skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have it in for the "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" (is there even evidence that Gell-Mann believed in it?), but your point is well taken: Wikipedia's rules do heavily privilege journalism, and journalism is merely the first draft of history, not the camera-ready final.

It's possible that Wikipedia has carefully balanced this; if they didn't privilege reporting, a lot fewer articles would get written, about a lot of things people actually do want to look up in the encyclopedia. Reliance on journalism means they'll routinely get some bad facts, but there's a bound on how bad things will be that there wouldn't be if they just got rid of WP:RS altogether.

It's much more likely that nobody has carefully thought about this, and it's just a shambolic volunteer project taking advantage of what they have to work with.

My basic take about Wikipedia is that it's hard to argue with the results. However obnoxious their policies are to nerds like us (and I commented upthread about obnoxious experiences I've had working on it --- I no longer contribute!), it's a tremendously successful project, perhaps one of the most successful in the history of the Internet.

It's bad when they have bad facts, more so when those facts pertain to living people, even more so when someone has the correct facts and can't get them accepted, and especially so when that person is a family member of the subject.

It's less bad, to me at least, that an encyclopedia happens to lack a page, for now, on Apache Arrow.
We can rent CPU/RAM in the cloud by the minute, but we can’t do that with the computer we’re developing on locally. I think this should naturally leads to faster builds being done in CI, more cost effectively, rather than CI being the slower builds.

Out of interest, have you modelled spot instance restarts into your costs? How about spot instance pricing going up?
That is the same link. It produces a HTML page containing a abstract of the paper (not the paper itself) and a link that purports to be to the full paper, but actually 302 redirects back your (abstract) link.
Red Hat (and by extension Centos) is pretty much the only thing I see in larger installations like CERN and other big industry. It's mostly connected to the fact that the distribution has a very long paid support for security patches and other bug fixes without demanding whole distribution upgrades.

You don't want your proprietary medical/science software to break on your whole cluster just because you had to upgrade whole Debian to fix a security patch.

Red Hat is prepared to maintain their distribution for far longer than pretty much anyone else outside Microsoft.
Don’t worry. The post has been flagged so you don’t need to think about it anymore.
In my experience it's risk aversion. They're more worried about losing out from doing the wrong thing or breaking what they have, than a slow death from decaying market relevance. It's much easier to stay the course than to stick your neck out asking to change things.
When they say that a program is "intimidating," most people are talking about the user interface and the learning curve, not the license.
On the contrary, yours is extremely conservative/reactionary, and even moreso outside the mainstream.
Meaningfully better than other distributions?
My professor always called it "3 O long term support" - looong term support
Tell all of the engineers using calculus that they don't need infinity.

And you can't easily only partially include infinity.
Mostly they did not and cooked at home instead. At least most people most of the time.
"Software as a Service" implies a business. I don't think this was an attempt to build a business. If it was in some skewed sense an attempt at that, then the entire post save for the "Ignoring customer development" section should be deleted.
Well, unless you implement the Cash for Clunkers program that just smashes up a bunch of cars for a quick buck, then they don't get used. So many good and valuable cars, and especially car parts, that were all lost. People think "But it was a $500 car! They can't be good!" Except ive fixed and driven many $500 cars for the same amount in parts and put another 100K+ miles on them. $1000 for 28 MPG and 100K miles is a pretty damn good deal if you are poor as shit.

But now those cars mostly don't exist because we smashed them all up and weren't allowed to part them out either. Instead of spending $20 for $150 worth of parts, now I gotta buy all new Chinese manufacturer replacements for 10X as much.
I generally prefer using something like scipy.minimize to maximize the expected sharpe ratio with returns de-magnified, which causes the optimization to be closer to a minimum variance portfolio.
> 2. make it clear what the community is about [positioning/marketing]

Could you give some examples on communities with successful positioning/marketing?
You guys really need to do your research and understand how these programs work.

I have a friend who is currently going through the estate recovery process for his dying father. They are —the government— effectively forcing him to sell his childhood home in order to pay for the healthcare he and his late mother received.

This isn’t theoretical, this is very real.

Also note that people are shoved into Medicaid until 65+.
That's not entirely true, though. Their mean growth rate is much higher than ours.
I dunnoh... Turo seems to be doing well.
While I was in undergrad (early 2010s at a major public university) the engineering machines dual-booted Windows and RHEL. We also had servers running RHEL, accessible via VNC and SSH. I liked the setup, it was very reliable and I found it quite productive.

IIRC, a place I interned during that time also had some RHEL machines.

These days, I have no idea what those places are running.
For anyone interested in the death machine mentioned, here is a link to an image and description: https://exitinternational.net/about-exit/installations/
Our university used RedHat (2018), I think they used it mainly for the enterprise support...
Btw for the cowardly downvoters, are you really happy that Apple is reserving privileges on your computer for themselves? SIP isn't about giving you control, since you have no control over SIP, SIP is about Apple locking down what you can do with your own computer. You can have security without doing that (see: linux, bsd, etc.). There's no legitimate technical reason for the way SIP is implemented, it's a business decision by Apple. You should be irritated with Apple for this non-functional garbage.
To this end: I’ve astonished a number of peers who did the straight to a 4-year track with a anecdote about only 22% of my community college “Critical Thinking” class passing the first midterm, which covered very simple truth functions and negation. To this day it sticks with me.
NPR was asking a former FBI person exactly that allusion and their response was pretty much, “because few mistakes are made”. Yeah, I’m sure...
Something sounds weird about a terminal app (running as me) running a shell (running as me) not being able to access a directory owned by me.
Pick twelve people uniformly at random from the US population and require them to be read in to all relevant clearances. This is a solved problem and has been since at least the 1700s.
Isn't Borg usually scaled to few rows of racks? i.e. not even spanning whole building, yet alone datacenter.
> I guess it would be possible to give in-house teams free reign to try out new ideas without all the organizational friction

The traditional name for this is a skunkworks project:

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

They tried something like it somewhere I worked but messed it up. Everyone needed to pitch ideas then the 'approved' projects were the pet ideas of various suits, put under the same restrictions as regular projects, and choked to death.
It is not an assumption or false statement that I had bitcoins in Mt.Gox and now want nothing to do with Mark Karpeles or anything under him :)
There is a set of policies that Wikipedia is supposed to follow when it comes to deciding if a page should be in or not. Nothing in this set of policies disqualifies a page if it benefits a company. Or even if it was written by employees of that company.

Thus, Wikipedia is violating its own policies. It follows that decisions on whether a page should be created becomes arbitrary which opens up the door for corruption. Some company pays Wikipedians and get their page(s) created, others don't and don't get any page(s).
Samsung is responsible for a large portion of GDP in Korea. Arguably, Samsung has contributed a lot to Korea's "Miracle on the Han River".

With Korea's current progressive "Moon's" government, Korea is going through a lot of changes (higher minimum wage, a lot of focus on gender equality, stronger labor union, shorter work hours, stronger punishment for corruptions within companies, etc), and traditional "chaebol" companies are having trouble adapting to some of these changes. There are also a lot of eyeballs on past and current shady behaviors by "chaebol" companies.
As one of the biggest "chaebol" companies, Samsung is also being affected by the changes, and this article shows one of them.

One question I have is how beneficial these changes would be for GDP of Korea. On paper, these changes sound nice as they would benefit employees and make things "fair". But changing things dramatically can have side effects (ex. higher minimum wage led to many small shops closing). More regulations might limit Samsung's ability to compete internationally, which is bad as Samsung (and Korea in general) rely heavily on export-based economy.
I’m assuming this is being posted due to this recent popular video, which I think is a very well made demonstration of how the valve works:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcV1EYSUQME
Is there any ELI5-type explanation for us non-mathers? Whenever I see stuff like this, I start trying to actually understand it, then fail miserably just trying to google terms I'm not familiar with. Is advanced knowledge of these math principles required to understand the significance of this page, or why it is interesting?
> "Giving up" is an ambiguous term here and I should have tried to be more specific. But I wasn't just referring to ownership. If I'm working on a project, and joining Google means I need to stop working on it for 3-4 years, then I've effectively given up that project, in the sense that it's no longer going to be maintained or stay relevant.

And what I'm saying is that for an open source project, in general that doesn't happen. And if you're not sure, you negotiate that up front. I did that when I started work for IBM, for example. And it was more than just copyright issues; it included stuff like, "look, I'm one of the chairs of the ipsec working group, and I'd like you to pay for me to travel to IETF meetings so I can finish out my commitment to IETF, even though that doesn't have that much to do with the IBM Linux Technology Center". Everything is negotiable; they might say no, but you'll never know until you ask.

More generally, I'm having trouble thinking of situations where you (a) can't take a side project and release it as open source, and (b) you're wanting to keep it proprietary except for "wanting to earn $$$ on a side project" while also drawing from a big company.

> Sure, unless your company is Oracle and they decide X years later to say, "actually we own the code and we didn't authorize it to be Open Sourced, and that means the entire project is infringing."

Nope, it doesn't work that way. Once code is released under an open source license, that can't do a "I take it back!" thing. So long as there is an explicit open source releasing policy, and you followed it, then you are an authorized agent of the company when you released changes (including git commits) whose copyright is owned by the company. I can use fancy legal terms like "latches" and "equitable defenses", but the principle is quite simple: "No backsies."

Oracle can say that no new code will be released for Open Solaris, but they can't change their mind on the Open Solaris code already released under an open source license. Again, programmers really should understand basic IP law. It's not that complicated....

> It's also ignores the fact that a nontrivial portion of Silicon Valley was built on top of people who didn't accept those terms.

Um, if it's in an employment contract, and you signed it without reading it --- sorry, but I have very little sympathy for you. If you signed it, you agreed to it.
Consider this low-fi analogy:

Voting on posts and comments is like passing laws in a direct democracy.

Moderation is like a semi-permanent judiciary that can override laws passed by the electorate.

Moderation exists to override the short-term will of the electorate when it conflicts with the long-term central values of the community.
I recall once I read the short book "The Philosophy of Set Theory" [1] since I like philosophy and have an interest in Math. It contains much of the history that lead up to the decision to base significant portions of the soundness of mathematics on top of set theory (and by proxy: Cantor's work on infinities). My recollection is fuzzy since it was years ago but I recall it starts at Zeno's paradox and follows along to calculus and beyond.

The book suggests there was a lot of displeasure and argumentation within the philosophy and math communities because it was felt that there was no real basis for infinitesimals. Some mathematicians (I believe Hilbert and Frege among them?) became determined to shut-up the pesky philosophers by proving the soundness of math based on some logical axiomatic fundamentals. Of course, this was later proven to be impossible by Gödel but at the time they considered it a win that philosophers and mathematicians could at least agree on logic (and more broadly "logical empiricism" which is a basis of "analytical philosophy").

I recall being completely dissatisfied at the arguments presented in favour of ZFC (not mathematically, but philosophically). I remember there was a single paragraph somewhere in the final third of the book that I head to re-read several times before I finally gave up in frustration. My impression of this history is that the mathematicians "won" in some sense by railroading their ideas. Calculus works, right? It is extremely effective and leads to correct results ... so ignore the seeming paradox of summing an infinite quantity of infinitesimally small values and move on already! Further, ignore the actual paradoxes inherent in infinite sets. And this was all done not because there was some problem to be solved but rather to shut-down debate that seemed to undermine the philosophical position of logical empiricism.

Another interesting (if historically questionable) exploration of this topic is the graphic novel Logicomix [2]. This work follows Bertrand Russel and Wittgenstein through this period in our history.

1. https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Set-Theory-Introduction-Ma...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logicomix
What service is that, in which city?
New Year brings new presents but does it bring New Jobs?
Some Recruiters that have reached out to me are now seemingly aloof T.T
(This according to recruiters is a Slow season)
But there's the media and people on Blind (app) that make it seem like there is a lot of movement this "high recruitment season".
Recruitment starts in January, perhaps?!
Like I said, nothing happens in a vacuum. People in the anti-abortion camp routinely call people evil, demon possessed, and immoral. They have killed people. There are bills passing now that force women to undergo unneeded medical procedures.

Somehow I'm being sanctimonious because I'm not going to pretend that there is no historical context to all of this.

That's what they have been doing this whole time. The far-right pushes against the bounds of decency and then the center-right says that you aren't being civil when someone brings it up.

I'm not marginalizing anyone. I'm just not going to pretend that there is no larger context.
...or someone else gets the job. Period.

You're absolutely right. but if the only way to get the job is to promise and deliver more than is reasonable given cost and time constraints, you are vastly better off not getting the job.
Ubuntu has been officially supported on nvidia GPUs (cuda, really) for over 5 years. What did you need serviced?

https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-toolkit-60
What country doesn't? In the US, it's common for phones to be locked to Verizon, for example.
> The only other OS with long term update commitment is Windows.

This is absurd. Here's just one single counterexample - SuSE, which supports for up to thirteen years I believe https://www.suse.com/support/policy/. Is that longer than RedHat at twelve years https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata?
The main factor that improved the situation was regulation. People like to complain about OSHA and health/safety people, but they collectively preempt preventable tragedies like those described in the post. People also like to complain about lawyers and the threat of litigation, but that is also a key mechanism for enforcement. If those workers and/or their surviving family members had been fairly compensated, the mine operators might have prioritized safety. https://www.mines.edu/emcis/wp-content/uploads/sites/185/201...
There may be other factors which have influenced the growth of SV, beyond the cultural attitude towards defaulting to 'yes' or 'no' when asked to do something.
I don't necessarily equate "slower" with "bad" when it comes to any patches. My speculation is that Redhat may more thoroughly test security updates.
I was Red Hat ambivalent up until the point they bought JBoss, and as far as I'm concerned, Marc Fleury introduced the word 'astroturfing' to the vernacular.

At that point the confirmation bias started to settle in pretty quickly, and so it seemed like their choices just got weirder and weirder.

I like to think I understand how software businesses work, but then I think about Yahoo and Red Hat and realize I don't know shit, because I couldn't begin to understand why they have had legs when more seemingly valid concerns flamed out.
I had a similar thought, but stumbled when thinking about how you could actually assure users you didn’t log stuff. Once you answer that question, you might have a product. Right now, there is simply no way to prove to a user that the server is only running one process, and it’s only using the open source build(maybe hashing the build, not sure).
It’s pretty obviously just flagged for violating the permitted narratives. If this document is ‘of mostly political import’, then this[0] one most certainly is.

Though I think it’s pretty funny how this scandal has mutated from a “far-right conspiracy theory” to “FISA courts are obviously being political”. Really this is just a CYA move to heap all the blame onto the FBI, but it’s hard to try and claim this isn’t relevant when it’s sharing the front page with threads like this[1], where the top comment thread is discussing FISA courts as a solution to litigating against the government.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19762811

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21826567
The headline is extremely editorialized and attempts to steer the discussion in a very specific direction. Can the mods change the title to match the article headline?
A support contract.
Meaningfully longer. Ubuntu/Debian will demand you update the whole distribution sooner than Red Hat. And there's not a lot of people insane enough to upgrade full OS on a train, x-ray machine, radiation treatment machine, powerplant control system or particle accelerator every two or three years. Especially if software running on them is proprietary and wasn't certified for new set of dependencies.
Enterprises.

We don't consider large-scale boring ol' enterprises much in HN; but I wouldn't be surprised (I have no data one way or another) if boring RHEL instances in boring Enterprise/Government datacentres and clouds doing boring things outnumber shiny linux instances in more glossy usage.

What does it offer - support. And support is important when you have something important, when you need to hold somebody accountable, when your core expertise or market value is not patching and fixing your backoffice software yourself, or when you simply need to pass an audit, security policy, regulation, etc.

Also, stability. Not in the software/OS stability sense (although it's pretty good there); but in the "I'm going to put RHEL on my roadmap and invest in education and processes and procedures and documentation and ecosystem based around it, because I believe it'll still exist in 10+ years, which is the timespan some of my projects and certainly my company are based on".

(Edit - I mean, hell; Enterprises run AIX, which many of you kids will have to Google;). And for what it needs to do AIX is freakin' awesome. And for most other things it's wildly inappropriate and ineffective:)
I think Open source will win in the long run. Simply because there are more software engineers working on open source software than there is on closed software. So from an economic standpoint closed software cannot compete. This is true of even very large corporations.

Hopefully IBM will open source Spectrum scale / GPFS general parallel file system and integrate that with Red Hat.
Even if this does happen, a judge would (justifiably) be heavily inclined to take the advice of the intelligence community on whether or not the secrecy rating is warranted.
> A bunch of companies think that's somehow better to have that than to hire people to support general-use distributions.

Why 'somehow'?

Is that not conceivable?

How much does a qualified person cost you? Maybe quarter of a million dollars a year or so all-in with salary, stock, benefits, recruitment cost? How many of them do you need to get 24x7 support? Five of them? That's $1.25 million. You can buy a lot of 24-hour support from RedHat for a lot less than that.
Uber Settles Federal Investigation into Workplace Culture
Yes. I was shocked at it, but on second thought I'm not surprised. Since Catalina, security prompts come up early on about Dropbox and Google Drive wanting to access your "Downloads" folder. Caught red-handed.

I know there's been third-party macOS apps providing this 'filesystem firewall' functionality for years now, but it's nice to have some of it come from Apple directly.

I think I will eventually move to Linux, I just don't feel private on my own damn computer anymore. I don't trust Apple either. Or I will harden macOS more and more because of this abuse.
So 18 months in prison for the following union busting activities (among others):

* gathering personal information on some union members, such as their marital status, personal finances, and mental-health histories.

* threatening to cut the wages of employees linked to unions

* withdraw business from subcontractors who appeared union-friendly

* clos[ed] sub-contracted firms with active unions

* used "sensitive information about union members to convince them to leave"
They don't take pull requests, but Unity has at least had their source code published for reference for a while.

https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/UnityCsReference
What follows is very similar to my reply to someone else within the last hour who also complained about paywalled submissions. I may add that part of the notion of being an intellectually curious person/hacker is finding workarounds:

A quick search reveals a vast armamentarium of workaround options to paywalls. It has also been discussed in HN.

In addition from HN FAQ: Are paywalls ok?

It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.

In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.
> there are more software engineers working on open source software than there is on closed software

I would have thought that the opposite is the case; most engineers work on closed source software