skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not exactly the setup you’re talking about but I use a series of raspberry pi’s each with these great little hifiberry amps and running Volumio software to achieve whole house audio. There’s a plug-in called snapcast that allows for a server that streams audio to all the clients, keeping everything in sync. I control volumes of various rooms/zones through home assistant. Works really well for me.
Exactly it's not third party, hopefully not selling the tracking info and it's aimed at the same interest group that reads the article. Might even be useful as opposed to all the targeting ads that never ever made sense to me.
AWS Secrets Manager is fine if you're in that cloud. We inject all our secrets into the API containers' environments when they're deployed. For some things that have refresh tokens and access tokens with shorter lifetimes, we use the Secrets Manager API to fetch them when necessary at runtime.
I am a researcher at an algo trading shop. We are moving our core libraries from rust+python to Julia.

It really is amazingly powerful and has great interop with python (eg seamless zero copy array sharing).

In the past one had to muck about with cython/c/numpy api to speed things up, now one can just write the functionality in Julia and make it available in both ecosystems.

Python will likely remain the premier language to do research in, but more and more work can move to Julia which is much better at anything not immediately vectorizable.
The first circumstance that comes to mind is when you don’t have app installation privileges.
Despite the positive tone, what really struck me in this article was that they struggle with getting people to work on the compiler because it is too complex.

It just confirms my main criticism against advance statically typed languages: They are simply too complex.

It is why I have more faith in languages like Julia, because you can achieve a tremendous amounts of power, expressiveness and performance in a relatively simple language.

Dynamic typing gives you simplicity in the type system which is impossible to achieve with static type checking.

Long term this has profound implications. People can keep hacking on and expanding Julia because they can wrap their head around the language. You don't need to be Einstein to grok it.

I think you may also see Clojure overtake Scala for the same reason. The simplicity of Clojure may in the long run overtake Scala although Scala benefits a lot from similarity to Java at a superficial level.
While you may or may not have trust in the US government protecting your rights, there was a law passed years ago that somewhat addresses your concern.

GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act)
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-110s358rs/pdf/BILL...
I've never understood why people don't prefer desktop email clients. Thunderbird is really great.

I remember growing up, we used Outlook with our ISP-provided email addresses. The first time I ever saw webmail (it was probably Yahoo or Hotmail at the time) I was just confused. To me, web browsers are for browsing the web, and email clients are for accessing email. Eh, but what do I know.
The article was interesting though.
I'd imagine the death toll from Fukushima will probably not be fully estimable for a few years yet.
Does anyone know how do LLVM's demanded bits compare to 'stamps' in compilers like Graal?
Requesting 23andMe Account Closure
Women are women, men are males.
Nothing is ever enough.

The only solution is to give our money to the overlords.
Not going to happen. They will bow to the needs of the USA, as Brazil has now done in its prosecution of Greenwald.

Wikileaks is sitting on a ton of info about the ADF's war crimes as well, and the Australian government want nothing more than to prevent the intense scrutiny of its proud fighting force by the worlds' people that would result from such a leak. They are fighting tooth and nail to ensure that Wikileaks is invalidated completely in the minds of the Australian public, who generally have very little temerity when it comes to criticism of their armed forces actions.

EDIT: Besides which, there is Australia's heinous Sedition law, which is being floated as the means by which Assange would be silenced were he to land back in Australias territory.
> There's no "Send after X duration" or "Send at X time", so you can't write something at 3am and schedule it to be sent during work hours.

You can though. Gmail supports the open source protocol called IMAP(v4) and SMTP. You can use a different MUA than the webmail one, such as (partly FOSS) Mailspring, which has this feature. Heck, you could even use 'at' to send an e-mail from CLI, using any SMTP server you got authorized access to (including Gmail).

> I've said the same thing about FastMail before, these email guys SUCK at innovation.

I don't know about that. I've never used FastMail. I do know these FastMail people are behind JMAP [1], a successor of IMAP4. They're behind the IETF draft of it as well.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSON_Meta_Application_Protocol
uBlock Origin + these settings make gmail very clean and distraction-free. It's also much easier to use for non-techies (parents, grandmas) with these settings:

[General] Hover actions: Disable

[General] Smart Reply: Off

[General] Button labels: Text

[Inbox] Inbox type: Unread first [see note]

[Inbox] Importance markers: No markers

[Inbox] Filtered mail: Don't override

[Chat] Chat off

[Advanced] Unread message icon: Enable

[Settings icon] > Display Density > Compact

NOTE: I find the [Inbox type] setting of "Unread First" works extremely well for myself and others, but this is a preference you will want to set based on the user. Either way, get rid of the multi-tabs!
A quick google search says if we only used nuclear we'd get 40g of waste per person per year assuming western energy consumption standards[1].

Multiply by 8*10^9 people (a little more than the current world population) and you get 320,000 metric tons which is about 3/5th the capacity of the largest oil tankers.

Finding a place for that much waste per year is a political problem, not a technical problem. There's plenty of geologically "safe enough to outlast the radioactivity" places we could dig a deep hole (thanks to the fossil fuel industry that is a solved problem) to dump that much waste into.

[1] https://whatisnuclear.com/assets/waste_per_person.pdf (no idea on source bias here, I didn't read the whole thing)
Wait, hold on a minute here, I was assured that the one thing Assange should have done years ago was turn himself over to the authorities and let justice take his course. Can someone explain to me how things could have diverged so badly from the expected path?
Yes, it requires me to create an account to be able to read the article. And this, kids, is why you shouldn't use Medium if you want people to read your stuff!
you could do it as a personal side project without merging it into the mainline and you might learn one of three things:

- handrolled is better and the framework stinks

- there are some disadvantages to the framework, but after doing it all by hand you also understand how it makes a lot of things easier

- it's a tradeoff that largely amounts to which kinds of problems you're personally more willing to put up with (quite likely outcome)

in any case you would learn something
Ask HN: Idea feedback – Service where people pay to reach your inbox
Problem - The bar to sending an email is too low resulting in casual low-effort messages. These messages take up time and attention and are difficult to filter. For instance, recruiter spam.

Solution - A service where a person pays a nominal amount, say $2, to land in your inbox. These messages will have 'PRIORITY INBOX' in their subject. This lets you filter the high-effort messages at a glance.

Possible use cases

1. Recruiter spam - This will let you filter the serious from the casual requests at a glance. Messages with 'PRIORITY INBOX' in the subject tell you the recruiter paid to get your attention and likely worth your time.

2. For an influencer - Say you run a blog and review developer tools every week. If you get tons of requests to cover different tools, you could use this service to filter out low-effort requests

3. Mentor-mentee - As mentor you can filter high-effort queries via this service. As the sender pays to reach your inbox, the messages are likely to be more focused so that you respond

This model can apply to other types of unsolicited messages where

a) Sender wants to stand-out from the generic low effort messages

b) Receiver wants to quickly filter high-effort and casual messages

I'd like to get HN's thoughts on

1. If you see value in such a service

2. For what type of messages, filtering quality and low-effort messages is of most value to you? (like developer-recruiter, mentor-mentee)

3. What concerns about this service would keep you from using it? (Assuming privacy and mail deliverability are handled to your satisfaction)

I've started work on this product. If you want to join private beta, signup here - https://airtable.com/shr6ifqw3468JFT0H
If you’re in the East, please consider Rust
> Can anyone give a specific example of code they've worked with that was "too clever"?

-I remember being called to help rewrite a few lines of Perl (the other developer didn't manage to do it): it took me two or three hours with constantly looking at a manual to rewrite these few lines in a Perl that a beginner could understand.

The end result had the same line number than the previous version..

-Configuration files made of C++ template for dubious reasons..
> Legally irrelevant.

What is this, a court of law?

> Please tell us how, then. Preferably in a way unlike the whole GDPR cookie policy fiasco.

You don't get to blame the GDPR for those pointless pop-ups webmasters choose to display that are not even remotely compliant.

> Where you can impose your wishes on other's product choices? This is not a company usurping its monopoly, it's a niche product tweak.

Microsoft is the one which tries to impose its choices on others. In any case it wouldn't be me but us, we live in a democracy.

MS Office and Google search aren't niche products either.
If by right of center you mean Republicans and not say Chinese or Japanese, who also fit the bill.

(All of which are just as conservative. Chinese believe in circumstance, Japanese believe in maximum effort in current circumstance with a few key choices, Republicans believe any decision is mostly on the individual.)

It's never an absolute, but there is a big difference between living as if effort is a major thing that matters and believing it is the only thing that matters or more important than the other two.

Former can get you to push harder, latter brings nothing good - it is a problem because it brings pathologies especially blame, false hope and exploitation.

Ultimately there are only a few impactful things most of us can control. Therefore these things are important.

These are key decisions and it is rather hard to change them. The unfortunate fact is that we get to make them too early when we're inexperienced and some are still dumb. And you get few or no retries.
(High school, college, these impact where you live, with whom, your late life social circles, even health.)

Whether you become bitter because of this is up to you.
+2 for Thunderbird
I prefer my legacy desktop client that everyone else at my company bemoans.
You were lied to - Assange is in the target of a large, highly profitable military-industrial-complex. Actual justice is not on the table; anyone paying attention has known this for years.
Excuse me but what's the manager supposed to do again?
Virus are like 30k base pairs. It's a quite short sequence for neural networks to tackle.

You can already use GPT-2 to generate compiled code already. You train it on known viruses and have it predict new variants.

You can also for better sample efficiency, jointly train to predict for any measurable characteristics you like, for example mortality or propagation speed, you then synthesize the various proposed DNA sequences, and inject them into hosts. Compare the results with the prediction and update your models accordingly.

Of course you will have plenty of non functioning organism, but that's probably a more efficient way of exploring this search space than what nature does with random mutations and cross-overs.

It's like giving virus the ability to virtually meet-up in the hall of fame to evolve faster.
Within the scope of a linked C library, this is true. But when your Python code is shuttling chunks of data between libraries it's less so. Pure Julia has the advantage that it can perform global optimisations that Python-wrapping-C can't.
China spent first days of Wuhan outbreak arresting people who posted about it
Most compilers are very complex because generating performant code on modern hardware is hard. I don't think the complexity of the type system make much of a difference. Of course many new languages (like Julia) outsource a large part of the complexity to LLVM.
It sounds like you read an absurd fan fiction. The notion is absolutely ludicrous for a variety of reasons that are too boring to get into here, but it is absolutely remarkable the nonsense parroted about 23andme on HN.
Static also has the quality of lacking scale, and containing spurious signal that your visual cortex tries to lock onto but never can. I always read the neuromancer sky as having that same kind of depthless gray and false motion that I associate with tv snow. A color you can see but can’t rest your eyes on.
Same here and I dont miss either one. Duckduckgo is actually better than google do to googles cencorship algorythms messing up search.
If there's still some competition in the car market, then any single manufacturer can break this whole plan by going low-cost, capturing market shares just by not playing the bundling game.

Actually, the un bundling has already started with EV: you pay once for a car and a few cents per Kwh (and, when self-driving comes around, just a few cents per miles), and voilà: no more expensive fuels and car maintenance, and no more war to fund either.
> Aumann's theorem applies to me in as much as my goal in any conversation/interaction is to optimise for consensus-building

But Aumann's theorem is true for rationalists only. I checked wikipedia artice, and seems that it is not just about bayesian rationality as I thought, it is about any rationality. Why do you think, that you are rational agent? All the psychology shows that people are irrational beings.

> It seems to me that you are playing a non-cooperative game.
> That signals to me that you aren't even playing by the same rules as me.

Maybe I am. Why should I? What could I gain from being cooperative in this particular case? What could I gain from following your rules?

> You are trying to 'be right.

No, I'm trying to make a point. I'm not interested in the search for consensus. I need no consensus. I made a point. You have a choice to understand it or to not understand. You have a choice to agree or to disagree. I'm interested in your understanding, but I'm not interested in your agreement. Your disagreement is much more fun, it could be much more educational for me. It is more educational for you also, though it is more about your gain, then mine. An agreement is boring and useless.

> So if you dislike the word 'methods'

No, it is misunderstanding. I'm trying to say, that methods are also beliefs, or they based on beliefs.

> Then it's false. So what? You seem like you belong to the Church of Truth also...
> All models are wrong, but some are useful --George Box

Of course all models are wrong, but some are useful. Moreover, our mind can work only with models. Logic is one of such a models, it can simplify a lot of cases by reducing them into true/false statements. Either you have beliefs or you have not. Isn't it? Or your point that it is not so simple and dichotomy cannot capture all relevant properties of the problem? Could you propose some other model which we can use to speak about your beliefs that you take as granted and do not question?

> Since you are the one making positive claims about 'my beliefs', then (by the rules I am guessing you subscribe to, but I don't) the burden of proof is on you?

I cannot prove that, because to prove I need to find an example of your belief. It is a hard work by itself and it is more so, because English is not my native language. But I can give you tools to find your beliefs which you had not questioned yet. Dig your methods, they are themselves based on assumptions.
My first thought was, here is someone technically skilled enough to modify the css of a page they do not own, yet they aren't blocking ads with an adblocker? I hope they did not waste the time on hiding the ads manually..
It's a free service. Free as in free beer. There are real costs in hosting an email service, they need to pay for it somehow.

If you don't want ads, just pay for a G-suite account.
You summarised very well many problems with this article.

I'd like to add one more. They draw a comparison between "a preschooler who is often read to by a caregiver" and "a preschooler who likely spends an average of two hours a day playing on screens".

I'm sure many kids correspond to both descriptions.
It's ugly on a white background because it looks like a turd. However, when it's the background it looks nice and organic.
To fix this once and for all, just use Fastmail. It has a beautiful and fast interface. And you can use your own domain, so you're not stuck with Google 4 life...
This post highlights my biggest problem with the language: it's about the how, not about the why. For example, dependent types. They add significant complexity to the language and are intended to help with correctness. But are they an effective way to achieve it compared to alternatives? The fact that even current formal verification research is mostly looking elsewhere seems to suggest that the answer is likely negative, so why focus on them now? Or algebraic effects, about which the article says, "These effect-system libraries may help to achieve a boilerplate-free nirvana of tracking algebraic effects at much more granular levels." But is that even a worthwhile goal? Why is it nirvana to more easily do something that might not be worth doing at all?

Researchers who study some technique X ask themselves how best to use X to do Y, and publish a series of papers on the subject, but practitioners don't care about the answer to that question because they don't care about that question at all. They want to know how best to do Y, period. One could say that every language, once designed, is committed to some techniques that it tries to employ in full effect. But any product made for practical use should at least strive to begin with the why rather than the how, both in its original design and throughout its evolution. I work with designers of a popular programming language, and I see them spending literally years first trying to answer the why or the what before getting to the how. So either Haskell is a language intended as a research tool for those studying some particular techniques -- which is a very worthy goal but not one that helps me achieve mine -- or it's intended to provide entertainment for practitioners who are particularly drawn to its style. Either way, it's not a language that's designed to solve a problem for practitioners (and if it is, it doesn't seem that testing whether it actually does so successfully is a priority).

I think it's important to have languages for language research, but if that's what they are, don't try to present them as something else. And BTW, at ~0.06% of US market share -- less than Clojure, Elixir, Rust and Fortran, about the same as Erlang and Delphi, and slightly more than Lisp, F# and Elm -- and little or no growth (https://www.hiringlab.org/2019/11/19/todays-top-tech-skills/), I wouldn't call Haskell a "popular language," as this post does, just yet.
Good to see that there are some other competitors looking to emerge. I've had several discussions with my colleagues who can't stand Mint, have used YNAB to life-changing effect, but feel like they've "outgrown" the YNAB philosophy as it's targeted towards people still looking to set a solid financial foundation. They also have to straddle multiple tools for different purposes - YNAB for budgeting, Personal Capital for investment tracking, typically. Looks like you're aiming to fill in the gap there. Looking forward to seeing what y'all come up with!
Great news for me! I actually do Julia training. My colleagues do Python training. But we don't seem to be quit at the critical mass yet to gain a lot of training requests for Julia. But I am an optimist. There seems to be a shift going on. 2020 could be a breakout year for Julia.

A lot of my job the way I see it at the moment is to try to learn about people's experience switching to Julia to help explain to people why it would benefit them.

How did you guy actually end up switching to Julia? Was it a careful analysis ordered from the top, or was there more like some Julia evangelists who bugged people until they tried it an realized it was actually quite useful?

I used to work in the oil industry, and tried to convince people to try Julia. It would have been a huge advantage over our Python interface in terms of performance but it was a very hard sell. People are conservative. They are very reluctant to try new things. So I am always curious how other people pull off making a change happen.
> I believe that I don't have any beliefs.

> You might recognise the above as a manifestation of the Liar's paradox.

Yes, fine point. Much shorter then mine version and much clearer.
I'd like to see someone use a procedurally generated world with a chat bot text description to add flavor to it. The author highlights the problem of procedural worlds in the article as being endless expanses of bland repetition but what if that just served as the armature onto which you add the bizarre imaginings of GPT-2. Use the procedural world to seed chat bot and then use the chat bot output to set the description and parameters of a simulation.
Same here. It load amazingly quickly and fulfills all my email needs. I'm using this simple userscript for VIM-like keyboard shortcuts:

https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/389680-google-mail-gmail-b...
Exactly, and even then this person is far better than someone who is actively avoiding work (it happens, perhaps more often in bigger companies) and never finishing anything. You could see this as a chance to help this person or as a signal that you yourself, the boss, has inadequately communicated the vision and mission of the work. I do avoid this question myself but I really don't blame people for asking. It can start a nice conversation: What would you do? It may just be that someone is brilliant but very insecure.

I don't like this piece. Typical advice from an extrovert with a big mouth. Try being helpful if you see a person lacking part of what is needed to do a job.
This feels so empty, what the article thinks is the status game just sounds like normal meeting new people stuff. Obviously there are always status indicators tied to interests, but I feel like I’m playing the make a new friend game not some philosophical keeping up with the Joneses
Exactly. The people making all the fuss in this thread, are the people that are probably already blocking via one or more solutions.

"Don't track me!"

I can't, you are blocking it

"You shouldn't be tracking me!"
the symptoms of anxiety and adhd can be very similar.
Are all the GTFS feeds that google maps consumes necessarily open? I've been searching for a GTFS datasource for TfL (Transport for London) data but couldn't find anything. Google maps of course has that data.
I created this https://github.com/imvetri/ui-editor#step-by-step-tutorials-...

I would like to know what to do next if you could provide some suggestion.
Gmail's keyboard shortcuts are good (at least if you're a vim user). You can easily get them in a desktop client with Mailspring though.