skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
100% agreed, and you made me realize something.

As someone who writes — I mean prose, whether fiction or not (mostly not: essays, technical, etc) — I had to come to terms quite early with the dichotomy you explain here.

There is a place for the "beautiful language", the parts of it and the ways of using it that make it a pleasure, as a writer and as a reader. This, unsurprisingly, usually demands a whole lot of additional work on top of the 'direct meaning'.

Then there's a place, in casual communication, in business, in marketing, in essays as well, in technical docs, in speeches, in a lot of places, for the 'direct meaning', or close to that. The efficient use of language, when all form recedes in favor of meaning, of concepts, of getting that 'other' to get what you mean.

It's just that, in human language, you do it all with the same tools, we use formal or topical subsets of a vastly larger ensemble. In programming, we're more likely to use different languages [themselves subsets of human language if you think about it, but let's forget that for the sake of simplicity].

And there are programmers among us who love to dabble in the form, like some writers would spend 10%, twice, ten times the effort crafting just "better form" over an already well-defined idea/story. While other programmers, or at other times, just focus on getting things done. Cue the spectrum in-between.

So it all depends what we put in our code, as programmers, as human beings I guess. Is that thing a personal statement? Or is it just garbage code to temporarily expedite some roadblock? How do we approach complexity, bottom-up from the simplest elements/code, or top-down with the most expressive almost-meta entities? Maybe some side-line out-of-the-box angle? See how we'd word all of these, in human languages, as in code. We just wouldn't say the same, nor code (select languages) the same.

I don't know if I explained it well. But looking at it from a human language writer, it all seems clear now. The whole rat race of languages, the churches, the sheer effort put into form when meaning has already been solved 10 times by others, the strong NIH syndromes... it's all so common in traditional writers circles. We're all just writers, really!
>spending a couple hours per day listening [...] to the language for 2 years, at the end the first person won’t speak the language and the second person will.

It doesn’t work like that. For the student to make any progress he need to be able to understand most of the things in the speech (this is called comprehensible input, and the theory is both applicable to listening and reading). That’s why there are people living in foreign country for years yet cannot speak or understand the language at all.

Also it’s kinda stupid to say that language learning must be either grammar/voc learning or listening: it needs to be both. Classes are needed because they make portion of listening material comprehensible, which is impossible by listening only.
A meta study of papers doing lifecycle cost analysis of the options shows that on several metrics, including climate change reduction, landfill is worse than both incineration and recycling for a broad range of materials. This is why almost every functional government in the world legislates accordingly.

This is partly due to the energy cost of new vs recycled so somewhat ironically landfill becomes a slightly better option as the grid becomes more renewable, though unlikely to pull ahead of recycling, since it also takes energy that would be getting cleaner.
I wouldn't get too excited. There are many tech companies here in Salt Lake City, but they all pay shit. The last ad I looked at was offering $40-60 an hour... for an "expert" in both C++ and Rust. LOL
> I prefer text over video because I can absorb and retain information faster by reading than by watching YouTube

I'm in my mid-30's and generally agree. The number of five-minute Youtube tutorials for something I can read and grok--and I'm not a fast reader--in 30 seconds baffles me. And they rank higher than text in search results.
If abbreviating, why 'dmw' and not 'win'? Is the fact that it's dockable and modeless really important enough to use two-thirds of the variable name on a cryptic abbreviation? (And if it is, why not call it by what it is rather than how it's shaped, like 'toolbar' or 'tbar'?)
Receive SMS Verification Code by Email
Are lambdas different?
Let me know how it goes/if you need any help (I design buildings but can also do a little front end ux and engineering)
>Webmasters
Now that's a word I haven't heard in a long time...
More likely better telescopes
I doubt that's unpopular. It's the same reason I significantly prefer Go over Ruby.
True, totally unfair. Shanghai has only been occupied for ~8000 years.
I think Go is pretty refreshing as it is. If it isn’t to one’s taste there are 3712 other languages to choose from.
I had similar feelings regarding anonymous functions before, having come from a more FP background.

Ways to make your Python experience nicer:

- almost never try to use map or filter. List/set/dictionary comprehensions are more pythonic and will be easier in the long run

- learn about standard library stuff, especially the methods on dictionaries, as well as the collections package. If you’re thinking about lodash, Python tends to have replacements that end up being better tbh

- if you really want a local function, just creating an inner def statement is fine. But KISS should usually make this rare.
This mirrors my experience in automotive regarding the sentiment for hardware vs software.
> This paper estimates the effects of a massive, minimally targeted conditional cash transfer program in Mexico City’s public high schools on graduation rates, test scores, and school choice. Using a difference-in-differences approach that exploits variation ineligibility between students and cohorts within a high school, I find that this program had no appreciable effect on high school completion. The results are sufficiently precise to rule out policy-relevant effect sizes. Null effects persist for subgroups that could be candidates for a targeted program. End-of-high school exam scores are apparently unaffected by the program and effects on high school choices by eligible students are minimal. There is no evidence for heterogeneous effects with respect to implicit or explicit cost of attendance, suggesting that liquidity constraints are not a key driver of high school dropout in this urban setting. These results highlight the challenges of using cash to improve academic outcomes in cities.

This is the program which was analyzed: https://www.prepasi.cdmx.gob.mx/

Its annual report from 2015: https://www.prepasi.cdmx.gob.mx/storage/app/uploads/public/5...
I know it's unoriginal to attack the 'hypocrisy' of such an article, but I found it frustrating that the page includes a 'kudos' control which a) could just be a click but, for some reason, is a 'hover for a very short number of seconds' action which cannot subsequently be undone b) works with the mouse only.
Does that do anything to uncover backdoors? Particularly if they have all the appearance of a bug.
What security? The very narrow instance where your browser allows a MITM attack, and for some bizarre reason the attacker can't change the user agent to match Chrome's?

I am of the feeling that if Google's security practices require trusting an attacker not to change a user agent -- well frankly, in that case I am skeptical these changes are actually about security. Because the Google security team is smart, and I assume they wouldn't do stupid things.

But I am cautious about jumping to "this is malicious." There is certainly enough anecdotal evidence for a reasonable person to claim that Google targets competitors and tries to use changes like this to hurt them. However, it's not (currently) enough evidence for me. I am still naive enough to believe there is some semblance of good will at the company.

But I feel very comfortable saying that this is security change won't do much good, and the Google security team probably just thought, "why not turn it on?" without caring about potential consequences to competitors, because they don't think about anything outside of Google's ecosystem. I generally don't get the feeling that Google engineers are malicious, just that they're thoughtless and/or careless. I don't get the feeling that they're trying to mess up the web ecosystem, just that they act impulsively and feel very strongly that people shouldn't be questioning them; and that when people do question them, they tend to dig in their heels and become very condescending very quickly.

But again, I know there are Edge devs and Vivaldi devs that would call me naive.
Maybe, but what’s more likely in such a scenario would be that the edge gained by insider trading would entirely evaporate. But more to the point, it’s corporations not people who have a rational interest in keeping insider trading illegal. After all, individuals who are insider trading on a company are effectively stealing from said company. Since the corps don’t want their employees taking their money, they have strong incentives to support very tough insider trading laws. In my opinion it should be a civil matter, but the corps and the government have very effectively sold the “stealing from the working man’s retirement fund” in order to justify some very aggressive tactics, previously only reserved from the Mafia and the like.
Just pretty.
That sounds like win-win to me because they kinda are, especially if you work somewhere that deals in highly secure data.
Then perhaps Raku is a thing for you, with its Metaobject Protocol: https://docs.raku.org/language/mop
> is actually surreptitiously controlled by the Chinese government

There's not evidence for that. It's a private company. It's not a state-owned enterprise, and doesn't function like one.

> This fact is not minor cultural nitpicking.

No, but it is part of a campaign to demonize China and Chinese companies. Many people in the US foreign policy establishment are worried about the existence of a peer-level competitor, and cannot accept that the US is no longer the sole superpower in the world. That's the fundamental issue here. It's why there's such a huge disconnect between all the fear about Huawei and the utter lack of evidence of backdoors in their equipment. This isn't about Huawei. It's about people in the US government trying to head off China as a competitor.
That’s precisely why it’s not an easy task!!
Regular functions definitions can't be used as expressions.

You are basically saying that one should never need a multi-line lambda. Obviously, I disagree.
I'm not sure are you serious about not seeing landfill connection with environmental problems or just being sarcastic.

If landfills are not such a problem, why "developed" countries (I won't name them but we know who they are) are exporting junk to China, India and Africa? Why simply not set landfills near popular cities so we can all enjoy the beauty of "low environmental issue" problems ;)

These days there is more trust in corrupted media than plain logic.
Sure but you still have `read` 4 times (down from 6), while I have it only once. And that comes at the cost of forcing your users to alias a variable which can be a maintenance burden long term.
Well, I can only agree with all that... But the move to services adds a lot of surface that needs it's own security and architecture maintenance.

The more you break down your code (the smaller the size of the services), the more maintenance need is created from the division, and the easier it is to fall behind on it.
I think the statement was just phrased too strongly. The proposition isn’t that one shouldn’t study grammar at all, but rather that one shouldn’t front-load grammar and theory too much.

Speaking from experience, I gained basic conversational fluency in Spanish from English in a few months by spending a ton of time with LingQ (essentially reading and listening to untranslated passages and creating digital flash cards), obsessively practicing pronunciation, and listening to lyrics in Spanish music for hours on end. I focused on grammar to the extent that I had to, but no more than that. For instance, I learned only those conjugations I actually needed for simple speech. I compiled the ones I needed to study based on what I actually encountered in real passages.

Now, by no means did that render me fully fluent in the language. But, case in point, I took two years of Spanish instruction in school with lots of grammar front-loaded and I gained more or less no speaking or listening ability at all. For me there was a dramatic difference in efficiency between the two approaches to language learning.
Why the Best Tech Startups Take Data-Security Seriously
Did Duke Nukem Forever change its name? Perl 6 has. It's called Raku now (https://raku.org using the #rakulang tag on social media). And it is very much alive and ready for production.
c++ is in narrow niches?!
The article mentions Go's superior compile time, when compared to Kotlin. I have done a lot more Java development than Kotlin, but my recollection is that both of them compiled fairly fast.

Is Go really significantly faster to compile for similarly sized projects?
> Douglas Abrams’ Rules of Technology

That’s “Douglas Adams”.
No, Go does not need this and I do not want it to get these useless "features". Go is simple and it gets things done with an amazing standard library. Use a different programming language if this does not suite you. Every programming language ends up with its own implementation of these "concepts" that it is hard to keep track. What is so difficult about for loops? It's simple for everyone and you don't need to learn new concepts because it works.
It’s usually the DSL argument. In Go you can establish calling patterns for errors, but you’re really limited in terms of providing libraries with nice APIs that prevent you from making mistakes.

In Python you have a lot of ways to make sure someone does a thing. Exceptions are good for making sure an error is handled. Context managers make sure a resource is cleaned up properly.

I might be wrong but I feel like writing something like jquery (with its fluent API) would be really tough in Go.
I understand your point, and I agree. It's impossible to audit all that software and hardware and it is not an irrational decision to completely eject an adversarial government's technology, I don't know why this guy is giving you a hard time. I certainly wouldn't blame a Chinese or Russian government policy that bans technology from the USA.
Along with what kp98 mentioned, they're looking for the next Facebook, Google, Amazon, Alibaba, Tencent, et al. It's mostly that simple.

The returns that those companies have generated have been something beyond extraordinary. For example SoftBank turning tens of millions of dollars into ~$125 billion in Alibaba. Naspers bought 1/3 of Tencent for $32 million and that turned into ~$180 billion at one point.

SoftBank is willing to take N% of that $100b BABA windfall and vaporize it trying to generate the next $100b in returns (they won't be able to most likely, as China's 15-20 year boom is a one-off event that can't and won't be repeated).

They loaded into eg Uber because it was thought to be the next Silicon Valley homerun (which it was for some of the very early investors).

Travis Kalanick has a successful track record as a founder, selling Red Swoosh for $19m to Akamai and then Uber. The backers are betting Cloud Kitchens is perhaps at least a $20-$25 billion business at some point down the road. I doubt any sane person thinks it's the next Facebook, however it could certainly, potentially, be a relatively large business.

So Saudi Arabia buys 8%-9% or whatever at $5 billion. They're betting that they can generate a serious return from that valuation level (4%-5% at $25 billion for example; and if they're lucky, more). They aren't trying to play early VC, where you put in $1m trying to get a 200 fold return. They're looking to considerably beat the returns they can get on their money elsewhere, such as in equity markets, bonds, or even domestic industry.

Also keep in mind SA money is mostly dumb money. They're not at all competent to ascertain whether Cloud Kitchens even has the theoretical potential to be a publicly traded $100 billion valuation company one day. They're rolling the dice hoping to catch the next homerun. For the Saudis there's always more oil money, until there isn't.
There is a free alternative to the YouTube app:

https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.schabi.newpipe/
C++ is not a narrow niche. We do see it pretty much everywhere and it continues to be the most used language for systems programming, games, embedded systems, and pretty much anything else where performance is critical.
If you are doing it for fun, or to learn a new language or platform it can be a good platform to play with. I say that because it is simple overall, has constant changes being posted and is reasonably open.

But I'd have to agree with chmaynard that it isn't worth your time to build an app for any other purposes other than if you are wanting to learn or experiment. I have seen probably 5-6 different apps get created over the years (which I am sure is a small subset of what has happened). All these apps are always abandoned after a short time cause there is no real end benefit for someone to build and maintain an app for HN.

Just my 2 cents.
I’ve written some things in both languages and compiling go feels an order of magnitude faster.
Sensors, especially redundant ones, are expensive. Ask Boeing Max engineers.
I'm continually amazed at how popular the concept of mining landfills for resources is in this forum, while at the same time recycling is regularly dismissed as wishful thinking.

Perhaps it just needs rebranded as pre-emptive landfill mining?
For a long time it was because China was buying it.

Here the landfill has recycling sorting on site and puts glass in the landfill because no one will pay what it costs to ship it.
Node supports BigInt now (integers of arbitrarily high precision).
It’s a beautiful 3D game of life in the shape of a brain. I don’t think it follows particular pathways.
Personally, a lot of notes I write down everyday are inspiring thoughts and ideas from the books I'm reading.

Something about the rotary motion of pen on paper, and the way it deliberately focuses my thoughts helps me recall them better. (Also ... people tell me my handwriting doesn't exactly suck :-).)

Another example: In the last two weeks, I've visited four different museums and exhibitions of an artist I'm studying (Peter Bruegel the Elder[+]; 2019 is his 450th anniversary). Based on these study visits, in a good few pages, I jotted down what I learnt so far (on language, art, culture and science), drawings and copperplate engravings I wanted to further study, Dutch proverbs I learnt, several threads to further explore, new things I wanted to learn, relating ideas from Bruegel's work to topics I've learnt from a recent book I've completed, and so forth.

Do give the handwriting thing a try.

[+] https://artsandculture.google.com/entity/%2Fm%2F0h6nl?hl=en

(This Google Culture project has some splendid high-resolution scans of Bruegel's paintings.)
> I think this is where we differ! I prefer to know what I can do with something without having to ask a compiler or IDE. This helps, for example, when looking at a pull request -- you don't have the code easily accessible for the compiler or IDE.

Same (I mostly use python, which puts your dynamic languages to shame), so structure your code such that this is possible.

Keep your functions relatively short. Then the declaration of a type, if its a local or an argument, will be close by (usually the same screen).

Globals should be defined at the top, so those are easy too. That leaves only class members that might require spelunking. Be judicious with those, they're often more pain than is worth it.

As for your statement about employeesById not being a map should be called out in review, that's true. But over time those things can change unless enforced. You're not just relying on the initial review, but all follow up changes not breaking the invariants.
Google is kind of a mixed bag. There's plenty to mistrust about them. IMO, they still run the hardest-to-hack email service out there. Who else has anything comparable to their Advanced Protection program?
Ideas, notes, random thoughts, code examples, part numbers, when I worked out or went to class, lists (books,movies,grocery, etc), to-dos, diagrams, planning, sketches, etc.
I find the tooling to be very attractive, especially since modules came out. go test, go mod, go vendor, etc... Working in the Go ecosystem is mostly pleasant and easy.
I think that's often the case in any company that doesn't sell software as a product/service. I know automotive companies are really terrible at it. That said, I'm not sure what level of engineering they do anyway. It seems like at best they design the chassis and maybe the engine. Everything else appears to be contracted out to some other firm. Is that the case?
Cool article, but the headline should read "385M-Year-Old Fossilized Tree Roots"
Or even Douglas Adams's, if I may be so bold, or rather, oblique.

The apostrophe protection society has retired, but some of us still cleave to the old ways.
It's super duper shitty ore, basically useless.
If Huawei does not deviate from the standards set by the CIA, than it is very clearly a terrible idea to do business with them
Apple reportedly working on satellite technology for iPhone data transmission
Java killed it for general purpose use in the 90s. It’s never your first option unless you are in areas like games, graphics, some embedded work, or quantitative trading.
I was imagining a collection of books inside the coffin, just in case the dearly departed became restless inside there.
Below is the fundamental axiom for Actor events (i.e. communications:

∀[S:ActorSystem, P predicateOn Event<S>] // For every ActorSystem S and every predicate P on events of S
(∀[x:Primordial<S>] P[Creation[x]] // If P holds for the creation event of every primordial of S
⋀ ∀[e:FromOutside<S>] P[e] // and P holds for every event from outside S
⋀ ∀[e:Event<S>, e1:ImmediatelyFollows<e>] // and for every event of S
P[e]⇒P[e1]) // if P holds for the event, then P holds for each immediately following event
⇒ ∀[e:Event<S>] P[e] // then P holds for every event of S

See the following for more explanation: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3459566
A better way to search through all the submissions and comments one has saved or upvoted. If you have time, do some intelligent tagging so one can search by topic.
Thanks! Appreciate the encouragement :)
If short term profit drops but the consensus DCF of future activities rises, the share price is likely to go up. (That’s where preparing for the future creates shareholder value.)

On the other side, it happens all the time that a company has a single blowout quarter and the shares fall.
I worked on a fairly large codebase that needed to be rewritten from scratch when migrating from 2 to 3, primarily because all the tests were written using a test framework that was no longer maintained. So given that you might need to start over anyway, I think it's reasonable to consider other options. That said, yeah it's difficult to understand how KA's web server costs aren't already basically zero, and how their endpoints aren't already basically instantaneous.
> Security is distinct from privacy.

No, it's not. Security is not a goal in itself, it can not be, security is only about guaranteeing other goals, there is no security absent all other goals. What it means for software to be insecure is that it doesn't ensure your goals are met. For many, privacy is an important goal. If the software that you are using compromises your privacy that you value, then that software is not secure.