuries prior to that. That was them gaining independence for the first time since like the 1500s or so?
You could generate a certificate for each user, but without the duplicate-cn option a user is only allowed 1 connection to the same server. You can also use username/password authentication instead of certificates, also in this case you'll need to set the duplicate-cn option to allow multiple connections from the same user to the same server, because in this case you use the option username-as-common-name and the CN (common name) will then be the username.
Both the KDE and GNOME stories have actually changed quite a bit the past few years.
Canonical engineer on performance improvements on GNOME for Ubuntu 19.10: https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/boosting-the-real-time-perfor...
It's unfortunate that there's so much research into AI and not artificial empathy. Even writing that is weird because even AI is intelligence, but what is AE other than fake? I suppose someone has shown that even our empathy is no more authentic.