skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> ...any tech writer working on developer documentation should be able to code/build/perform/use whatever task or api they're documenting without the help of an engineer. They should be able to read and understand code, and they should be willing to do so, even more so than the average engineer using some library code. They should be capable of understanding a library deeply and synthesizing and summarizing that understanding for users of the library.

This is what made my friend Caroline Rose such a great technical writer. She not only can explain things in clear and simple terms, but she was also an accomplished programmer before branching into technical writing.

Here is a story about the documentation that became Inside Macintosh:

> I sat down to meet with Caroline for the first time, and she couldn't have been more different than the previous writer. As soon as I began to explain the first routine, she started bombarding me with questions. She didn't mind admitting it when she didn't understand something, and she wouldn't stop badgering me until she comprehended every nuance. She began to ask me questions that I didn't know the answers to, like what happened when certain parameters were invalid. I had to keep the source code open on the screen of my Lisa when I met with her, so I could figure out the answers to her questions while she was there.

> Pretty soon, I figured out that if Caroline had trouble understanding something, it probably meant that the design was flawed. On a number of occasions, I told her to come back tomorrow after she asked a penetrating question, and revised the API to fix the flaw that she had pointed out. I began to imagine her questions when I was coding something new, which made me work harder to get things clearer before I went over them with her.

https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Inside_Macintosh...

One of my favorite examples from _Inside Macintosh_ is the discussion about the mathematical foundation of QuickDraw. Modern graphic programmers all know that a (0,0,0,0) rectangle is an empty rectangle. But why is that? Why isn't it a single pixel?

The explanation on pages I-138 through I-141 is what made this concept make sense to me. Here's a PDF of _Inside Macintosh_:

http://www.weihenstephan.org/~michaste/pagetable/mac/Inside_...

Besides that section, there are all kinds of examples of how to explain a complicated concept in simple and understandable terms. It's worth a quick skim of the entire book to see what good documentation looks like.
You're shocked that they consider and plan for a worst-case/edge-case scenario?

That sort of attention to detail is what continues to impress me about the Arch methodology.
I had no mentors (or, rather, I had "negative role models": people I saw that I did not want to be) and no discipline. Worked out.

I'm a big proponent of personal responsibility. A system that supports people helps a lot.
Unhelpful, but I must be jaded because I’m not sure I’d call it “incredibly unhelpful”.
What's the advantage of using HyperTrack over directly calling Google Map APIs with your own account?
Thanks for the shameless plug, but what does this have to do with WebFS?
Oops, you're right.

Still damn impressive on the videos though.
The bank doesn't usually "have the money to give" when it makes a loan.

Let's say Bank A loans $1000 to a customer. It creates a $1000 bank deposit in that customer's account. On the balance sheet it looks like this:

Bank A:

(Asset) Loan to customer of $1000

(Liability) Bank deposit in account of customer $1000

Bank A created the $1000 at will out of thin air. This is how it happens most of the time.
Ok. So why are you bringing up where Girard went to college? It comes off like you are correcting a misperception in the parent post, since the parent post guesses at the author's alma mater. If that's not what you're referencing, what relevance at all does it have where Girard went to school?
> The main advantage of a blackbox ML solution is shorter development time to a useful performance level.

I think that's kinda true but kinda false. Its true that deep learning often makes feature engineering moot. however, a lot of deep learning projects takes machine learning engineers and applied scientists along with a host of other support engineers + hardware costs ( I seen people at work say: I only used a 16 GPU instances over a couple weeks of training )

meanwhile, I consider gradient boosting fairly interpretable and they can get pretty close results with a lot less tweaking and training time. If you want to go full non-black box, logistic regression with l1 penalization and only a little bit of feature engineering often does really well, probably a lot less development time / cost compared to those high cost PHD research scientists.
I've had 4 different doctors from One Medical. One of them was pretty good but I wouldn't recommend the other three. However the email access and online scheduling makes up for it. And office staff is actually not brain dead like I've see elsewhere.
If you don't smoke, pretend you do. Go out for a smoke break at interview time. Only have that "smoke" a half a block away from the office so you don't get caught out.
What you call sunk cost I call "equity"--whether that be tangible capital or human capital.

If you never believed in it, then you should drop it by all means. But if you take the sunk cost fallacy to heart, you will give up whenever the going gets tough, which statistically means you will give up everything you ever start.
HoloViews – 1.12.7
You’re right. If my print statements cause CloudWatch logs to fill up. AWS has bigger issues....

I refuse to work for any company at this point in my career that expects me to be on call to manage a bunch of pets.
> Jungian, by chance?

Nah, Neurolinguistic Programming. The "guy" is Dr. Bandler.

> Much of psychology (at least in the non-behaviorist arena) and self-help deal with ideas that are really grounded in philosophy proper. Philosophy is the original psychology and the original self-help.

FWIW the origins of NLP are grounded in Chomsky's Transformational Grammar. That's not philosophy, of course, but it's something. (Computer language hierarchy stems from the same linguistic modeling.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_grammar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy

> Philosophy is no luxury. It saves lives. It's a deep failure of culture that it isn't a core area of primary and secondary curriculum.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly!

I meant it's a luxury only in the sense that "Even God hesitates to offer anything but bread to the starving man."

Even then I don't deny that many a book of philosophy has seen more than one person safely through their long dark tea-time of the soul.
When American states have considered religious freedom laws that would allow wedding florists, photographers and the like to not work at same-sex weddings, some U.S. companies have threatened not to make further investments in those states.

Whatever one thinks about those laws, murdering people for their organs is much more serious. So why don't U.S. companies that imagine themselves to be enlightened say they will not invest in new offices and factories in China unless the organ harvesting stops?
Actually, that would be so cool...

Like you could configure a few different resumes (Front-end heavy, Python focused, large company, small company) and apply to a buttload of jobs.
> even though humans are basically black boxes we can ask them questions in order to find out how they came to a particular conclusion. (How reliable the answers to these questions are is of course a different matter.)

You punctuate the second sentence as though it were of secondary importance. But in many cases, we have little ability to figure out how we came to a conclusion, while being much better at fabricating plausible and politically acceptable answers. I put it to you that having questions answered with plausible fabrications, is actually a significantly worse situation than not yet being able to ask the questions at all. At least in the latter situation, we know what we need to be working on.
Isn't that most self-help books? State your core idea in the first 5 pages, then fill the next 150+ pages with restatements of the same idea in slightly different ways.
Not at all. I am fully in control of the vehicle and paying attention.

I am not physically executing most maneuvers. And as a result, I am MORE alert to the conditions around me.
While reciprocal, it does assume a class concsiousness I don't see in small towns. I'd argue they'd need higher education to appreciate fully how fucked they are. Their upside is running a business or marrying into a family that does, and while the pretenses of city people are absolutely a bogeyman, it's not defining to their identity. The small town conservatives I know dont talk about politics, they talk about business, hunting, hobbies and macro economic trends that impact their lives like interest rates and commodity prices. Complaining about "the libs," is considered whining. They're not defined or unite as a community based on their opposition to something. They're tolerant, not liberal, value freedom based on the necessary rules, and admittedly, see elites who lack traditional virtues as illigitimate but temporary. It's a bit complex to be dismissed as hatred.
It's also arguable that most of the winning in WWII had a lot to do with the Russians, but aren't credited with it in the american narrative. Particularly interesting was Japan's delayed response and surrender after the nukes, which goes to show these were not why they actually surrendered but helped to paint a post war narrative that allowed them to prosper more after losing.
This article would be far better with a map, particularly for those outside the US and Canada.

Here's the area anyway: Dixon Entrance
https://maps.app.goo.gl/F3AnJf6yKKJJxhiV8
Honest question: have you ever actually done any (professional) development in C/C++ or Rust?

You're WAY overstating the development tax on these things. C isn't hard because it's harder to debug (it's about the same difficulty to be perfectly honest). It's hard because you have to actually think about each allocation and instruction. You might not want to! That's fine! You're incurring a large perfomance tax though, if you don't. It's not nothing!

Also, I'm calling bullshit that manual memory management lacks "safety and sanity". It's harder. You can screw it up. That doesn't mean that the default should be "pretend like machines have infinite RAM and we'll never run out". We're engineers, we make tradeoffs here all the time.

BTW: I think it's funny that you're pretending like I'm a low level partisan or something that doesn't know the upsides of modern languages. My day job is writing typescript. My favorite language is python. But my previous two jobs were writing super low-level C++ code for 3D modelling and game development. I am entirely aware of how convenient a garbage collector is. I also don't think "helloworld" should compile to be 1MB. We should have standards.
Hi!

Thanks for the heads up and your concern!

Judge0 IDE uses Judge0 API as its code execution engine, and Judge0 API uses isolate (https://github.com/ioi/isolate) for sandboxing compilation and execution without root permissions. Thus, everything should be safe.

You are free to "hack" it, but if you find a bug or security issue please send me an email so I can fix it. :)
> If I spent 3 hours getting the tickets and I value my time at $150 an hour then the value of the tickets is now $505 and I'm only getting offered $500

Except that's not how spending time (or money) on something works. If you spend 3 hours trying to fix something and fail, you shouldn't value the item any more. The value of the tickets doesn't go up because the time you spent on it. Selling the ticket (or keeping the ticket) doesn't get you the time back. The question to evaluate the potential sale is only which do you value more, the $500 being offered or the ticket. What you spent on the ticket is irrelevant - it's a sunk cost.

We see this with stock trades all the time. Say you bought a share of company XYZ at $100, and then a scandal broke and the value plummeted to $20. You don't think the company is worth buying for $20, either, because the scandal was that bad. Therefore you should sell it, as you think the true value is below $20. Yet, many people would hold the stock as they don't want to take the $80 loss. This is what happens when you fail to ignore sunk costs - what you paid for the item (be it in cash, or the ticket example, your time) doesn't increase its present value to you.
> Seth Godin's success is proof that mediocrity pays if you're early.

Yes, recognize survivorship bias when you see it.
I have a hard time remembering everything I read. There's an app for that called Readwise! It emails you highlights you've made previously. It also has some advanced features.
I was always under the impression job sites don’t like to be scraped. What are the risks in using a tool like this? I would suspect possibly getting your ip banned.
Might want to look into an app called Readwise.
I think you are trying to reply to the person I was replying to.
> Again, how is that the same as saying that blame should be tied to compensation? Separate out management for a moment. So an engineer who gets paid 50% more than another deserves 50% more blame for a failure? I thought HN was a place where people attempted to form good arguments based on fact, not one where people let emotion rule the day.

To entertain the naive pedantry for a second: first, I think a heck of a lot of people would tolerate that 50% scenario more than the status quo, and second, it's not exactly outrageous to suggest the impact you have on a design goes hand-in-hand with how much blame you deserve for it when it breaks (or how much praise you deserve for it when it works). Now, you yourself say compensation should also be tied to impact. Apply the transitive property. You might be surprised what you get.

But surely you realize you're making a strawman out of the points people are trying to make? It's not literally the "same thing", it's an approximation meant to get a point across, and it's based on the assumption that you apply some common sense instead of treating it like a mathematical proposition. Like the understanding that you literally can't fire 98.3% of one guy and 1.7% of another, so clearly everyone understands "blame" will get out of sync with compensation; that in itself is obviously not the literal point. And the understanding what people are clearly upset about is the fact that those who are given more responsibility and power over a product (which just so happens to go hand-in-hand with their pay) frequently appear to bear far less blame than those whom they manage and give directions to. Nitpicking on why it should be proportional to the guy's salary is literally missing the gigantic problem the other person is trying to point out.
I guess. But access controls really just keep the punters out. Any serious adversary will just track down the stores. And even if they're on dedicated servers with FDE, keys can be obtained from RAM.
This isn't how it works, at all. You're going to get better results with 1,000 parameters than with 100 explainable ones. There's a limit to how much humans can understand. We use machine learning to surpass that limit
Xiaomi exec hints MIX Alpha concept phone is near for sale
I know what it is. I've been involved with Rust on and off for about 4 years (now more off than on, but periodically stepping back in).

IM has always seemed like a really bad wart - an intentional breaking of the borrow checking through idiom rather than a language construct. Just as `&` is an shared const ref, `&mut` is an exclusive mutable ref, but for some reason when you get to shared mutable instead of making `multimut&` or something, the language invokes cells then has the audacity to straight-face proclaim you can share mutable references.

I guess if they made `multimut&` ref they would have to admit is is possible I guess. The difference between the syntactic and cell-based representation of that type of share mutable reference always seemed like no real difference.

I do a lot of C++ and having to basically do hygienic macros though template metaprogramming is on the same level. I'd rather just have hygienic macros. Cells are the Rust equivalent of removing const through template without ever having to cast it away explicitly. An intentional breaking of const through idiom rather than syntax.

If tomorrow a shorthand cell was introduced like `shm&` (similar to how `?` was introduced as shorthand for dealing with Result types), it would bring it into the realm of syntax and be much clearer what was going on.

Cell seems like a straight up step around the borrow checker for shared mutability. It should look like the other references.
I’m not sure why they aren’t using the SYS_* constants either.
According to this post, dated August 8, 2019 and titled "Streaks", Seth has been blogging for 11-years straight without missing a day.

His posts appear hours before I awake every day, despite us being in the same time zone.

So your comment, "Seth Godin's success is proof that mediocrity pays if you're early", should be retracted.

Edit: I forgot to include the link: https://seths.blog/2019/08/streaks/
Yes! Ensure it will work correctly with thousands of lines of bash + jenkins + ec2 machines + all through a docker container + slack notifications.
Absolutely not.

Combat mass is no longer about raw human numbers.

Plus nomenclature and terminology around war is backwards and confusing.

Let me explain.

Conventional conflicts(WW1, WW2, Korea, Iran-Iraq 80-89, etc) requiring big human numbers are incredibly and increasingly uncommon.

Unconventional conflicts(Iran-US, 40+ yearS and counting) requiring fewer/better trained humans are incredibly and increasingly common.

This is an ongoing unconventional war entering its 5th decade with roots extending back 7 decades(Mossadegh coup in 1953 Iran) and incongruent ideological conflict extending back millenia.

And even IF there were a draft, the vast majority of fighting aged men and women are dangerously unsuitable for military service due to very poor average health and fitness.

IF there was a draft, the overwhelming majority would fail to meet minimum entry health & fitness criteria.
Many jurisdictions (in the USA) that subjugate LGBTQ individuals also happen to be isolated (relative to CA/NY) small markets. China, on the other hand is the world’s largest economy.

It is easy to boycott some small town or poor state; it is harder to do the same for a major economic power.
> He believes just three are necessary, AGPLv3, the LGPLv3, and Apache v2.

He being Bruce Perens.

I respectfully disagree, those licenses all have some negative component to them which make them not applicable in all cases. MIT/BSD do not have those same negatives (different of their own) and definitely are needed as well imho. Not saying those three aren’t important, just they shouldn’t be the only three.

Edit: clarified MIT / BSD are not without their own issues, just not the same as the other three.
OK, cool. I understand now.

So if WebFS is running on a system with access to Tor SocksPorts, can Stores be onion URLs?

Edit: If not, one could presumably route WebFS through OnionCat's IPv6 /48. But that only works with v2 onions, which are deprecated. However, tinc works with v3 onions. And either of those gives you UDP transport.
> it wasn't worth it, especially given the potential to increase ridership and speed up boarding by not charging fares at all.

What kind of nonsense logic is that? After they increase ridership they'd have to buy more buses to not slow down boarding. Who's going to pay for that?

Maybe we are entering the final decade in which fiat money collapses under the weight of public debt on all levels of government.
I was expecting that too, but the article turned out to be just a boring "copy-and-paste these commands" how-to.
I don't know how many of you are familiar with Kaggle competitions, but the winning scores on the leaderboards can come down to 0.0001 points of accuracy or less. Winning something like that with an explainable model is like having one hand tied behind your back.

If tiny fractions of a point matter (the rare case), then making the model explainable is adding a ton of complexity for little practical gain. It sounds nice, but the numbers are unforgiving
It’s consultantese for “the contract is ending or being terminated”
> you're looking at a rewrite at that point; probably in a language your team doesn't know and doesn't like

Or you commit atrocities like rip the garbage collector out of Python. I’m not joking; Instagram did this: https://instagram-engineering.com/dismissing-python-garbage-...
> And also: when do we want to decide to use alternatives like decision trees instead -- because despite being less accurate, they can have designers who can be held legally accountable and liable, which can be more important in certain situations?

Decision trees are black box models and are highly accurate. (Think XGBoost, LightGBM, Random Forest, etc)

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.
That's why the readme says:

> To use VCMI you need to own original data files.
That's great for concurrency... but what about parallelism?
Do they usually provide similar throughput on the same hardware?
That's technically true but I think it misses the point. A CPU (at least an older one) is simple enough that it can be fully understood by one person. It was probably designed by a very small team. If you want to know if something works, you don't have to read thousands of pages of documentation. You can just try it. Nearly any combination of operations you put together is going to do something.

None of that is true of the big complex language/library/framework/OS stacks we have today. Most of my effort programming today is on something simple to describe in words, but complex to encode in the language's type system, or the framework's classes, or the OS's security model.

I feel that Lisp is the closest I can get to those early systems I grew up with. It's based on symbols rather than bytes but the flexibility and coherence is the same.
> You can always ask somebody to state their reason as a simple "if-then" statement, and they can make one up on the spot, but it'll be so oversimplified that it's basically a lie.

Well, I guess it depends on how self-aware a person is. I think the biggest danger is trying to rationally explain your decision when in fact it was based mostly on your feelings, in which case I agree that the explanation is "basically a lie". One needs to be honest when something is not based on a fact but on a feeling to prevent pointless discussions. (If I hold an opinion based on a feeling then you cannot convince me that I am wrong by giving me facts.)

> You can already do that. Just change that number in the input and see how the output changes.

Makes sense. But I guess transparent models would still be generally preferable because you can fully understand how the output is produced, whereas in black-box models you might have to ask quite a lot of questions to get a feeling for it, but even then you can't be sure that you have a full understanding of it.
Yeah I was under a similar impression. If not, this is great as I am currently looking