skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If the other dev can't be bothered to document why they did something anywhere they should be fired.
IME things never fail in the way you expect them to... You can build a fortification where you think you are weak only to find the enemy is already in the castle.
In that case, I extend my sympathies to the manager’s ego.

And to be clear, I’m unaware of whether in this particular situation, the manager’s ego was bruised. So, I’m speaking to the general case where egos are bruised.

The payout to an effective manager here is that his/her managed employees are empowered by his/her ability to empower them, and that’s his/her rocket-fuel. He/she runs an amazing team, which everyone wants to be a part of - and that stands on its own.

Alternatively, demoralize the employees you manage at your own peril. I’ve watched both situations play out plenty of times. And, for better or worse, have been on both sides of that conversation. Selflessness and championing of your team over yourself has a funny way of translating to improved morale, success and longevity.
I see, clever. Thanks!
Tech company = making the world more digital. Perverting humanity. Moving us further away from our natural state. Ripping away any innate semblance of purpose we had.

Automation = Removing the stand in sense of purpose people had found in the modern world. Increasing inequality. Increasing the needed level of education to be productive.

Advertising = creates and reinforces wants. Makes people unhappy with what they already have. Causes them to then have to seek to be productive which is bad because of the previous two.
You can always start your own rocket company and design the suits and buttons the way you want.
Actually you only see what you wanna see, right?
The same gut reaction that causes you to go "ugh, crap code, I'm going to rewrite" is probably similar for the other developer, but with your rewritten version.

People tend to have an aversion to code they didn't write in general, and actually reading and understanding existing code tends to be a rare skill.

> Also, rewriting something is far easier than writing it from scratch.

Given the amount of times I see companies rewrite their product with half the features missing and more bugs than before, I'm not sure I agree with that.
they should make an effort, since this is Firefox...
> Is it not abundantly clear that a photon is just a photon? What else could it be?

Well, light can be modeled as either a wave or a particle[1]. When talking about colors, it makes more sense to talk about light using the wave model of light than the particle model of light--not that either way of talking about it is wrong, it's just that the particle model is way more complicated for modeling this particular phenomena.

> "red light" is the photon as well - ie a photon with wavelength between 620-750nm

No. If you're talking about wavelength you should be using the wave model. It absolutely makes sense to say "red light" when you're talking about a wave.

There's no such thing as a red photon because photons don't have color by themselves--red light is made up of many photons, which have a frequency.

It sounds like your argument is basically that you don't know how to represent color with the particle model of light, so you assume the answer is "the mind". Not only can you go learn how to represent color using the particle model, but even if that weren't possible, assuming that anything you don't understand is "the mind" is pretty premature.

> In a sense, you are claiming that this chemical cascade is 2 things: 1: a chemical cascade and 2: the perception of red (i.e. the subjective sensation of looking at red); whereas, I would say the chemical cascade is just a chemical cascade... that's all it is, because of course chemicals can't be chemicals AND sense perceptions - that's the real incorrect leap of faith in your argument.

People who have the chemical cascade experience red. People who don't, don't--even if red light is there (i.e. if they are colorblind). Do you have any reason for believing these are different phenomena?

> You say that I have yet to present an observable phenomenon that is clearly in the mind, but just imagine a red triangle, boom there you have it - that red triangle only exists in the mind. [...]

> If you still disagree with this, tell me where is the red triangle?

It's also in the brain, because the mind is just the brain.

This isn't hypothetical. We can read (very) fuzzy images from people's brains using neural-imaging[2]. I'm not aware of any experiments that specifically has read a red triangle, but I don't see any reason to believe that this image is uniquely in the mind and not the brain.

Again, it seems like you're just defining "the mind" as anything that happens in the brain where you don't know how it happens. And again I'll say, even if we didn't already know how it happens, concluding that this is "the mind" rather than some physical process we haven't yet discovered, is premature.

> it's simply made of qualitatively different material than the brain.

If it's qualitatively different, what are the qualitative differences?

As for the parts of your post I didn't respond to directly: declaring things irreducible, patently absurd, and declaring that you know things, all ex nihilo, is not a persuasive argument.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

[2] https://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/
lot 'o ten dollar words...

(was Lem's writing translated?)
Publish News in China Online, Directly
Ideally, these questions should be answered by the function name, type, and its documentation. And if not, one can always jump to the function definition and the above elements (missing if the piece of code is inlined) will give additional hints to what the code does.
SourceHut prohibits repos with “large binary files”
> patches are associative: pulling B and C together after A does the same as pulling just C after pulling A and B

that makes no sense to me. DARCS also claim this, but if you have the patches all changing the first line to a different value, obviously the last one will dictate the final value of the first line. Which is the same as git. in what world do you want to change orders of patches and not have the final state change?
Dust Bowl?
I remembered seeing this post on Mastodon, and it turns out this website federates. My response from Mastodon is listed as a comment on this website.

The wonders of ActivityPub...
> Imagine someone in a domestic abuse situation

Depending on how abusive you are thinking, that sounds like rubber hose cryptanalysis. That's a hugely powerful approach and I think all 2FA can be bypassed with that, if not most of modern cryptography.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis

> having their phone taken

Keep in mind that other 2FA methods also are phone based, like TOTP / Google Authenticator. Those also fail if your unlocked phone is taken. SMS is even weaker than those, but still better as a second factor versus nothing.
Clickbait title.

This is a story about:

1) Changing someone else's code without discussing it with them. Seriously, wtf?! Even if the code is better maybe there are reasons the code is the way it is and the it's not worth making the changes for the overall progress of the business.

2) Misjudging the requirements. If those modules needed changes, then they should've been left alone. This story could've easily gone the other way with the author competently abstracting away messy details for an overall positive impact. This happens quite frequently, but obviously doesn't make for a good article because it's expected.
There is no error code that denotes invalid name. Sure the banks gateway fraud detection can decline auth(most don’t), but there would be no way to communicate back to the merchant that the customers needs to check the spelling of the name. I’ve also never seen it when I ran technology at a e-commerce startup that did millions of transactions of month.
> I have never met a group of people more elitist and “too important to be bothered” by security than doctors.

In my opinion, they're the only bunch that gets it right.

Security should work correctly and not bother me. Period.

The fact that it doesn't is laziness on the part of the security vendors.

The bigger problem is that if security ever allows a user to make an incorrect security decision, it's probably worse than no security at all.
LBRY
I mean to be fair, the argument is that the expenses (basically, wear & tear on the vehicle) are significant. The IRS I guess has a whole schedule for vehicle depreciation, they have this down to a science. So $23ish an hour but large vehicle expenses drag this down to quite a bit less
Excellent article, and it is still unclear to me about how to reenter the code block if suspension occurs.
Nah, now you are simply going down the rabbit’s hole of arguing definitions.

Nothing is ever proven, yet the probability of it being true is higher than the probability of you waking up tomorrow being Frodo who just realised he needs to bring that goddamn ring to Mordor.

It’s the same funny case of arguing that we live in a simulation: it’s a great idea, but the fact is that if that simulation is good enough, then you will never know you live in a simulation.
What this write up on 2fa is missing is that rather than using proprietary solutions like authy, we should be moving towards what we’ve now standardised as webauthn. If we had platform authenticators or we had a google/apple first party implementation of something like Krypton, we would be in such a better place security wise.
For folks that want to start making sense of what's being said I recommend going through d2l.ai, fast.ai, and deeplearningbook.org.

Most of contemporary AI is really just a combination of probability theory and some upper division math classes in an executable form. None of it is magic and the more people that know the vocabulary the less likely people are to buy into the hype.

If you want a high level overview of all this then Melanie Mitchell has a good book as well: https://melaniemitchell.me/aibook/. She does a really good job of putting everything into the right context and dispelling the marketing hype about the coming singularity and human obsolescence. In one of the chapters she covers deep reinforcement learning and it's one of the best high level explanations I've come across yet.
Injecting anything bad to cells gets immune system to attack them. The problem is how to selectively inject it to cells you need, no?
Yeah you might be right, and it definitely possible this is common and I’m just weird for not liking it.
Hey, you're the AutoMicroFarm guy?

There was a company years ago that remodeled/landscaped people's yards into permie gardens and then harvested the crops and distributed them like a CSA. You could integrate a market function into your offering, eh?
This is probably the last generation of TVs that will be sold without onboard microphones for the "smart" functionality. LG's 2020 lineup will have them and it'll be trickling down to lower models and other brands.

Like, it's already got microphones in the remote for the digital assistant functionality but you can't leave a remote sending 24/7 because it'll flatten the batteries.
RnRS are guidelines like Posix. They aren't implementations.

Systemd is an implementation, not a guideline.

The complaints against systemd are that you will need to be bit-compatible with it when it inevitably fails, which will be soon with what IBM does to the companies it eats.

The complaints against R6RS is that scheme is a simple language, if you want a complex language use Common Lisp instead.
That would be rare; the child would usually be named Richard and nicknamed Dick.

It's not clear to me why Dick is the standard nickname for Richard.
I tried too. I was just listening to in Friday on the Planet Money podcast on Spotify. It was definitely their voices too, not All Things Considered or anything, and it had Dr. Feinberg's voice too.

(lol, that comment is back down to -1 again. Apparently you cannot say anything bad about astrology on HN either.)
From the article:

"The company says its intentions in health are unconnected with its advertising business".

I posted this exact comment elsewhere in the thread. You can search for a discussion on this page around it.
I tried getting into Mastadon a while back but didn't manage to find decent instances to subscribe to. There's just so many! Any advice on where to get started?
Not really. Google has had a track record of collecting data on people, in addition to signs that tremendous changes in its corporate culture; it’s not unreasonable to speculate where they may go with that in the future.
Most times people get suspended for doing things that unsurprisingly go against the ToS. If you’re not developing software with googles API or anything a normal, everyday user doesn’t do you are probably fine.

Of course it can still happen by random chance thanks to their algorithm going screwy but it’s not likely and if you’re still concerned Id consider at least starting the process.
What do you think the level of detail of the simulation is? If it's simulating down to the atomic or subatomic level, then the only way to simulate that is with a universe at least as big, having turned the whole universe into a computer.
It's a bit unclear, also the conclusion. However most definitions of continuity are just covering real functions. I remember my math prof stating that there are also continuous functions on the natural numbers (N->N), IIRC n -> n^2 would be an example. Given that numerical calculations are not on R - at best on Q - this doesn't sound so far-fetched
It is no longer a common name in the US. It wasn't always used to describe a male body part (though it has in modern times). It is also the nickname for "Richard". So there are Richard's that prefer to be called "Dick". I'd imagine the people choosing it today (if any are) would be that it is a family name.
I believe that Nasa's commercial cargo [1] and crew[2] are the result of vision from past administrations.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Resupply_Services

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Crew_Development
This is exactly my feeling after having lived here a few years. There are a small number of true believers who legitimately believe the CPC propaganda, but i think a far greater proportion of society is more like those who in the west consider themselves to be centrists or "small-c conservatives". That is, people who prefer not to rock the boat, stay out of politics, keep things going how they are etc. Usually those are people who already have an okay (if not great) life, so i can see their motivation for not advocating for change.
It’s up to the merchant to decide. You can ask for as little as card number and expiry. All up to the merchant based on how they configure their payment processor
I ask myself a couple of questions to decide when to abstract code to de duplicate it.

1. Is this domain logic or plumbing code?(for instance would this logic be described in a spec for the application)

2. How many times will these be duplicated?

3. How abstractable is it?

3.a. to abstract it will I have to do anything tricky like pass functions around use reflection?

3.b If I abstract this logic into a function is there a good concise name for it?
>Before I convince you that it’s crazy, let’s step back a bit and ask why would JS adherents make a statement like this to begin with? You don’t hear people saying, “Yeah, FORTRAN is basically Icon” or “Sather has a really solid SNOBOL core,” do you? Why this arbitrary pairing? After meticulous scientific research, I’ve discovered two historical reasons and one weird psychological one.

[...]

>In some weird organic process, the pantheon of programming languages have ordered themselves in terms of prestige. It’s as random but undeniable as music and fashion. Radiohead is on one end, and Nickelback is on the other. No one knows precisely how they got there, but there they are.

>On the Radiohead end, you’ve got Common Lisp, Scheme, Smalltalk, and a few others. Scheme is even more Lisp than Lisp, so it’s like that weird avant garde band no one’s heard of that Radiohead always claims inspired their latest album. If Lisp is Radiohead, Scheme is Kraftwerk.

https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2013/07/18/javascript-isn...
You can't validate the name on a credit card. There is no error code that indicates an invalid name.
Delta-Crdts – Delta State-Based CRDTs in JavaScript
I tend to interpret this as indicating that the funding pool is too small. Most of the observation time of how the body responds to microgravity necessarily happens on space stations. The engineering challenges of human space travel are also a driver of technology. There is also an important diplomatic component to the ISS and the powerful symbolism of the nations of the world collectively building and maintaining something peaceful and truly awesome.
20 years ago were were told world would end in 2020 and similar nonsense.

If the models worked the scientists lied. Or models didn't work. Either way, climate science has proven totally useless to provide actionable insights.

Climate science has been as useful as fake news from CNN. But CNN is slightly better - at least I don't have to pay for what they do.
They're a blue collar guy trying to feed their family on a low-wage job with variable income, they have like zero incentive to do so man. They're also gambling that they can potentially intimidate a rider who says they won't pay x price because of a detour, mistake, or misquoted price. The driver could be larger or tougher than the rider, and you're in a small space with them.

I had a larger driver try to intimidate me into giving them a cash tip on top of the one I'd already written in via credit card. (I refused). This is why I never, ever use taxis now
Hey, the Wangs of the world probably only number about 100 million. Almost certainly less than 200 million. Even at the high end, that's only 3% of the world population. ;p
Rust has procedural macros. What else do you need for metaprogramming?
Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans
Terrible acronym for a good idea: DAMP

stackoverflow.com/questions/6453235/what-does-damp-not-dry-mean-when-talking-about-unit-tests
> Simply expressing hate is enough by this definition

But was that definition ever applied as such? I see people arguing that it was but not a single valid example was provided. A case where courts punished someone for promoting hate but no violence whatsoever.
I setup a personal NextCloud instance on a $5 Digital Ocean last year, and along with Fastmail, it replaced all the Google services I've been using. It took about an hour to get up and running, it went through version updates without a hiccup, and never gave me any trouble.

I found it to be completely hassle free, and I can highly recommend it to anybody looking to take back control of their privacy.
For anyone else that wasn't aware, ESR[0] stands for extended support release, so an older Firefox that still has security patches back ported (like Ubuntu LTE I guess)

[0] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/switch-to-firefox-exten...
I Started a $17K/Month Business Selling Project Management Ebooks and Courses
To me Geoff Lawton (and others) have shown the undeniable viability of Permaculture, and the big question is how to replicate it at scale, faster?

If giant techno-farms are more economically efficient they will win out over more ecologically efficient forms, despite being fundamentally less desirable, unless there's some other countervailing "force" or "pressure" (I don't mean physical force).

(Ideally economic and ecologic efficiency would be unified, but we're not quite there yet. Remember that life is four-billion-year-old self-improving nanotechnology, eh?)
There's a friendly sign up guide available now https://joinmastodon.org/
> I mean, what did people think

They didn't, and they don't. We are conditioned to buy whatever's on offer.
Author of paper comments in the reddit thread and has links to python code and tutorials for a simple climate model.
I see that this is at least the 8th time it has been submitted, but only one other led to any discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16184255
It wasn't code for geometry, it was code for manipulating geometric shapes via UI. the article specifically mentions that custom behavior was eventually needed:

> we later needed many special cases and behaviors for different handles on different shapes. My abstraction would have to become several times more convoluted to afford that, whereas with the original “messy” version such changes stayed easy as cake.
Japan has very little immigration when compared to other countries. In 2015 ~2% of the population was from immigrants. The USA for comparison, has a 14.5% rate (+/- a few tenths, I'm pulling that from memory.)
Tests have fewer bugs if you write them before the system under test, and if they don't have mocks, and if you have enough of them that anything you get wrong the first time will get noticed by the results of the many similar tests.
Open software does not mean non-proprietary. Free software is what your looking for.
I Built a $2.9K/Month Focused Writing
Wi-Fi 6 is finally here
Sure, but also if you neuter a cat, it'll be less prone to fight with other cats or to mark its "territory" with urine.
That's a test for your test, so why only run it once transiently instead of running every time? "Mutant" testing helps with this. It's basically fuzzing your test code to make sure that every line is meaningful.
That to me is optimist are taking the VC route and growing at all cost. Realist are tacking the DHH route and simply just grow.

I dont see how Realist cant succeed. There are lots of Realist winning in life we just dont hear about it. There is also the assumption of realist dont take risk.

I just dont think optimist are the recipes for succeed, but neither are realist destined for failure.
Really? I assumed vaccines wouldn't destroy healthy tissue.
It's not accurate to imply this is so easy.
You're now responsible for your data, security and uptime.
That means patching, backups and plenty of ops work.
Guile has not embraced R6RS:

> R6RS significantly expands the core Scheme language, and standardisesmany non-core functions that implementations—including Guile—have previously done indifferent ways. Guile has been updated to incorporate some of the features of R6RS, and toadjust some existing features to conform to the R6RS specification, but it is by no meansa complete R6RS implementation. SeeSection 7.6

https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/guile.pdf

Neither has Racket, they aren't even calling themselves a scheme any more.
Tangential question, was it difficult for you to receive the development kit for the Nintendo Switch?

I'm creating a game right now and I can't get them to respond. I'd love to hear what worked well for you.
Yes, there are lots of possibilities... but figuring out the business side of things has proven harder than I expected.
I'm glad you mention testicular cancer, which I was diagnosed with in 1982, just as the first extended trials for a chemotherapy were completed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicular_cancer#Chemotherapy). My staging surgery found no metastasis, but a year later it was clear it had spread to my lungs. More surgery, plus four grueling rounds of chemotherapy. This spring I will celebrate 36 years without a relapse.
I Started a Walking Food Tour Business Growing 70% Year over Year