skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> That stops working once you're no longer a solo developer

It doesn't. If you have any experience working on C++ projects you will be very aware that deciding which feature is and is not used is the kind of stuff which is defined in the project's coding guidelines docs, along with naming conventions and choice of build system.

With C++ you only have to use a feature introduced after C++11 if you decide you really want to use it. Some projects even in this very day still don't use smart pointers or exceptionsor std::array. Some people still do the old C with classes thing.

Moreover, the world does not come to an end if you arrive at a project and need to learn a feature provided by a programming language.
Russia does not get to dictate which organizations free nations join or do not join.
SBCL: The Assembly Code Breadboard (2014)
Didn't listen to podcast but from other sources I've hear there is a cultural imperative to accept the police version of events because it is 'disrespectful' to doubt their word. Given Japanese deference to authority that seems plausible.
Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's worth trying. For an industry so ostensibly focused on innovation and experimentation, much of tech remains as conservative as any other in terms of trying out new ways of work. Though certainly there are some bright spots opening up to remote:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21764110

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19444960
But it is also a excellent concatenative (left-to-right) language with brilliant procedure definition mechanism. Here as example, an oneliner to draw ascii christmas tree, we made with the kid last year:

? tanne.print tanne.output tanne.shift tanne.split 19 3 3
The headline is a masterclass in weasel words.

1. First, it begs the question. By saying "X admits Y" we are assuming that Y is true. This is very different than writing "X says Y", or "X believes Y" etc etc

2. Then, they carefully chose Y to include the word "may" so that they can claim it is true regardless of its content. As long as the rest of Y isn't literally a tautology, you're good to go. "A teacup may be orbiting Jupiter" etc etc

3. But step 2 is sneaky. The way that the word "may" makes the overall statement true is different than how it functions in the quoted speaker's sentence. In his sentence, he means like "there is a good chance it will never happen." When they use "may" to make Y true, it is invoked in a much weaker sense.

Basically they are reusing the word "may" in two different sentences to achieve a misleading headline. They obviously have skin in the game and I don't expect this to be a fair article.
Well for now I sadly don't see any use above the github search.

What will the first dedicated "discovery" feature be?

Focusing on discovery sounds amazing, but just adding noise to a "perfect" google-like ranking would just degrade the search result overall.

edit: I could imagine ranking harshly for quality of content and a focusing less on direct relevance (e.g. keyword occurrence) but rather "proximity" of the results. With proximity I mean topical or social relation between your query and the result. Look for Wordpress, find other CMS' and WP-plugins.

But quality and proximity are both so much harder to measure than just pulling the keyword matches to the top.

edit2: for visibility of startups I could rather imagine a hand-curated and sorted list of tools
A Norwegian TV show pitted pro stock-pickers against cows shitting in a field
It's not enough to have a vision. The vision has to be correct.
The full quote is:

> People started doing silly things like run containers on top of their cloud providers VMs (creating a second layer of isolation and massive amounts of engineering burden)

Regarding your statement:

> When you need more instances of a service running you replicate a container instance, and if a container instance is idling then you shut it down.

> monitoring resources and managing how container and VM instances are initialized or shut down

You're confusing orchestration with isolation. Orchestration has existed far before containers. You are already paying your cloud provider for isolation.

Containers are not needed for orchestration. I'm going to take a guess here and say you have been in the tech industry for about five years.

And regarding your claim:

> You never have to worry about anything because it just works.

No. Running a Kubernetes or Docker cluster is a non trivial task.

Here's a more likely scenario for running your own container farm on top of the platform your employer already pays for from your cloud provider: you just want to learn Kubernetes and have someone else pay you to do it, despite the lack of business benefit.
I missed this the first time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light (I used Google Scholar to find that first reference).

There are about a dozen references in the 2006ish timeframe.
Added to my bookmarks, thanks. I especially respect the guy after he lashed out at the PC virtue signaller in the comments. How insufferable do people need to get to bitch about gender in an article about programming languages?
Yeah, on top of the issues of infrastructure around payments/settlements/collateral management/kyc laws that often go ignored in these discussions as well as the high correlation of lowering (euro)dollar usage globally with lower global growth rates… ideally you'd have higher growth rates with lower (euro)dollar usage if there was any serious alternative.

Fundamentally speaking, I think non CB backed cryptos (combined with hedging tools via futures/options/swaps/ndfs/etc) have a better chance because they can be used to lower the costs intl of payments/settlements/etc, esp in these times when the trust in central banking becomes more and more contested. But I only see this happening slowly until there's a catalyst to push this to the next level.
Perhaps the U.S. could try implementing a land-value tax.
Do not feed the trolls.

The net number of people adopting C++ in any unit time dwarfs by orders of magnitude the number adopting Rust; and the number already using C++ exceeds that of Rust by many more. That will remain true for a long time. As a consequence, any improvement to C++, either core language or library, has overwhelmingly larger lasting real-world benefit than any corresponding feature in Rust.

Rust pursues benefits by making a class of low-level errors hard to express, at some cost to expressiveness, and at quite substantial cost to adopters who must learn to work around the limitation (which they do). Against such cost it provides some convenient new control flow features, and leaves behind many C and C++ misfeatures that C++ cannot.

C++, instead, pursues benefits by making the language increasingly able to capture semantics in libraries, and thereby deliver thoroughly optimized and tested semantics to users without compromise. The result is that C++ users, by using such libraries, are able to code at a level high above that where the bugs prevented by Rust would manifest, and write less code that could harbor bugs of any kind, overall.

It is not clear whether adoption of high-level coding practices by coders using or switching to C++ will produce more benefit than those adopting Rust, and coding without access to such libraries. I have placed my own bet, and we will see.

But we can say with certainty that every coder who switches to modern, safe C++ from C or C-like C++, or to Rust, is a net win for humanity. And, if Rust in the end fails to grow out of its boutique niche (which is still absolutely possible), everyone later leaving Rust for C++ will bring to it high expectations that will incrementally raise the quality level of new C++ code.

Bad-mouthing of C++ by Rust fans may feel good, but it causes a net harm to humanity by the degree to which it reduces the number of coders who switch to modern C++ from C. The number of C coders who switch to Rust, instead, is far, far too small to compensate for such harm.

So the only defensible, responsible behavior is for C++ and Rust users to promote C++ and Rust (not necessarily in that order) and concentrate on getting coders off C.
You know how you encourage it? High price on parking, and punishing abusers.
This is a BBC programme so should probably link to the BBC page:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p080pgdy
Kind of offtopic: I did some Ruby and I find some of the conventions really confusing; for example, the lack of “()” when calling a method. You never know if you’re accessing a property of calling a method until you grep the code. Am I the only one who feels this?
tldr: a related article on the Australian ABC today claims 99.4% of all criminal cases that go to trail result in a conviction. Japanese prosecutors rely heavily on confessions, which are extracted after extended isolation and sleep deprivation.

wikipedia's take:

'Many Western human rights organizations alleged that the high conviction rate is due to rampant use of conviction solely based on confession. Confessions are often obtained after long periods of questioning by police as those arrested may be held for up to 23 days.'
> a lot of women ask about money early on

To me, that would be a signal to break off the relationship. If someone is only interested in me if my net worth is above a certain number, I'm not interested in them.
Yeah, you're correct. The runtime matters more than tge compiler, though, so Haskell must be real close to C.
> it appears that the ad-placement algo inserts ads at the next available silence

Silence is a part of music like darkness is a part of a painting. To assume that it's "space to fill" is testament to either enormous naivety about or complete disregard for the content itself.
> Their laws prevent it. That's the problem with these comparisons. You have to compare apples to apples.

Oh, OK. Different then. Had better move on.

> I'm sure they have pretty good gun control in North Korea. There's an app for that.

But this glib comparison with North Korea makes a lot more sense.

> No. People don't answer the question because the only honest answer exposes the fallacy in their thinking.

Well, firstly, the questions just aren't very good. It would be like if I had asked

"Do you not believe children should go to school free from the fear of a mass shooting?"

"Do you think believe people have a right to feel safe?"

But I wouldn't be asking them in good faith.

> This is equivalent to: "I have a flat tire. OK, let's change the engine!"

No it isn't. It's generally considered one of many things governments around the world can do to reduce gun violence.

Problems have multiple causes and solutions.

More guns, more homicide.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-an...
I personally don’t have any kind of personal experience for climate warming. Last year in Paris was freaking cold, and people went skiing last christmas eventhough i clearly remember it wasn’t always possible thirty years ago (to be clear, i’m only talking about climate, not deforestation or other environmental issues humans are clearly visibly the cause of).

And i think that’s the crux of the problem on this particular issue : people are told the situation is alarming, and they see absolutely nothing alarming on their day to day lives.
This looks very interesting. Somehow didn't know about Mindforger, even though I read a lot about this subject.

Recently published a blog post about my own knowledge management practices as a software engineer:
https://tkainrad.dev/posts/managing-my-personal-knowledge-ba...
12k in a week. 25k in a month. So about 2:1.
>> So the real question is what density you need to pre-solve the configuration space to make it work?

Yes, that's the main question. I don't know the answer of course but if we're talking about an engineering problem where precision is required, intuitively the more the merrier.

The thing is, with neural nets you can do lots of things in principle and many things "in the lab". When you try to take them in the real world is the tricky bit. Anyway, another poster here is saying we'll see big things in the next five years so let's hold on to our hats for now.
There are plenty of countries where the state owns and manages a substantial proportion of housing. As high as 34% in the Netherlands[1] for example.

[1] http://www.iut.nu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Social-Housing-...
DeFi Fund: What is the return on investing in 10 DeFi protocols?
Actually they're flooding with yuans. 2018 and 19 they opened the gates to avoid the economy crash.
> People started doing silly things like run containers on top of their cloud providers VMs (creating a second layer or isolation and massive amounts of engineering burden)

I've addressed the full quote, and it's entirely wrong and made by someone who clearly has no practical experience running containerized apps. If you read my comment you'll check the points that address that misconception.

> No. Running a Kubernetes or Docker cluster is a non trivial task.

Kubernetes is not containers. It's a container orchestration service. That's an entirely different thing. It's like you are confounding application installers with the OS that runs the application.

And it seems you also confused Docker Swarm, Docker's container orchestration system, with Docker. Those are two entirely different things.

And container orchestration services are not a problem. If you ever get the opportunity to learn about containers and container orchestration services, you'll see that Docker Swarm is trivial to use even in bare VMs or even directly in dedicated hardware, once you get the ingress controller thing sorted out. In cloud providers it's even much simpler because ingress controllers are already provided out of the box and you have nifty UIs to configure everything.

And by the way, I appreciate if you stop rewriting your points midquote and after you get replies addressing the points you rewrite, because you're misrepresenting everything you and I am saying with each edit.
> the fundamental reasoning is to allow the people to have varied political opinions or to disseminate them.

Not quite, the fundamental reason is that a government of the people requires the people engage in civic dialog. It would be logically contradictory to try to set up a nation governed by the people in which they can't speak about the issues facing that nation.

(There are also the artistic and commercial aspects of free speech, but there's a similar hypothetical imperative underlying them as well.)

> This does not cover private companies nor commercial activities.

That's not entirely true. If a private company gets special exemptions from the government, as in the exemptions from liability that a platform enjoys, it can be required to allow speech, or lose those exemptions.

> YouTube already prohibits certain content on their platform, and limits ability to profit from certain content.

They're exercising another right companies have: the right to enter into agreements, which then must bind those company to those agreements.

Companies also have the right, under 1A, to market their services, and if they falsely market their services, they may be liable for fraud.

Broadly, Youtube can't set up terms of service that promise to uphold free speech and then turn around and say, "LOLJK, we're banning flattards."

> Furthermore, please consider that there is no absolute right to say anything you want, it has always been a balance.

No, there's not a balance, at least in the moral sense it's black and white. Speech works like every other right: your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. And it has to work like that; you can't have the right to suppress another person's rights because then rights would be pointless.

The government has a balance to consider, but that's because justice is a blunt instrument.

In the case of speech, the government makes it unlawful to commit fraud, defamation, and conspiracy as those all cause immediate, demonstrable harm. They are well defined in case law and have clear penalties associated with them.

But there's a lot more speech that is morally wrong. You don't have the moral right to shout someone down, nor do you have the right to cause someone pain by deliberately saying hurtful things to them.

We typically don't make those things illegal because they're generally better resolved by softer mechanisms like social opprobrium, and they're difficult to write clear laws on and to try in court. In particular, the government should avoid laws that can be gamed and weaponized.
"Look at the numbers, they are vastly different from what you claim. "

They are "vastly different" because most countries don't share their fair burden. Trump may be wrong in many things, here he is right.

In the PDF you provided "NATO guideline 2%" But hey, why spent it on the military? Let the US spent/fight for us.
Explicit quid pro quos are banned, your concert ticket example showing as such. And the fact that we can’t define or prove every situation where there is quid pro quo is a weakness that is exploited by many rich people, also shown by your example (is that ticket worth $50?). Doesn’t make it the right thing to do, and is not optimal for society in the long term.
I think I understand what you meant by heuristics. I agree that it's impractical to try and hand-code image recognition rules and all attempts to do that in the past have failed as they have in similarly complex domains (like machine translation, say). My concern is particularly about the use of neural networks (or in general machine learning models that learn to approximate a function) in domains where precision is normally required, like engineering. I mean, I know there's plenty of approximation in engineering already but of course we're not talking about computing integrals here (er, I think?).

Anyway I was especially trying to understand the OP's comment about speedup using a neural network. I'm still a bit confused about that. But thanks for the conversation.
And people wonder why shit is so hectic right now. If this woman wanted to give someone $20 of her own hard earned money, her generosity shouldn't be punished. The fact that two people were fired over an act of kindness that totaled $20 is absurd.

Think about how much money it'll cost US Bank to replace both the employee and manager they fired. Over $20 that didn't even come out of their pocket? Sounds pretty clear who the assholes are here.
Not to mention the WTO taking serious damage with the US imposing trade sanctions whenever if feels like it. It's not impossible that the entire system would fall apart if the current US hostility turns out to be more than a four year aberration. I wouldn't be sad to see the Berne Convention go, at least, but I'm not sure what state the world will be in by that point.
This looks a lot like something I have been imagining in my head (and tinkering with building on and off for a while). Thank you, I will for sure try this.

One thing that stands out to me though is the lack of mobile support. I want my note-taking app to also handle my shopping lists, and then I need to be able to access them while in the grocery store on my mobile.

Yes, having my grocery shopping list in a note-taking app is overkill - it's just that I want all my lists and notes in one place.
Excellent observation and you are very correct, at least as much as I can tell.

If you look at my previous posts on HN I've written extensively about this topic.

Ignore some (but not all) of the dissenters on here. I don't mean to be rude, but these fake hosting companies are backed by quite the army of pr crisis tech support people, and they will dogpile on a thread like this quickly. You'll sometimes see them leave Yelp and Google Local reviews of their beloved friendly neighborhood data center too (which is preposterous no one does this in real life).

Anyway the clusters you are seeing do not appear to be about observation as much as destruction. From the analysis that I and others have done, our best guess is that someone is buying out hosting provider after hosting provider, and then peering at the 1 Gbs and 10 Gbs level as much as possible.

The purpose of this is two fold. First you are denying your enemy freedom of movement in that area. So think "squatting" or just taking up the board in monopoly.

The second more disturbing piece is that someone is building a kind of DDOS death star that will be unlike anything seen so far. From all the papers I've read, such an attack is likely to come through some novel IOT exploit and perhaps using one of the newer protocols like MQTT or COAP. But owning this much hosting space would be a terrific backup / serve as good defense for the expected counter attack.

This does not bode well at all for Europe. Even if the internet was off for months in the US the country could recover and rearm. All of Europe on the other hand, if stripped of the internet, could be overtaken in weeks if not days if Russia or China were so motivated.

The enormous capital expenditures that these IaaS providers have been sustaining points to China most certainly. Check out also Choopa, Tucows, Enom, Psychz, Shaw, Sharktech, Joe's Data Center, Hetzner, UnityMedia, Incapsula, and Mimecast.

This report is also very helpful : https://transparencyreport.google.com/safe-browsing/malware
Clojure has only one type. Lux lets you define and declare however many types you want, which is more humane. Clojure is a PITA language where they even have a compiler setting that warns you when the interop with Java requires reflection calls which slow down your code. So get this, Clojure takes away your right to define and see proper types, but it still forces you to declare a half-assed, counter-intuitive version of those types whenever you interop with Java (ie almost always), or your code is going to grind to a standstill. Yet when you deal with other people's Clojure code, you get no types, so it's back to guessing about what their code does. And all of that because Rich Hickey hasn't the slightest understanding of type systems (and I know, I've listened to several of his talks, this without falling asleep).
Question would be moot if we simple got rid of deductions. Only reason to have them is to enable this type of gaming of the system.
It's always a method in Ruby because you can only access @properties in method implementations.

What you're describing holds in e.g. Scala, where it's by design: they feel it should be an easy-to-change implementation detail whether a name is backed by a direct field access or a method. IMO that's a reasonable stance in a functional(ish) world.
In ruby you are always calling a method, you can't access a property from outside a class with normal syntax.
I've worked at a Chinese restaurants that had "No MSG" emblazoned on the menu. Some restaurant owners actually used this as a reason to charge more per dish.