skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You sound really angry about it and you've hung onto it for quite some time. A good friend of mine used to tell me 'who cares?' when I would rant on about things just like you just did. It is honestly startling to hear that in response to a rant. If you answer 'i care!', then that is exactly the problem.

Let it go, it isn't worth it. At the end of the day, I'd say this is your problem to work on. You didn't step back, slow down, forget about the code, and mentor the other developer well enough when you were there. That is kind of exactly what the OP is saying in his post.

(Side note: I've been you many many times and it only hurt me in my career. I actively work against it now and things have been much better.)
Israel didn't seem very welcoming of multiculturalism when they tricked Ethiopian Jewish women into being sterilized in order to keep their numbers down. Apparently some cultures in Israeli multiculturalism are more equal than others.
The Trouble with Crime Statistics
Peter the Wild Boy
Google's customer service is definitely quirky. You have to write up your issue somewhere and then submit it to this strange orange 1990s-looking website. Then they prioritize tickets with input from random strangers on the internet before they can be seen by someone with enough authority to help you. But generally if you can get into the top 30 issues or so, someone will help you.
> The issue was that there was no requirement that TextBlocks should behave like rectangles.

Sure, though that’s not quite what the new code did.

Instead, it added a new abstraction (createBox), and then used that to incidentally assign the same behavior to TextBlocks and Rectangles. Your change could easily be accomplished by changing the last line to check the permissions and call createBox or something else, depending. I’d guess that createBox would also be useful for many other shapes, but if you wanted to do something totally different, like a star with handles at each point, you could just....not call createBox, and write a totally independent “let star()” function that does its own thing; it doesn’t seem like a base class constructor is forcing you to call createBox or anything.

So....this code doesn’t actually seem that bad to me. What am I missing?
I've just read the wikipedia page about her, that's halfway awesome and fucking crazy.
SLAPP normally means a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

In a significantly less expensive variant here, it means strategic letter against public participation.
Convox Platform as a Service
There's an entire book about this, well-known to many artists, "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain". [1]

One of the exercises is to draw a tree. Then to go outside and look at a real tree, and draw what you see.

The two could not be more different.

Many artists will talk about when they "learned to see". Which means: understanding that reality isn't the simplicity of what our brain constructs, but rather the seemingly infinite detail of what is actually out there.

It changes the entire way you look at the world.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Right-Side-Brain-Definitive/d...
> And they are right. Passwords are probably the wrong thing. Give the doctors a hardware token, a smartcard (and fit smartcard readers to everything doctors might expect to use) or use biometrics.

> Might some doctors leave the smartcard in the reader for a PC they often use, then walk away? Yes, yes they might, and that is a behaviour you can start fighting with peer pressure, but doctors are right to think passwords are a waste of their time.

At least the hospitals I've been to this is implemented as an rfid tag on their id badge, so it doubles as access control both for physical and software systems (as well as functioning as a charge card of sorts against the employee's company account for things like the cafeteria).
The secrets of 1980s video game programmers?

1) hardware that doesn't change. One C64 is just like every other C64 out there. You knew what the hardware was and since it doesn't change, you can start exploiting undefined behavior because it will just work [1].

2) The problem domain doesn't change---once a program is done, it's done and any bugs left in are usually not fixed [2]. The problem domain was fixed becuase:

3) The software was limited in scope. When you only have 64K RAM (at best---a lot of machines had less, 48K, 32K, 16K were common sizes) you couldn't have complex software and a lot of what we take for granted these days wasn't possible. A program like Rouge, which originally ran on minicomputers (with way more resources than the 8-bit computers of the 1980s) was still simple compared to what is possible today (it eventually became Net Hack, which wouldn't even run on the minicomputers of the 1980s, and it's still a text based game).

4) The entire program is nothing but optimizations, which make the resulting source code both hard to follow and reuse. There are techniques that no longer make sense (embedding instructions inside instructions to save a byte) or can make the code slower (self-modifying code causing the instruction cache to be flushed) and make it hard to debug.

5) Almost forgot---you're writing everything in assembly. It's not hard, just tedious. That's because at the time, compilers weren't good enough on 8-bit computers, and depending upon the CPU, a high level language might not even be a good match (thinking of C on the 6502---horrible idea).

[1] Of course, except when it doesn't. A game that hits the C64 hard on a PAL based machine may not work properly on a NTSC based machine because the timing is different.

[2] Bug fixes for video games starting happening in the 1990s with the rise of PC gaming. Of course, PCs didn't have fixed hardware.

EDIT: Add point #5.
I ran a stable arch system for 4 years with only one breaking change introduced. Everything else was minor with clear instructions on how to solve it on either main page or the forums
Bing and Google are browsers now?
Of course, we all have had that experience! So you have a choice... realize it is going to happen and learn to deal with it in a productive manner, or just continue to get upset about it. I know which choice I'm working towards...
Not just a processor, but peripherals as well.
Sure, easy for a technical person. That said, Digital Ocean has automated backups, and security mostly consists of making sure you do your updates in a timely fashion. I've literally had to do no other ops work in over a year running NextCloud, and I haven't had a single downtime.

Running a server for yourself and your family is a far smaller effort than administering a public site.
> How you react to the meaning is entirely within your consciousness.

Considering that it is often very easy to guess how people will “react to the meaning” of the sounds you make, it’s often considered polite to refrain from making them when they would probably offend.
Agreed. Tests often have the benefit of defining better interfaces, so the implementation details often matter less and code duplication often works itself out on its own.
I'm 52 many would consider my code a mess. Been a professional coder -> solution architect all my life, I work for me now with my own apps. With my own code I clean things up when I can, but sometimes it isn't worth it. I used to write clean code, spend time doing it but no more.

- Rewriting requires retest, introduces new bugs.

- If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

- Users don't care about clean code. They only care about the end product.

- Developers (less experienced?) obsess about this stuff. It is so expensive. Layers of coding management to deal with it all.

- If your code requires constant maintenance you are doing it wrong.

- Obeying the above rules means you can leave old software behind and generate new software if you want.

I am about to celebrate 10 years of my first software (an app) I wrote for myself. It is still in prod. It is fine, been earning $$ for years. I don't touch it unless I need to support new devices or support API updates. On the flip side, there isn't much code I wrote in my previous professional career that is still live - the reason is vendors only make a profit because they need to generate cashflow constantly, and they do it by breaking the above rules unnecessarily.

Do you work for a vendor? Think about the real reason you are breaking the above rules - the reason is because the extra time is billable. You are not breaking the above rules because it is the best way to write software. You are breaking the above rules because it generates the most profit for the company you work for.
yep, this is why I'm a huge fan of the 80% solution. You'll never get it right, put a system in that flags problematic accounts. If it gets flagged, ask the user "are you SURE?", and if they say yes, put it up for human review, whether that be internal or social in some manner.
Or being ethnically Aryan :/
> treated me like garbage when invited to demo my tech

Do tell this story.
That happens whenever certain usernames trigger different authentication pathways.

There's just nothing you can do about it if some users have passwords but other users have different authentication mechanisms.
DRYing existing code to handle exactly what is needed to support the current uses with no additional axes of variation isn't adding functionality (well, if it handles more than the existing values in the existing axes of variation, it's adding some but arguably de minimis functionality.)

Building code with support for currently-unused variation to support expected future similar-but-not-identical needs, that is, pre-emptively DRYing future code, is adding functionality.
I guess? Well, suffice to say, one does need special equipment to communicate over a VDSL line, it's not just applying a different protocol over a standard NIC.

The only PCI-E VDSL2 card I've seen is the Draytek VigorNIC 132. (Which, BTW, should really also have a low-profile backplate. :/ )

I can't deny I'd be curious to play around with it on an x86 OpenWRT system, but at about 200€, it's a bit pricy...

My current setup has a latency of 8ms, of which I'd speculate that at most 2ms are due to the router+modem? Could an x86 "monster" router+modem bring that down to 0ms?
You might be reading too much into that comment.

Python allows you to do something with memory that Rust has made it a priority to be more concerned with, and that’s sharing.

C also has easily shared memory, much like Python. Point being that Rust wants to make sure that your references are safe to share, whereas Python wants you to share as much as possible and makes it safe by not allowing multiple threads to interact with it.

These are different trade offs, but Rust does allow you to forget about memory management in the same way Python does, but forces you to think how it’s being shared.

That’s the added cost over Python and the extra thought that goes into using the language.
The better approach would be to automatically filter email containing dangerous link, or automatically prevent whatever dangerous thing that happen when that link is clicked. Is it hard ? Sure, the goal is to maintain security without creating additional burden to the user.
My dad’s a physician that believes in homeopathy because his religious guru wrote a book about it. He also listens to Eckhart Tolle. I hope they’re not connected.
Yes, and it sounds ideal but I've had a recurring problem where having snap installed on a system increases the boot time, and apps hang on load. They stop hanging when I install the native app, and use that instead.
I disagree that people should NOT be attached to their code.

Having a sense of ownership for what you write can lead to higher quality systems where people are willing to stand up and fight for what they believe is higher quality.

BUT this importantly depends on the ability to compromise, admit being wrong, and change based on new information from the people who have a sense of ownership over their parts of the codebase. Like you said.
Slightly unrelated, but they also faked reviews on chrome. Just compare reviews on Chrome vs reviews on Firefox.
Hey, thanks for the condescension. You know what else our job as "security personel" (sic) is? Other than literacy, it's matching controls to risk. The guy who talked about "people dying" was a urologist; I can assure you the no one was going to die in his office because of passwords. So, yes, we should reduce friction where it's appropriate, but unless you understand the actual risk model, maybe you should keep your comments to yourself.
Neither does Chicken Scheme

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1s9rg/lead_dev...
I installed it using Snap and Let's Encrypt using this guide [1], and everything worked out of the box. Been running and upgrading it since without a single issue. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[1] https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-inst...
The ones I know of are:

- saying you're under 13 on YouTube (probably elsewhere as well)

- TOS violations that malware performed using your account (eg. using your google session to share malware using drive)

- Using drive to share or store copyrighted content

- spam, eg via gmail
Embodied intelligence, Inductive bias, etc are the right words but we rarely know how to build them into our models in all but the simplest problems :-) Eg: Our reinforcement learning models are largely stupid and without any great inductive biases. That’s why it takes a crazy amount of training and reward tweaking to even do anything simple.

> There are some really brave ideas being kicked around among the researchers who focus on their passion of AI, as opposed to those who post ever higher benchmark scores. They don't optimize their algorithms because they feel the algo should be serviceable out of the box. Cool stuff is happening.

Where do I find out more about this? :-)
There is. A proposition could be filed to stop the law, get enough signatures, and then get voted on during the next election.

If what you’re asking is for an “emergency proposition” where everyone votes now, that’ll never happen.
In a nutshell this captures my argument against functional programming, design patterns, and this whole code fetish cargo cult.

I care about what the code does, not what it looks like. If two different things compile to the same hardware instructions, then it makes no difference to me. Repeat yourself if you want. Make a bunch of indirections via factories and generics if you want. Use a bunch of ugly branching if you want.

It's all so anachronistic. We have self-driving cars, VR, drones, neural nets, machines that can write code themselves, post-quantum cryptography--and you're lecturing me about the $(No One Cares) Pattern from the hottest bestseller of 1994?
The Arcades Project (Full Text; 1927-1940) – Walter Benjamin
> Beyond targeted drug advertisement, medical devices, and the like, you know which people are sedentary, which play sports, who probably smokes, and I'd bet good money there are correlations between certain conditions and shopping habits, religious preference, and even political preferences.

Well, I can tell you that Google's advertising profile for me would already have a pretty good idea for all of those attributes you listed based on my search history, location history, google maps usage, youtube usage, etc.

The healthcare market is an ~8.5 Trillion market globally [1]. Advertising is ~ 1 trillion [2,3]. I admit that I don't know the exact quality of the data cited in these - but they do clearly demonstrate that healthcare is a huge industry. Given that Google wants another profit source besides advertising I think it just conspiratorial to suggest they would throw away the medical opportunity for some marginal advertising gains. Dragonfly leaked, employees are otherwise frustrated with certain things. If employees are talking about what you say then I'll listen to them. But you are just making senseless accusations.

1 - https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190625005862/en/11....

2 - http://towersofzeyron.com/the-advertising-industry-is-now-wo...

3 - https://www.statista.com/topics/990/global-advertising-marke...
You know I think they have this kind of a thing already, it’s called a library. I guess the Innovation here is that you can order drinks.
I agree - far too often I just see "safety critical applications" thrown around and that is definitely not enough of a justification in my mind.

There are alternative ways of getting uncertainty estimates that are far less work.
> You have to be extremely dilligent about verifying input.

That's true of all languages. Null references are a problem of low effort development. Calling it a billion dollar mistake is sensationalist hand-wringing. It accidentally highlighted how carelessly most programs are written, implying that without it developers wouldn't be checking inputs as strictly, because they wouldn't need to. Yes it's another type, but lots of languages have a nil/null and there hasn't been a demonstrative reason to pull it.
Last I tried it (in November), repositories got corrupted.[0]

I wish Carnix would just use Git instead, but I get why that's not happening.

[0]: https://nest.pijul.com/pmeunier/carnix/discussions/39
Follow some of the rust gamedev discussion and it does surprise me that people are trying, albeit with small things.
Triple-A is an entirely different beast, given that for some AAA games development started before rust even went v1.0 (2015). There's a big risk to be the first into this field, struggling to see why any large company with proven track records and developers who can produce what they need would decide to take the chance on a different lang without seeing smaller ones succeed with it first.

I write rust professionally and people seem to strangely hype the language for many of it's non-usecases. A jackhammer should not be used to change your car tires.

Personally doubt the benefits outweigh the extra energy expenditure required over traditional options but good luck to them I guess, especially in an ever-monetised MMO world rife with cheating.
It's important to understand why this is so: it's because the hash is big, so while it might be possible to mount a brute force preimage attack against a password, it is not practical to do so against a hash. So hashing a hash (once) is secure even though hashing a password (once) isn't.
From (I think) an old Joshua Bloch talk on API design, paraphrased:

* If you generalise based on one example, you will get a flexible API that can handle only that example.
* If you generalise based on two examples, you will get a flexible API that can switch between those two examples.
* If you generalise based on three examples, you have a chance of abstracting over the common essence.
I believe the real Groasis inventions are:

- A paper planter with a special coating that lasts for around 2 years. After that the planter will be gone and the plant has roots long enough to get water from the ground.

- The planter also provides warmth at night because the water inside the box get's warm during the day. This is why the condensation happens and also saves little plants from extreme cold.
Don't have to believe it.
Yeah, I'm also stuck here.

The article seems to say that, because you can't produce an upper bound to the amount of time the sgn function will take to run (for all possible inputs), sgn isn't a function. But then... isn't it the same for every single other function?

I think the article is conflating "given a fixed amount of time, one can find an input for which the function will take longer to run" with "the function takes infinite time". The later isn't true: for any given input, no matter how big, one can compute a time such that the function will finish in that time; in other words, the function always finishes, in finite time, for every possible input, no matter how large.

It's possible we're both confused, I suppose. :-)
It's important to note they're using an active form of a flu vaccine for this experiment. I was originally wondering how they can do this with an inactive vaccine (which all flu vaccine used on humans are(?)). Nevertheless, this sounds really awesome!
No. It’s a meme that has almost no technical grounds.
Bing and Github are Microsoft...
Giant, Mysterious Blobs Are Lurking at the Edge of Earth’s Core
> I have a fantasy of Paris as a city of beautiful, elegant people, effortlessly fashionable who walk from outdoor cafe to outdoor cafe where they order espresso and croissants while carrying baguettes under their arms. So when I read the original comment, that (admittedly childish) impression came to mind.

The linked article says:

> Renoux indicates that Japanese media, magazines in particular, often depict Paris as a place where most people on the street look like "stick-thin" models and most women dress in high fashion brands such as Louis Vuitton.

So when OP said he wasn’t talking about size, presumably in reference to that, I read it as a dog whistle too. Especially given the whole “great replacement” conspiracy out there and Trump’s “Paris isn’t Paris anymore.” The whole point of a dog whistle is plausible deniability though, so who knows for sure.
> Tests rarely have bugs, I find, so generally dry isn’t critical

DRY is important for tests, but the areas where it is have probably (if you aren't writing a testing framework or using a language that doesn't have one that covers your use case) largely covered by your testing framework already.
We built EnvKey to solve this exact problem. Check it out - https://www.envkey.com
Sure, but politeness is besides the point. It doesn't change the fact that your reaction is still your responsibility.