skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I recall a veteran software developer commenting back in 2000 that a class written in Java was less than one third the length of the same one written in C++, so it's compactness definitely fueled it's popularity.

Since then, J2EE and EJB led to a lot of boilerplate and now everyone thinks class and member names in Java have to be at least three or four words long.
oh, interesting. seems like venv is preferred for python3. I'll try and switch over to that. thanks
DTC Metrics Explained
> if you don't ... have unit tests

Uhhh... you should have unit tests no matter what language (or culture) you're dealing with.
I hope you can read the post and be more positive. Thanks!
>The Founding Father once infamously electrocuted himself while trying to kill a turkey with electricity

Electrocution is death, or (more recently) serious injury, by electric shock. It does not mean "harmlessly shocked".

I have seen this error more and more often. It seems that the word is evolving to become more broad over time, since it's the only handy verb we have for "the application of current to a living thing". It originally meant only execution, hence the construction: electricity + execution. Then it broadened to any death, and then serious injury, and now it's being used for harmless shocks.
I can't help but feel like this person wants this type of attention.
So much over-engineering comes from the fear of changing already written code. Some programmers, I believe, have the impression that changing code any reason other than new features or requirements is wasted effort. So they try and build out all possibilities they can imagine first so they won't have to change it later.

If you eventually need that interface, you can change your existing code to use it. Making that change is relatively easy compared to maintaining a bunch of code that isn't needed. But still I find it hard for some programmers to get past that mentality.
Lots of the boilerplate they create is totally unnecessary; other boilerplate can be avoided through use of common open source libraries, like AutoValue [1] for equals/hashcode/toString. No need for custom compilers, new ASTs, or a whole new language. Don't create interfaces for classes that only have one implementation, and don't create gratuitous indirection.

[1] https://github.com/google/auto/tree/master/value
For those interested in the history of computer programming, "Uncle" Bob Martin gave an excellent talk in 2016 called "The Future of Programming", starting with Alan Turing in 1936. It's a fascinating introduction to the evolution of hardware and programming languages. I was particularly amazed at how Turing used CRT screens for memory and output.

The history discussion starts at around 11 min: https://youtu.be/ecIWPzGEbFc?t=672
Chicago cops use social media to track grieving families of gunshot victims
I'm fairly well acquainted with the literature on this topic, and I think the opposite; the fact that most people don't understand why these "nitpicks" actually seriously undermine the premise and totally butcher the prescriptive suggestions makes it easy for readers to dismiss the criticism, especially in a general-interest publication. While there's a contrary effect for the skimming reader who just accepts that P&S' work is flawed without understanding it, I think that tends to be a much lower risk with the Economist audience.
Becoming a Tech Policy Activist
The only problem is that APL was running in interactive mode by late 1966 on far smaller systems like APL/1130 which ran in about 8K.

Then soon after APL/360 was also available for the 360 line. Multiple users could sign on at once and run commands intetactively.
Have a look at http://sparkjava.com/. Very simple and pure.
A good post, but the TL:DR.

What's wrong with Bayes? Nothing.
> In what language is it any different?

C and C++, which haven’t made the decision to bundle a package manager with a programming language (which is dubious IMO because they are almost completely unrelated concerns), and for which you’re normally supposed to get dependencies from your curated, maintained, OS-provided repositories.
Using WebAssembly from .NET with Wasmtime
Maybe I'm being pedantic but did the Author just not comprehend what Apple has said?

> Apple : "The icon appears for system services that do not have a switch in Settings"

To me, Apple is saying you can't selectively disable certain services because there isn't an option. If Location Service is enable, these services will have access to them and there's nothing to be done about it. This seems lost on the Author.

> Article Author : "it seems they are saying their phones have some system services that query your location regardless of whether one has disabled this setting individually for all apps and iOS system services."

The Author seems to miss the fact that the unknown service causing the icon to appear isn't in the list of individual settings.

\* Regardless of whether Apple should be allowing an App/Service access to Location Services, when enabled, without user consent; to their credit they aren't hiding the fact that it's happening which to me is a good thing.

It's nuanced but it's the difference between "it's happening and you have no say" versus "I'm hiding the fact that it's happening from you because you have no say".
Left this comment in your live chat, this doesn't appear to have any provision for supporting fencing. This means it will not work under many common failure scenarios.

https://martin.kleppmann.com/2016/02/08/how-to-do-distribute...
For a long time, the security model of OSes has been, "only trusted code should run."

That model doesn't work. Code affects too much of our life and is used in too many scenarios for a binary "trusted" boolean to be feasible for most people.

Offices and houses have locks inside of them as well as outside. If I invite someone into my office, they don't immediately have the key to my server room. But (while I agree that software bloat is a problem) you'll still find plenty of people after these issues who argue that having too many packages is the real security issue, and really all this comes down to is vetting our repositories better, or forcing everything to be signed, or whatever.

In reality, the long-term solution is that we have to start taking native sandboxing seriously -- embracing efforts like Wayland, Flatpak, SE Linux, JS Realms, and turning on secure sandboxing systems by default. The problem isn't NPM or PyPi, it's Node/Python sandboxing. The problem isn't allowing arbitrary browser extensions, it's per-domain extension sandboxing. The problem isn't third-party scripts, it's browser fingerprinting.

It is impossible to scale a trustworthy repository to the size of NPM, or PyPi, or the Apple store, or AUR, or the Chrome web store. There is not, and is never going to be, a trustworthy repository of that scale.

In the meantime, because most platforms don't have serious sandboxing controls turned on by default, you just have to reduce your dependencies and install less software. But that band-aide fix will get less and less useful over time, because more and more of your life will depend on software from more and more diverse sources, and it will be impossible for you to vet everything. Being conservative about dependencies and code you run is an extremely temporary fix that is not going to work in the future. But people treat it like it's the obvious solution and that we don't have any need to address the fact that most consumer-grade OSes, platforms, and runtimes are simply crap at security.
Looks like markdown for bullet items is still broken. Try

* test1
* test2
Atrix and Bionic got super close but were before their time: After Android 4.0 rolled out with proper support for landscape/tablet form factors, their dock was updated to be "desktop Android" and was a great implementation. Had they come out when Android was ready to support them, they'd have done better.

Windows 10 Mobile got closer. Windows PCs and phones were offering a large library of the same apps, and you'd get a close-to-desktop UI. Of course, Windows on ARM still sucked, Win32 emulation wasn't a thing yet that it is today, PWAs weren't a thing yet, and Microsoft was afraid of failure and caved to Google. Had Microsoft stuck it out, we'd be there.

I am excited about the new phase of Linux phones coming out, like PinePhone and Librem 5. They look to legitimately offer real desktop OSes on their phones. Some stuff will be tailored to mobile, some won't be, but that will be okay, because it'll be the same platform.

What I'd really like to see is a way to keep the storage/configuration of all your apps and data and such on your phone in that mobile form factor, but when you dock it, you gain not just a monitor and a keyboard and a mouse, but additional processing power you can put behind what's stored on your phone.
It is neither the first (I see such concepts popping up here and there every few years since my childhood), nor a good idea at all. Constraints on a good driving machine and a decent flying machine are simply too different for this to be practical.
I contribute mostly to talk pages. That's a lower effort choice.
Unless you provide data or empirical evidence, it's just a vague intuition. There's more than enough evidence to the contrary (as I've provided).

At the end of the day, people act as individuals, and they have their beliefs and biases. For example, a small group of wealthy individuals can pour as much money as they want into pro-abortion propaganda, but it's unlikely that it will sway pro-lifers' opinions (especially evangelical Christians).

Money doesn't influence opinions directly, it just affords you a platform to try and change someone's mind. The only way to change one's mind is if the message is compelling, and because the US requires broad buy-in for any democratic action, the message needs to be compelling to a broad audience, not just a small group of wealthy people.
iirc it was someone from Periodic Videos or Numberphile
If you have cash to speculate, liquidate now- American market is going to take a dip in January with Boeing, which will be a good opportunity to re-invest.
I think that the MAX was about as modest as they could make it. That was really the point of the whole exercise. A more modern engine core with a smaller fan wouldn't have moved the fuel economy needle enough to justify a new model I don't think, and Boeing would have lost a lot of orders to the A320neo.

Everything would have been fine except there was so much pressure to make every change as modest as possible that it didn't quite all work. They needed to either make significant changes to the landing gear or significant changes to the flight control computer and they chose neither.
It sounds like you want to use Clojure.
> Are the cellular providers going to give free cellular access to these manufacturers or something? Consumers aren't going to pay for that. No one's going to buy a TV that requires an additional $30/month for a data plan.

I actually wouldn't be surprised in the least if this became commonplace down the road. Just open up your new telescreen and bam it seemlessly connects to the 5G/wireless network without issue. You'll get every update, ad, tracking, software automatically pushed to the machine without the need for the user to intervene.
Storing Renewable Energy in a Big Pile of Gravel?
The vehicle had an huge fuel cell installed, it's likely they had much larger fuel pumps added to account for increased consumption caused by having a higher intake pressure.

As for electronics, what sort of upgrades are you imagining? A handbuilt AMG engine already has all the trick things you'd want for engine management any way.
Common misconception: that licenses create requirements and reduce rights.

In legal reality if no license is attached to code you have almost zero rights to copy, use, or distribute it.

So if a casual browser of SO doesn’t see any license terms, they should assume that doing almost anything with the code is illegal.
YouTube Premium is great. I'm happy to pay Google directly, but I've moved away from most of their ad-supported products, including Search.
It was about 3 years old at the time. And I believe it was an LED backlight so I should have said regulator or perhaps driver instead of inverter but close enough.
I suppose that could happen in a malicious tutorial or comment/post with the snippet, like in a StackOverflow answer.
Economics waves off secondary effects at an entirely different level than Chemistry.
The Golden Age of Quantum Physics
Howie Hubler
I read Piketty's capital. It's very long.

My current best solution to the problem of capitalism is this: once a year the richest n people must divest themselves of all assets minus the median annual salary and start over.
“Modern” ?
Antiviruses have been doing all those things you listed for the past 15 years, these tactics are as old as the hill.

I can’t remember a point when antivirus software didn’t do all that and just did the one job you wanted it to do. Since my school years I’ve always had to switch all that crap off
People complain about Python being dynamically typed, adding weird modern syntax that isn't intuitive, and breaking changes from 2.x to 3.x.

People complain about Ruby being dead, or don't talk about it at all because it's not relevant anymore.
Why don’t you think it’d be enforceable?
Plus they got to change the name that appears in investment portfolios, and take the opportunity to appear at the top, since they are almost always alphabetically ordered, and at the very least they would be appear above Amazon since l comes before m, and also above Apple.
How to avoid the fundraising banners on Wikipedia:

Dismissing them by clicking the X works only momentarily. Here is how to keep them gone.

You have to have an account and be logged in. Go to Special:Preferences, click on the "Gadgets" tab, then tick the box next to the statement "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner."
Some location info is likely recorded -- logged or cached, if nothing else -- even when no app/service on device is using it. You as a user might want to be able prevent it from being generated at all. For example, if you were concerned about a government agent, such as US Customs, hoovering up those logs/caches.
So tired of stupid articles like this hating on java. Java is an extremely flexible language with an insane amount of libraries, frameworks, and design patterns. Furthermore, using groovy is amazing, and can reduce your lines of code quite a bit. The author of this article just sucks at implementing java.
SoundCloud implementing 15 track upload limit for free users
Consumers won't have to pay, just like consumers today don't pay for various web based services such as email, search, social media and others. It is subsidized by the revenue the TV companies make from selling your data.

Today that revenue subsidizes the cost of the TV itself, the additional cost of 4G/5G based service for small bits of data is not much. Other options can be LoRaWAN, NB-IoT or other such services since the data transferred is going to be small, primarily analytics. All of these are pretty cheap both to embed in the TV as well as the service, especially at scale.
It should also be much cheaper than Intel/AMD.
The best way to avoid confusion is for everybody to stop using powers of 2 instead of powers of 10 for K, M, etc. The meanings of Kilo, Mega, etc. were well defined before computers were invented. It was a mistake to steal those terms and use them for something different.
"Unfair capital advantage"

Well, again, start accumulating capital, if it is such an unfair advantage.

"I, too, am in favor of a 100% wealth tax upon death. No more freeloading failsons."

I am absolute against such a thing, in fact I consider it an insane proposal.

It seems one of the fundamental human rights should be people being allowed to provide for their children.

People work to have successful children. It is absolutely incorrect that all children should have the same starting positions for a fair world. If a couple works hard to earn money, and others don't work and instead pop out 10 children, why on earth would it be fair to take money from the hard working parents to distribute it to all? I know many people who would like to have more children, but feel they can't afford them. Why should they be punished for being responsible.

It even starts before people have children. They work hard to be attractive and find a good mate, to improve the odds for their children. That is basic human nature.

The acts of their parents are not the children's fault, of course, and everybody should be given a fair chance to make it in life. But there are limits. Both strategies can be valid (have few children and try to give them a good head start in live vs having as many children as possible and leaving them to their own devices), but it would be unfair to politically punish one strategy over the other. At the very least, if you take away money from the responsible parents, you should have to limit the behavior of the irresponsible parents.

The only way to make things completely equal for everyone is to disallow people to have children, and instead rise future children in clone factories. Why should that be considered desirable?

And even more basic than that: people should be allowed to do with their money as they please. Including giving it to their children.
I write lots of Java and Go. I much prefer writing Java where I have things like "sets" and lambdas. I also find the type system to be a lot better in Java. In Go I'm often left wondering what I'm looking at and don't know unless I dive down into the source.
IIRC you can do it in one step by telling Siri to do it. Not ideal, obviously. You might be able to create a shortcut to tell Siri to do it, which would then make it a one click option, not in control center but on your home screen.
The cost of refactoring is dependent on the scale/stage of the project
"Good code is 90% boilerplate"

Have you considered that you might be doing it wrong?
What exactly is dishonest about the article? The author's criticism is that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't building up its endowment fast enough, and that it instead uses the donations on frivolous spending.
Exception handling and closing resources keep to be a major pain in the ass. Worst, the lambdas do not fit well with checked exceptions and the standard library is full of them. Another major pain are closing methods which throw checked exceptions themselves. This makes wrapping this into a decent lambda painful.

I'd have preferred much lambdas just exposing checked exceptions they experience inside. I can't imagine why the compiler shouldn't be able to do this. Maybe one would have to come up with a fancy definition of functional interfaces (although I think this could be tackled with an annotation if the language doesn't provide this for lack of another keyword a la "throwsall").
CrackQ, a New Password Cracking Manager
In the way OP suggests, it is; it's kind of like Zonealarm (I have no clue if that still exists; I haven't used Windows for a long time); so it will block a process before sending it and asking the user for permission to send something to X.com. It will do that with every change of X.com. You can allow your process everything of course, but it was convenient enough to block most everything evil while letting through only what I wanted without giving my dev (or any other processes) permission to send to ..
Lots of people can be "trained" to be functional developers. That doesn't make them good software engineers.

A CS degree is supposed to educate you in how to think, not train you to write software. Being able to properly decompose a problem and use the right data structures and algorithms to solve it is more than just training. You need education in the fundamentals to do that effectively.

I don't believe that it is impossible for someone without a CS degree to be a developer -- far from it -- but in my experience most of the really good ones have CS or CE or EE degrees. YMMV of course.
And for that you need TLS tickets/cookies, don't you? (So you can resume your crypto state.) Isn't that a good way to track users?

Instead of a query coming from an IP (probably NATed with IPv4), you can identify individual browsers AFAICT.
If I'm playing ball against someone who is way better, it's not about win or lose, I might not even get a shot at the basket. I can lose, but if I don't even get to really play, that's not fun.
I sort of agree, but I think that user interfaces need an underlying conceptual model that is familiar to users separately from the actual UI. Otherwise any purely presentational change implies arbitrary new rules that no one can remember.

One conceptual model that has worked to some degree on mobile platforms is the idea that programs not users have permissions.

But mobile platforms are overdoing it in a way that makes data centric work impractical.

I'm not quite sure how to overcome these issues, but I feel that making the distinction between permissions assigned to users vs permissions assigned to programs more explicit and more visible could take us a step further.
I've even gotten compliments for giving a prose-only answer instead of code.
The energy credit system accomplishes some things that your proposals don't.

It's not realistic to make burning coal and other non-renewables illegal in Europe, less than 20% of the grid has been transitioned[1]. You can't just shut off 80% of the grid without European civilization as we know it coming to an end for the foreseeable future.

In the meantime there's plenty of uses of energy that can be built in one EU/EEA country or the other, or shifted between countries, and which will respond to price incentives.

E.g. a data center that's not ping-time sensitive or bulk bandwidth sensitive is probably better placed in Iceland than The Netherlands from an ecological perspective.

The impact of the energy credit system is to shift that sort of use between countries and energy providers, to the extent that their use will respond to price incentives.

It is relatively ineffective in the larger scheme of things, just like our buildup of renewable energy is proceeding at a relatively slow pace. But that's not an argument against the systems in place per-se, just like some country setting their VAT at 1% isn't an argument against VAT structurally.

The EU/EEA agreement doesn't have explicit tax-raising powers, so it's really not the case that a simple law could do the same thing. This system is effectively a way to create a new EEA-wide tax through a back-door mechanism.

Any national tax policy wouldn't be as effective, because individual countries in the EEA market can't or aren't going to enact law that mandates that some of their companies move abroad because their own energy market isn't renewable enough.

It also gives individual consumers a way to vote with their money to increase the buildup of renewables.

As an example, I live in Amsterdam where (as far as I know) I have no choice but to consume electrons sourced by burning fossil fuels[2].

However, I have opted to pay extra to buy "green" (wind and solar) energy, but the energy that comes out of my power plugs as I type this comment is still sourced from burning coal/gas.

Am I just participating in a gigantic sham? No, because what I'm doing is buying the production of energy capacity corresponding to my own use for use elsewhere on the power grid. So I'm taking part in reducing the overall demand for fossil fuels, and thus doing my own small part in reducing pollution.

By the way, from a cursory glance the current Swedish carbon tax is at best around 1/4 per-ton of the cost of sequestering that CO^2 back into the ground.

If that's the case of course it's not really all that effective, but just like in the case of the energy credit system the problem there isn't with the very concept of the system of a carbon tax (which is probably the single best way to deal with the overall problem), but with the value that tax is set at.

1. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

2. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_Hemweg