skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Victorian thought is not dead I see.

Well, instead you might incentiveise it through having car pool car parks that are closer to campus, or at least next to a well lit and preferably sheltered area. Then you could publicise the car pool scheme. You could even have a forum for finding other car poopers, and/or an app. Maybe allow people, with their consent, to be matched by approx origin/destination for easier finding.

If you had a computer science or math department then I'm sure they would have people who could solve the ride matching problem.
The whole point of row polymorphism (for both records and variants) is that it allow for implementing open types in a static typing context. And OCaml supports this out of the box whereas Haskell does not.
SpaceX: Crew Dragon Launch Escape Live Demonstration
Let's not pretend there are jobs in Rust or whatever you think replaces C++.
They are not officially counted, but they are often used as an informal indication of strength difference among players.
Devops Pulse
This is absolutely false. Not a single word you have written in this comment is true. This is a pervasive myth that you are perpetuating. If you had read the article, you would know that what you have said is demonstrably false.

There is nothing stopping you from operating on arbitrary JSON in Haskell.

Literally nothing.
We’re thrilled that our good friend Yukihiro Matsumoto, creator of the Ruby programming language, has been able to join us at RubyRussia 2019 as a speaker for the second time, having previously spoken three years ago at RubyRussia 2016.

In the time that we’ve been holding the conference — now more than ten years — Ruby has undergone a great deal of evolution, and Evrone has grown and developed alongside it.

Grigory Petrov, Developer Relations at Evrone, sat down with Mr Matsumoto to hear from him first-hand about being a star, the philosophy behind Ruby’s design and evolution, and a little about Japanese life and culture.
And a firecracker is guaranteed to not explode for at least 3 secs after its lit.
I credit my earlier exposure to BASIC as a very good introduction to programming, because of its bare-bones nature. Too much abstraction would have been overwhelming, to start with - I didn't even understand the purpose of GOSUB for a long while (I knew, mechanically, what it did, but I did not grasp why one would use such a construct instead of just putting all code inline). The simplicity made it an easy outlet for creativity, and pushing the language to its limits and finding the complexity more and more difficult to manage was key to my eventual enlightenment - advanced language constructs felt like gifts, rather than burdens.

Of course this process could be done in an advanced language that grows with the user, but most modern languages are not that - even Python expects the user to understand at least the rudiments of structured flow and objects almost immediately. Lisp (Common or Scheme) isn't it, either - lambda calculus is already far too abstracted from the "series of instructions" model which is a critical foundation for computing in the real world. C, my next step after BASIC, has quite a good balance of available abstraction and a tractable mental model; but the amount of boilerplate (the requirement for main() always seemed baroque to me) and hand holding of the computer (total lack of even trivial type inference) is not ideal for a beginner language.
No, it's not "getting more and more clear glyphosate is a carcinogen". Of course, if you have enough motivated reasoners torturing the evidence, eventually it will confess and tell you anything you want to hear.
Do we need a Decode Congestion hackathon?
When writing OCaml, if I'm unsure of the type I set the type to some impossible value, compile it, and the compiler tells me what the type really is.
You can never access a property in Ruby from outside the object, you are always calling a method. Calling "attr :foo" just defines two methods, "foo" and "foo=" which then can be used to access the property.

I think this is a rather elegant solution to properties, that you always need to expose them with getters and setters and that properties and methods do not share the same namespace.
This was one of the most shocking events I experienced when visiting China.

You read how it’s basically a “police state” but the reality is the people argue and yell at the cops all the time!

Cops in China seem to almost have no authority in regular interactions. My local coworkers would basically just ignore their commands and talk back to them.

Granted, I was in Shanghai and the people I was with were middle class locals, so perhaps that’s why the interactions were like that.

Still, if I acted that way back home, I know I would have been arrested.
Crystal is not Ruby, nor is it anywhere near as fast as C.
I work remotely for the past 6 years and will likely never have an office job again.

I live in my home town and have worked for start ups in Santa Monica, San Francisco, Boston, and New York.

I live in Eastern Connecticut, which is the side on the state that people often do not know about. It's a 2.5 hour drive to New York or Boston. It's not as affluent as the weat side, close to New York.

I do a lot of gardening when the weather permits.

https://russell.ballestrini.net/how-to-work-from-home-the-ro...
Configuring Nginx to Proxy Webhooks
> In rail, everything happening within visual range is basically too late to even bother

Not really. EMU passenger trains, such as subway trains, do have good acceleration times--good enough that it's limited by passenger comfort, not by physical hardware. This limit is about 1 m/s², with emergency brake conditions reaching 3 m/s² (note that the latter does imply several passengers are going to be nursing injuries--there's no seat belts after all). That's roughly comparable to typical passenger vehicles.

Freight trains have much longer braking distances, but that's a factor of 10,000 tons moving at 50mph has an insane momentum combined with relatively few axles being able to contribute to stopping force.

The main reason you need large distances between trains: switches. To control where a train goes requires moving a physical piece of infrastructure at the switch. You can't move the switch until the previous train clears it, and you don't want to let the subsequent train reserve a path over it until it switches into a new position--if the switch gets stuck in the middle, the train derails instead (or worse). The "brick-wall" principal follows from this situation.
But I believe this is also with the spirit of the article. Your functions still assume something about input and are polymorphic over everything else in it.

AFAIK this can also be done in a type safe manner in languages which support extensible records/row polymorphism.
As a response to whoever thinks ftvy was arming HN community by doing unreasonable speculation (and downvoted both our comments), let me quote the first, most upvoted comment on another thread, currently on the main page.

> I agree in part in that I am skeptical that full self-driving cars will happen in the next few years, but he is completely wrong when it comes to the long term. Not only will the tech get as good as humans, but most forget to account for the fact that the environment will meet the cars part way. [..]

As you can see, speculation is well accepted in the HN community. This is why I think spritecranberry's comment was unfair.

Full thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22085756
Shared-memory multi-threading is only one piece of the puzzle though. A lot of existing code also depends on synchronous I/O (fopen, ...), or want to execute "long running loops", these are also currently not possible when running in a web browser context, at least not without hacks and workarounds.

Ideally, libraries should only use a very small subset of the POSIX / C-runtime APIs (ideally none which need to call into the underlying operating system), and provide ways for the library user to override this functionality, or not depend on those at all (simple example: allow to provide input data via memory instead of letting the library call into the C runtime I/O functions). Same for threading: instead of spawning threads inside the library, provide an API which takes "chunks of work", and let the library user care about doing this across multiple threads.
Spending 200k to get an art degree IS a bad decision. Watch the interviews of people with massive debt. I have yet to see a doctor or dentist or computer programmer.

Free public education seems like a fine solution for this. I have no problems with art degrees. I may go back and get one when I am ready to retire. But society doesn’t need to pay or be blamed for a choice for a 200k private degree that won’t pay itself back.
I wouldn’t call CloudFormation or Terraform “Orchestration” despite what Wikipedia says.

Neither adjust resources dynamically based on health checks, workload, a certain time or based on resources available on the underlying VM.

I don’t know the other tools but it makes me doubt the entire Wikipedia article based on what I know.
Replying to my own comment cuz, well, I wrote this long post at 3 AM and one is apt to write some incoherent stuff at 3 AM. So, forgive me for any parts that don't make much sense :P Would be happy to elaborate on anything for anyone interested.
Sorry but the founder wants his specific UI, I can't do anything about it, my job is to do it.
Instagram: The Guy Who’s Taking Away the Likes
"Walking" is not transportation infrastructure, it is a lack of transportation infrastructure. That's doesn't mean walking is bad (walking is great!), but it doesn't count as transit infrastructure.

Claiming walking as "transportation infrastructure" is like saying a homeless man's sleeping bag is "housing infrastructure".

> Manhattan has infrastructure for 1.6 million residents and 1.5 million commuters.

Except it doesn't quite, though, does it? Despite Manhattan being one of the wealthiest places in America, and despite it having the highest funded transit agency in the nation, Manhattan is critically short on transportation infrastructure for it's residents. It has the second-worst commute times in the nation (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-top-20-worst...) and its transit agency is notorious for delays and problems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_transit_cri...) . NYC transportation is so bad that chartering a private helicopter is a viable alternative - https://www.uber.com/blog/new-york-city/uber-copter/

(Again, I support alternative public transit and despite NYC's issues, we should still be building more subways and trains across the US. But the idea that they are some sort of panacea is a lie, the idea that "save money" is not true, and the idea that they are cheaper for individual persons to use is only true if they are subsidized to an exceptionally higher dollar amount, far above any that public car transport ever has been).

> Try doing that (housing 1.6 million residents in 23 square miles) in the suburbs

Wait, no one is arguing that density isn't dense -- obviously Manhattan is one of the densest places in the US, far denser than any suburb. I agree entirely.

But also, almost no one can afford to live in Manhattan, and most municipalities could never handle the cost nor the complexity of building/maintaining another Manhattan. (Arguably, NYC itself sometimes can't handle the cost/complexity of maintaining Manhattan).

Only 0.3% of Americans live in Manhattan. ~99% of the 1+ million residents of my hometown here in Michigan will never be able to afford to live in Manhattan or any place like it. Every single adult here would need a 200-400% raise before we could afford to live a dense urban lifestyle anything like how Manhattanites do.

No one is arguing that density isn't dense. The argument is that density is inherently more complicated, inherently more expensive, and requires massive amounts of extra money to pull off.
Not OP, but I'm guessing it's something similar to how I watched fast moving logs to look for anomalies:

I reduced text size enough, to a point it wasn't really text I was looking, but patterns of line content and length. This was enough to see that things were running proper.
I actually really enjoy your views on dynamic typing.

But, if we agree on this definition then is it not an admittance that "dynamic type systems" don't actually exist and instead we are simply talking about evaluation/validation being programatically specified by the programmer instead of embedded evaluation/validation by the compiler and/or runtime? And since it is being specified by the programmer, then we run into the possibility of that validation being incorrectly implemented or possibly forgotten entirely.

Any type system that had better verification of self-programmed type validation code from the programmer would solve this issue, no?
Thanks for the great questions.

Business Model/Market:
As of today, we monetize by selling QR code hats which when scanned lead to your profile page showing how much money you have. This is because this first version is really a status symbol, b2c product, we want to get traction by connecting with influencers. In other words, what you see now is the "Influencer Tier".

In the future we plan to build a premium tier which enables you to directly show a history of your networth over months and weeks. This is useful for internet ecommerce gurus who need financial credibility in order to sell their product. These additional features which offer more transparency form what will call the "Guru Tier".

TOS/Privacy:
Great call out. We need to add more transparency about ourselves as the founders as well. We need an about page. This trust is something we are going to earn over time by being open about who we are, and how this works (including how we plan to make money).

Real Estate/Debt:
As of today, we don't support verification of real estate. But if these is a recurring request, then its a feature we could work towards in the future. As for debt, you aren't required to add a financial account, so people could just omit their debt. This is a legitimate gap that I don't know how to solve yet.
Rough Trade: We're selling more records than ever
This claim begs the question of how new jobs are created in the first place.
I suggest watching an interview with Eva Zeisel and how sound her mind is:
https://www.ted.com/talks/eva_zeisel_the_playful_search_for_...
For an actual example, Woody Allen’s marriage to his adopted daughter essentially resulted in her being her own mother.
Yes, that’s true. I’m not disputing that. Perhaps I misinterpreted your previous comment. I think the point I want to make is that in the argument between static vs dynamic, the structural vs nominal argument is not really relevant.
Yes, especially for this v0.1 its a status thing. It's really focused on relatively liquid assets. But of course, once we master these easy asset categories and build a product that people want to use, we can work towards these more complex asset categories.
Just needs a side by side and 'no more of this' or a big red strike through the image or something.
Very cool idea.

I have been thinking about how augmented reality might help with notes/todos and a memory palace might be it. Still unsure about how to execute this but intriguing nonetheless.
I'm sure they would,but not everyone wants to quit work and even fewer people can afford to do so.
Identifying Earth-impacting asteroids using a neural network
You can compile Hearbleed to WASM, secure by default, as long C or any of its derived languages are not used.
You'd love Perl. Just pass @_ through your callstack. Want a new value available 20 functions deep that is available at the top? Just toss it in @_ at the top and you are done.

The problem? Every one of your 20 levels of functions/subroutines has an unnamed grab bag of variables. You get to keep that in your head. If you want to know if you have a value in a given branch of code, your best bet, aside from reading the code of the entire callstack, is to dump @_ in a print statement and run the entire program and get it to call the function you are in. Oh, and if one of those values contains a few screens worth of data, you will need to filter that out manually. Even "documentation" in the form of comments or tests will be unreliable due to comment-rot or mocked test assumptions.

Even in Python, I'll often have to go up the callstack to know what a named parameter actually is. And if similar shenanigans are going on, I again have to pull out a debugger or print statements to know what I can do with an argument.

With a static type, I see plain as the text on my screen what type I have as a parameter and I immediately know what I can do with it. As weak as Go's type system is, it is worlds better than Perl and Python for maintaining and creating large, non-trivial codebases. The price is passing it around at the time of writing.
Commodore 64C Case Faithfully Recreates Original in Wood
Because companies will reduce the salary until the net benefit is 0. You still want a small nudge/incentive to encourage people to move.
Disney drops Fox name, will rebrand as 20th Century Studios
It's not really the money, it's the level of education and ambition. I worked remotely from Mount Pleasant, Michigan for a year and had a difficult time finding anyone to talk with about things that were interesting to me. The only group on Meetups.com was "Housewives of Mount Pleasant."

Friends are peers that have similar life experiences and values (and humor). Sometimes people like that are hard to find.
I agree and feel the same, but there are limits somewhere.

Prince Harry isn't seriously going to go down the pub for regular meet ups with his friends from the ex mining town. They might get on if they have a chat, but that's not the point.

I'm specifically referring to the big CoL arbs, not the situation in which someone just lives like, further out from a major metro because they don't have to commute.
Thank you! It's the sort of thing I wish I knew when I was first learning about it, but didn't have the time to investigate deeper at the time, so I hope it reaches those who need it.
I don't understand languages like Ruby and Perl and their supposed emphasis on "human design." My sense of what a human designed language would be is a lot more like Scheme: extremely simple, fundamental abstractions which, when composed, enable a variety of different strategies for solving problems.

Ruby, in contrast, seems like an absurdly complicated concatenation of weird features and strange syntax. When I look at Ruby my eyes glaze over with all the unnecessary syntactic doodads and peculiar abstractions. Why anyone would want to complicate their lives with all that silliness is beyond me.

And yet Scheme languishes and Ruby, for a time, anyway, burned brightly. I'm clearly the weird one.
It gives a turn-the-crank construction for programming languages.

* Describe the values you wish to study

* Find a category whose objects are the types of your values

* Give the category Cartesian closed structure

And now you have a lambda calculus with exactly the structures that you want to study!

MarshallB is an example of a language constructed this way.
They liked that we were building something cool for their server, but our approach was so different from theirs (in ways that went way beyond the language) that our module wasn't ever going to become officially part of Nginx or anything.
In this case I interpret "backed by" as that the central bank will give you the corresponding amount of gold for your currency. But, the opposite would not be true, they won't give you currency for gold alone, you'd have to also provide the same kind of backing as for non gold backed currency.

So paid in gold or the currency, you'd get the same number of apples in each case. But if you'd convert the currency to gold via the central bank (rather than on the open market) you'd get 1/5 as many apples in the second case.

In normal operations this won't make any difference, no one in their right mind would use the central bank rather than the open market to buy gold. But it means that the central bank can't just print money as they see fit, reducing the risk of runaway inflation. It also acts as insurance in the case of runaway inflation, you'll lose at most 80% of the value.
Which particular TypeScript ORM and web stack did you go with?
This is generally one of the philosophical differences I see between the RHAT family of distributions and some others (those that I personally favor), that seamless upgrades are generally not well supported from each major version to next.

For example, and I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, and there are caveats; for years, I've maintained Debian and Ubuntu machines which I've used mostly staying inside of the bounds of the apt package manager, and since many years I've never had a need to question whether I could "dist-upgrade" from one release to the next. It just works.

It is a supported operation, and reliably so. At my current job, we use Amazon Linux, a distro which I understand to be mostly derived from CentOS with Amazon addons, (and I'm open to being corrected if anybody knows better, but...) one of the things we're coping with right now is that Amazon Linux 2 does not have an upgrade path from Amazon Linux 1. We are on the hook to rebuild those machines, it's a fact that has given us pause to seriously re-evaluate whether we want to stay on the same train, or get off and switch to another paradigm broadly.

I don't strongly see this as a decision that Amazon made, because I'm fairly sure it's also true that upgrades from eg CentOS 6 to 7 are unsupported. And CentOS apparently got this idea from RedHat Enterprise Linux upstream, which provides this helpful page locked behind paywall[1], but from above the fold you can tell at least one thing without logging in: there are only a limited set of cases where upgrades are supported, even with a paid subscription to RHEL.

[1]: https://access.redhat.com/solutions/637583
This is talking about the case where you're just testing something out – prototyping it for a few branches before implementing it for the whole thing. In this case, _you_ are your own user, so it doesn't matter if you see the type errors.
Nice that someone put in the time to write up arguments I've been having for years, or at least since JS rose in popularity.
How to defend yourself against targeted attacks
> I don't understand languages like Ruby and Perl and their supposed emphasis on "human design." [...] Ruby, in contrast, seems like an absurdly complicated concatenation of weird features and strange syntax.

Sounds like a human (natural) language to me ...
Hey,

I was just curious how a tool like this is built. I'm not saying I want to know every intricate detail, but how would one crawl the entire web over and over for such a cheap price ?
You mean a compiler?
It isn’t even a benefit, really. Statically typed languages don’t force you to model things with types; you’re completely free to use strings and doubles everywhere and take on all the technical debt you want.

People who are only used to dynamic languages may feel like a static language’s type checker is an overbearing teacher (from the 1950s) standing over your shoulder, just waiting to jump on you for every silly mistake! While that feeling is common and valid as you’re learning the language, when you become fluent you see the compiler as more of an ally. You can call on it with a keystroke and it will find many problems that would otherwise only happen at runtime, possibly months or even years in the future!

Moreover, in more advanced languages (such as dependent typed languages), the compiler can actually infer the body of your functions which leads to a totally different style of programming that feels like a snippet plugin on steroids.
Are you using an open-source web crawler like Stormcrawler / Apache Nutch or are you using Google queries as others suggested?
Updating a million rows doesn’t have to be a stressful all-nighter