skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It depends how you define success. I consider myself successful professionally and personally... I’m the CTO at a startup where I work on problems I find interesting, with a team I love, at a company I really believe in. At home I have a wonderful wife and two beautiful kids (3 year and 1 year old).

I’ve been working in tech professionally for 14 years. I worked very hard during all of those years and before. I’ve never thought of work and life as something that should be balanced. To me balance means the pursuit of those things being even. Instead I think of it as “work life integration”, where both things need to coexist at the same time. Sometimes the push or pull Needs to be greater on one side than the other.

My typical routine is waking up at 7am (unlesd the kids get up earlier). Every morning I make breakfast for my boys, walk the dog, and get myself ready for the day. I drop my oldest son at school and walk 35 min to the office. I’m usually in the office around 9:30/45am. When I’m at work I’m 98% focused and dedicated to work. 2% of the time is a mental break or personal thing. I try to leave the office around 6:30/7pm and make it home just in time to read to the boys and tuck them in to bed. I don’t make it in time every night (I FaceTime for 5 min if I won’t be home). When I do make it back after we put the kids down I spend the next 1-2 hours min with my wife eating dinner and hanging out. Then I’m usually back on the computer for 90-120 min doing some more work.

The weekends are family time, Sat and Sun from 7am-7pm is dedicated family time. I don’t do any real work with the exception of checking email when there’s down time, like during naps or if my wife and the kids run out for a few without me. Fri and Sat evening I try to spend the evening with my wife (we don’t go out a ton right now because of the young kids). From time to time work takes up one or both of those nights. If I’m giving up Fri/Sat with my wife it’s because something important needs to be done and I don’t take that choice lightly. Sunday evening is usually work / prep for the week after the kids go to bed.

I’ve found a good routine where I can work hard and spend time with family. My job is flexible enough where I can go to a morning or mid day appointment for the kids, or go on the occasion field trip, or leave the office at 5 to pick up my son from school from time to time.

A typical work work day usually averages 9-11 hours with the occasional flex up or down. My routine doesn’t leave a lot of time for anything but family and work. I watch between 0–2 hours of tv a week and if I do watch it’s usually during spouse time. I’ve integrated work and life together and try to modulate depending on what’s going on in either world and either time. I have no interest in a perfect consistent balance.
I'm just pointing out that, as Bucky Fuller liked to say, the Universe is set up for our success, including a huge power plant in the sky. In other words, scarcity is a choice at this point in history and we should be choosing abundance instead.
You’d be surprised. Even digging a well (as opposed to surface water) is very possible for not a lot of money.

And as a result, an entire community can have access to clean water.
You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
It's sad, but it may not be wrong. The AOC's of the world are popular for a reason.
I wish I could save comments so I'm just replying instead. It is so fascinating.
Yeah, it seems like the physical actions around an ordinary house are just too simple and discreet for automation to be desirable.

Analogue, immediate action have physicality that is satisfying to a our being; take out a pot, fill it with a cup of a water, add half a cup of rice, light a burner and begin the process.

Sure: "give me rice!" might seem simpler but "let us now debug the rice program" will become as difficult and infinitely less satisfying.

See: Ready-at-hand and all the Heideggerian terminology concerning this stuff.
Monetization is a big deal, but I've got to believe it would be cheaper to cut out the ad middle men. If I could pay $0.5/mo to each of the ~20 channels I'm subscribed to on YT, I'd totally consider that (if adblock wasn't already doing the trick). Are ads still a better deal for the creators in a scenario like that?
Is there an accepted methodology for calculating risk estimations in these situations? I mean, it's essentially speculation afaict, so how do you put a number on it?
It's futuristic, bold, and imaginative. What's not to love?
"Authoritarian Nations are..." makes it sound like the same trends aren't prevalent everywhere.

The cost of monitoring and enforcing compliance with the law is dropping very rapidly. Cameras, automated monitoring systems, etc, have all blossomed since around 2007 when phones suddenly became computers and cameras in one fell swoop.

It is no longer a default expectation that someone can commit a crime without being detected. Or do anything without it being recorded in triplicate on the internet. We'd better all hope we aren't doing anything the government doesn't like!
History of Emacs and Vi Keys (2010)
>private companies engaging in evaluating what's permissible speech and not

I don't feel this is an issue until you can't spin up your own website/app/platform and allow whatever speech you want. I am interested for any responses as to why I might be mistaken from people who disagree with me, though.
Any hints? How are you getting any kind of graphics acceleration? What's your host/guest/hypervisor setup?
Here's my somewhat obfuscated version of same.

https://gist.github.com/kbob/f46776fdc950e6a948b04c76bc23e87...
The thing I like about async Python is being able to run subprocesses and capture and processes their stdout/stderr
No it didn't. The first opium wars, at the start of the century of humiliation, began in 1839. Industrialization began in the 1780s. It was literally heavily armed, iron armored steamships versus middle-ages style sailboats. The Chinese were completely fucked at every single level economically compared to Great Britain, and that's why they lost. They literally didn't stand a chance due to their poor technological level, and that was pretty much their fault.

Using GDP to measure economical supremacy when the two economies are as wildly incomparable as industrialized Great Britain and the agrarian Qing Dynasty is misleading at every single level. Yeah, China could grow hundreds of times more rice than Great Britain ever could. But Qing China wasn't able to make machine guns, it wasn't able to make steamships, it wasn't able to make any industrial equipment. And that's how Great Britain with 50 million people militarily crushed Qing China. It's because China failed to keep up with technology and lost it's massive lead during the renaissance. That meant that it got lost in the dust in the industrial wars of the time. It's really, honestly, a massive mistake that the Qing Dynasty made by not following western developments and not trying to industrialize despite its massive resources. It's economy was just a lot worse. Like, GDP per capita per year around 300$ (2019 dollars) bad. And that's what led to the century of humiliation, that plus their failure to adapt and industrialize when they had the chance, believing that they could buy the capabilities to face off with a modern army.
Why does your main website (linked in your comment) require JS to run? I've not seen anything that warrants that requirement.

I wish people would stop making websites that's require JS.
I'm trying to think of an instance where a government (authoritarian or not) hasn't used technology to advance its agenda, or more to the point of the article, for espionage. I can't think of one.
This is total horseshit. The supporting evidence for this argument is a bunch recent public software failures that the author says 'must have been due to complexity' but then offers no proof. Sure it could have been due to complexity but it could have due to many other things such as mismanagement.

Then at the end the author says:

> Docker and Electron are the most hyped new technologies of the last five years. Both are not about improving things, figuring out complexity or reducing it.

That's not why these are 'hyped' technologies. These things solve real problems. Electron solves the problem of a cross platform GUI with permissive licensing where there are an abundance of cheaper frontend devs vs QT experts.

Sure, Johnathan Blow said we could just copy programs between computers in 1960s but that's because every computer in the lab was the same back then. But that isn't reality today. Today, if you want to ship some server applications to different business customers you'll find yourself having to maintain N different install scripts for the N different distros your customers have. Or you could simplify and use docker and have a consistent environment for your application.

> They do not need to know, exactly, how X is built, why it was built that way, or how to write an alternative X from scratch.

Why on earth would they? I want them to build Y not build me an X from scratch. But I assume they are competent engineers that can solve novel problems and they would research and build me an X if tasked to it. After all most software engineers got their engineering knowledge from trying to solve problems they were tasked with in their career, not in a classroom.

There is no intelligent discourse in this piece. The author could have looked at why these technologies were created and adopted, maybe have made the argument that their adoption is unwarranted due to X. Supported X with good examples and proof.
I'm glad, and I wish we had made 1/10th the progress on spinal stenosis. It's about as common of an ortho ailment and the treatments still suck
> It's natural to wonder whether it makes sense to push to fully eradicate the disease

I don't follow this area very closely, but I bet it's not natural and I suspect it's a genuine minority position.
This seems so clear and easily understandable: news media are owned by elites/corporations who use media to get their way in just about everything.

Part of the benefit of owning and controlling news media is: avoid letting the public know inconvenient truths (1), the ability to affect election results, and the ability to split the population into more easily controlled groups (e.g., Democrats and Republicans in the USA).

The elites have won, game over. Hopefully they will have some self control over their greed and leave us sufficient crumbs so we can at least have a civil society.

(1) this was Assange’s crime, letting the public know things that the elites of the world did not want to become common knowledge.
Send bug reports in to Khan Academy if you get a chance.
the legendary option has always been Lua: small, fast, light-weight, easy to embed and get the job done.
It would seem that ultimately the only real way to get privacy is to either create a verifiable end to end encryption including the content server not having logs and not compromised and the other way would be pooling of user data in a way that spreads the blame across many people. Otherwise basically everything you do is trackable even if you use a vpn. Is there any other way?
I think it's actually the time that matters the most. I think the tens of thousands human lifetimes killed each day on slow software we're forced to use really adds up, how exactly I don't know, it's hard to imagine what humanity would do with the millions of work hours saved.
Fur is a fashion meat is a core pillar in many cultures and changing that will take longer than 10 years.
> 5. Decentralized Internet is a pipe dream.

I think that nightmare is being realized right now - China & Russia have a head-start. I see balkanization of the internet as inevitable. Unless there's a breakthrough on the securing internet-connected devices and equipment, the strategic importance of defending local systems from foreign attacks cannot be ignored, and the most effective way is to sever international connections entirely (even temporarily) without disabling local connectivity which would be disruptive.

Look at the long number of countries that turned off the internet after social unrest in the 2 years alone (mostly to block protesters organization via social media) - if those countries had the technical capability to keep the localnet up, they would have.
> Can someone please suggest some alternatives.

Don't make bloated websites. Use plain html if necessary. Hacker News seems to have a great design - do they use a complicated framework?

Sure, it's harder. But it's also better. If you're not interested in performance then just keep doing whatever everybody else is already doing. Every decision is about compromises. Figure out what to prioritize (developer time, loading time, server cost, whatever) and build the best thing you can based on your goals. If you want to build something materially better than is normal, expect it to be substantially more work and money.
> I live in snow country and I'm not going to do anything that potentially introduces a new failure mode into my heating system.

On the flip side, my Ecobee notified me that my furnace was broken while I was at work.

I don't really see name-brand smart thermostats in the same category as most home automation devices. There's also a lot of nice features that can improve efficiency. For example, we drastically cut our cooling bill by utilizing the scheduled fan mode to pull cool, main floor air into the air handler and redistributing it (partially to the second floor).
I hear your point and it's true that you can't point the finger at GraphQL qua GraphQL, but that's sort of by definition since gql in itself is, as you say, just a spec. But, and I'm not saying this is the case, if every implementation of gql has major issues, it's not really fair to say "but but the spec itself is fine". As programmers, we aren't working with the spec.
Would someone please TLDR these comments for all of us?
Some of these tech companies are so large and pervasive that they are integral parts of society. The policies they enact with that power can have a chilling effect. Now, whether we should or shouldn't do something about that is another matter. The Government has certainly shown a willingness to regulate industries that got to big for their britches before.
That's only part of the equation though. People who disagree with PoVs not only want to get people suspended or banned from ubiquitous comms platforms but they also want to doxx them and publicly shame them. I'm not talking about immediate threats of violence or disgusting vile language. But more generic points of view on various contentious topics.

But let's take your objection at face value. Let's say a certain Senator has declared the senator wants to break up some certain major tech companies and these companies disagree. Under your take they would be within their rights to suspend or ban or de-rank such candidates given they already have their websites as platforms to comms and moreover that's a non event.
>Cromwell and the extreme Protestant Taliban were gone;

They weren't totally gone, many moved west to pollute a different continent.
Thanks :)

The code is pretty simple, really. Just scripts for collecting data. I did the analysis in Calc, mostly. And some in Excel. But I can explain in more detail on GitHub.

I'll look into open sourcing all of the data.
‘Uncanny Valley’ Charts a Tech Pilgrim’s Progress
Huh. I’ve tried that but I haven’t had positive results yet. I’ve waited two years, and now it’s out of warranty. I think it might be defective. Did yours come with a user’s manual? My wife and I are thinking of making another. Will that help?
However your argument is fundamentally flawed, even if it works emotionally: It accepts the narrative that privacy is about hiding something evil, which is the primary attack vector against this basic human right and should be refuted, not reiterated.

I didn't express any view on what someone might want to hide, nor why. I'm simply demonstrating that even if someone feels they have no reason to hide anything themselves, it is still in their interests to value privacy unless every other person who might in some way influence their lives also has no reason to hide anything.

You're correct that my argument is an emotional one. I'm appealing to empathy and enlightened self-interest. It's like saying I still support equal rights even if I don't personally belong to some minority group that suffers unjustified discrimination, because I believe a society that treats people fairly is in everyone's best interests, including my own.

There are of course many other issues around what privacy means or should mean in the modern world, and how privacy relates to other concepts like anonymity, pseudonymity, confidentiality, data protection rights and data processing rights. I'm not addressing those issues at all here, because they weren't what the headline was about.
> Because Apple isn’t an advertising company and doesn’t need to

While I agree, just because they don't need to doesn't mean they won't.

Google didn't need to invent gmail and get everyone sucked in to a free product, and then start reading emails to advertise, but it did.

I know it's not exactly apples-to-apples (no pun intended) but I wouldn't put all my faith in a company not doing something egregious for profit because they don't _need_ to
Life in 2030
This looks good:

https://www.pine64.org/pinetime/

This I just stumbled across:

https://www.cnx-software.com/2019/12/31/18-ttgo-t-wristband-...
without the actual code, this is as far as we can debug. can the author create a small reproducible repo instead?
When the NYTs says, "this is an extraordinary book", generally worth a read if you are in the biz.

"Only later does she realize that her empathetic impulses may have led her astray. She was so fixated on trying to discern what motivated people that she lost sight of the vast, exceedingly powerful system she was participating in, and what the system was doing — not just to her, but to everybody."
> Well complaining about it does not change anything

The twelve steps program may be controversial, but I think the first step, 'admitting you have a problem', is generally the first step of any productive approach to problem solving.
Oh, why? Holding one key for every human on earth would fit in 8 TB plus read-mostly replicas. You'd delete their key if they made GDPR removal request and the keyless, encrypted, immutable entries would be entombed in place.
I think objections like this may be put in terms of measurable cost-benefits but they often come down to the feeling of wasted time and effort involved in writing, reading and understanding garbage software.

Moreover, the same cost-equation that produces software that is much less efficient than it could be produces software that might be usable for it's purpose (barely) but is much more ugly, confusing, and buggy than it needs to be.

That equation is add the needed features, sell the software first, get lock in, milk it 'till it dies and move on. That's equation is locally cost-efficient. Locally, that wins and that produces the world we see every day.

Maybe, the lack of craftsmanship, the lack of doing one's activity well, is simply inevitable. Or maybe the race to the bottom is going to kill us - see the Boeing 737 Max as perhaps food for thought (not that software as such was to blame there but the quality issue was there).
>Or do you mean the reunification years? Cause I hardly remember "western institutions stepping in and saving the day" ever mentioned when the days of the Treuhand are brought up. The more common narrative is "west stepped in, destroyed all our industry and left us with little prospects to these days" or some more grounded version of that.

It's a convenient narrative, but it isn't, IMO, a correct one. Yes, the Treuhand had to decide quite literally which businesses got to live, and which didn't. Never before had an entire country been converted from a planned economy to a market one. There was no road map to follow. Decades of land and property seizure by both the Nazis & the Soviets made untangling actual ownership rights a Sisyphean task.

But at the same time this transition was occuring, billions and billions of Marks/Euros were and are invested in bringing the East up to the same levels of development. What do you think would have happened with the same governmental collapse, if the Treuhandanstalt hadn't existed? Honest question.
Thanks for your clarifying response. I appreciate it. Perhaps I took it the wrong way, and for that I apologize. Happy new year to you.
Boo, I wanted six works of actual computer science fiction.
> Baby boomers are getting ready to sell one quarter of America’s homes over the next two decades. The problem is many of these properties are in places where younger people no longer want to live.

Yes, and even if the younger generation does want to live there, they cannot afford to because baby boomers are currently hogging all the cash.
What does this mean for apps like Anki (assuming they’re not the ones who own this patent)?
What is the recourse here? Would it be reasonable to contact the person that approved the patent with information showing that plenty flashcard systems precede this patent? I imagine there is some more formal system.
I'm glad I'm not alone. Burn your JavaScript stickers.
Previous discussion at the time (84 comments):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9447097
Cool idea, but I don't completely understand the interface. It's not clear what the 1-5 buttons up top are: does clicking on it record my rating of the claim?

What are the numbers next to each of the links in Pros and Cons? They look like they correspond to the ratings above, but I didn't understand how those were derived.
> the clients are concerned with actual geophysical location.

Are they, though? This is, of course, completely anecdotal, but the only real reason I will change the 'location' of my VPN endpoint is exactly that. My suspicion is that most of the VPN users concerns about geography match mine and actually boil down to whether or not it will trick a geofence.

There's going to be some ways in which you can conflate those concepts, since obviously 'virtual locations' will be detectable by some means, as evidenced by the fact that mirmir managed it, but I suspect for a lot of consumers good enough is good enough.
> I can imagine something similar in the future where you can't tell what's real, not only news, but also what you see in front of you.

I'd argue that this is the situation humanity has been in forever, to varying degrees, mainly for the former (the news), but also the latter.

What I hope to see is a greater realization of this, and willingness to consider the degree to which this affects disagreement and polarization (ie: perhaps the situation isn't that our ideological opponents are idiots, but rather the situation is more complex than we perceive).
I'd go even further than that and argue that the reason vegan and vegetarian diets have taken off as much as they have is because they became status symbols in the 90s / 2000s.
Even if you're starting with a disgusting hairball, a bottom-up approach will still get you to something understandable. At this stage you'll probably find that you can fix it one subsystem at a time without doing a full blank-slate rewrite. And once all of your subsystems are nice and independent and well designed, changing up the high-level architecture is far, far easier and safer.
Almost all of the states, as well as the federal government, separately adopted and modified English common law as the basis for their bodies of law. The only exception is Louisiana which adopted French and Spanish style Civil law.

The Constitution isn’t a legal system in and of itself. Rather it sets out a system of government and gives one branch the power to make laws, another to execute them and veto new ones, and a third to supervise and rule on those laws (including setting up a court system).