skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I was always wondering why no one steals luggage at the airport. You can walk in and take stuff!
Combining FP and OOP is not a practical goal in and of itself, either (although it is a research goal for other languages led by researchers, such as Scala). At best, it's a means to some end, and Brian Goetz treats it as such. He cares more about the why than the how.
Having driven in Naples, I'm not surprised Neapolitans are intimately familiar with death...
Jacksongrace0202, 30 – Promote Your Website, Products
And - besides - I know Neapolitans that are "normally" scared of death, some that are "terrified" by it and some that take it as a fact of life (if you prefer fatalistic).

Also what could she possibly have got of the (whatever particular) "essence" of Naples and of Neapolitans during a few days visit?

In the best case, this is an interview with Mimmo Borrelli :
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimmo_Borrelli
whose work actually often revolves around death and its significance but that is not in any way exclusively representative of Naples.
Because it is a way to force you think about how you structure your code. You necessarily pull out the pure parts and are explicit in handling all the impure parts. This also makes it very easy to test your code.

Why is it done in the type system? Well, because the goal is to have guarantees at compile-time, and this happens to be something that can be expressed in a sufficiently powerful type system.
Technical Report of the Bezos Phone Hack
The microscope story a sibling comment mentioned is part of a 1970 letter from a then-NASA Director to a nun serving in Africa who asked the same question. I believe the full text is worth a read:
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html
Someone has linked to a really nice legal review somewhere up in the comments, so my question is mostly answered now... but to answer your question about what I see as a difference in wording above:

If the law said "All citizens have the right to express their opinion" then a law saying "Non-citizens expressing their opinions will be punished" is OK.

If, on the other hand, the law said "Congress will not make any laws restricting the expressing of opinions" (closer in wording to what we have) then a law saying "Non-citizens expressing their opinions will be punished" is no longer OK.
As an example, Sweden. People will use fossil fueled energy when the choice is between people freezing in their home or burning fossil fuels. Sweden rely on a mix between hydro and nuclear, but it is not feasible to extend hydro beyond current capacity. The nuclear plants however is getting older, and politically people want to shut them down. Something has to produce the energy, and during the winter it is imported fossil fuels energy when the wind is not blowing.

Germany as an example illustrate the issue quite nice, as can be seen live at electricitymap.org. When the wind is blowing the country goes green with around 70% of energy being produced by wind. Very sunny days you get around 20% solar. Days like today that is a bit rainy and not very windy, and you have 60% fossil fuels. The constant is nuclear around 10%, so remove that and the above numbers will go up depending on weather conditions.
I think you would instead look at population density of that area. In many places the US has a lower population density than the UK.
It is also worth repeating, from time to time, the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Let's say I have three 1TB drives - A, B, and C. A contains 1TB of meaningful data. B contains a sequence of randomly generated bits to be used as a one-time pad for encryption. I use B to encrypt the data on A, store this data onto C, and then destroy A.

B and C now can be combined to retrieve the information that was once stored on A. But B and C by themselves are just random sequences of bits. Where is the information, and therefore mass, of A, which still exists in B and C? If it is in one or both of B and C then I can destroy the information (and therefore reduce mass) in one by destroying the other.
The good news being that there are no robo-calls in the afterlife (or so I am told).
I'll never tire of these responses to use case stories that essentially state:

"This is wrong because it doesn't work for me. Really, what everyone needs is more of what works for me."
> I was told only the ones with a N95 rating can be effective against this virus.

N95 masks need to be fit properly [1], and are very uncomfortable for daily use.

Surgical masks are a good compromise for going out in public, and mostly protect others from the mask-wearer. It's more important to practise good hygiene to avoid infection [2].

[1] https://www.osha.gov/video/respiratory_protection/fittesting...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/health/coronavirus-surgic...
"nice libs" are worth a lot; consider Fortran. Although quite possibly nice libs that are often just bindings to stuff in other languages have less staying power.
Better than Go!
Perhaps your perception of time ceases and therefore and eternity can pass in the blink of an eye. If the universe is in the long run cyclical then maybe the moment you die is the moment you wake up in another skull.

Of course, that idea makes a lot of big assumptions about the nature of consciousness that I have a hard time buying. It assumes our consciousness is akin to a singular entity, which I'm can't make sense of in either a materialistic framework of consciousness or a pan-psychic one.

The real answer to this depends on the nature of conscious awareness, and I haven't been able to find a single framework for how consciousness emerges that has even been internally consistent or fully explanatory, let alone one that has a lick of evidence in favor of it.

Even if we assume that death is a state of nothingness, I definitely find the popular idea that death feels akin to being basically trapped in a dark box for eternity to be nonsensical. We close our eyes and see darkness and so we assume that darkness is akin to nothingness, but in reality the perception of darkness & time is very much a something. To make an analogy, nothingness isn't what you see when you close your eyes but instead it is closer to what you can see right now out of your elbow or your foot. I think the same applies to our perception of time.
The only particularity of Napoli might be the incredible depth of historical detritus that covers it and fills the caverns beneath the historic center. Death is ever present because dead things (and people) tend to hang around a long time.

I don't know where the habit comes from, but there just isn't the same kind of intense urge to clean and purify public space as in other European and western cities. But it's not that people aren't careful about cleanliness. Rather, that energy is spent inside the house.

Then there are the active volcanoes in, under, and around the city. Every day you see Vesuvius. And frequently, you think about the supervolcanic complex at Campi Flegrei, whose last major eruption is sometimes credited with wiping out a hominid subspecies. These really twist your perception of the future and the possibility of destruction. Maybe this effect has diminished because Vesuvius has been quiet, but it seems to rest on in the culture. I'd say this is much more important than any cave full of bones.
This is exactly what I do, with one addition: Sometimes I don't check everything in as I go because I'm doing a lot of experiements at high speed. However, I will locally do "junk" commits for trivia such as comment typos and short, obvious bugs that are noticed.

At this stage I don't worry much about the commit message, as it's purely local, and many of them will be squashed (discarding the message). So the trivial ones get one-liner messages like "WIP: Adder: Comment fix" or "WIP: Parser fix '...', needs testcase'. "WIP" commits are a useful tag for me: They are never allowed to be pushed to a shared repo.

Then the "git add -p" stage.

When a task, feature or bug has been dealt with, I'll start using "git add -p" to separate out parts of files, and commit them as logically independent changes. At this stage, I don't mind separately committing even very scrappy little changes, such as comment typos, as separate commits because I will merge them later. The key is to separate out logically separate kinds of things in the delta from worktree to HEAD. During this I will usually find a few things that are untidy or comments that could be worded better, and add tiny commits for those changes.

The "git add -p" stage is a great time to get some perspective on what logical units were actually needed for the main task, and what else was refactored or fixed in passing, and this "pick up the pieces later" method frees me up to fix things and do small refactors without having to switch context while doing it.

Then the "git rebase -i" stage.

When the adding is done, "git rebase -i" to reorder into a sequence of logical, coherent and explainable changes. Ideally in an order where things still work if they are partially checked out in that order (bisectability), and squash together separate "git add -p" chunks that really must be one logical unit. Also, squashing trivial fixes such as typos in comments, whitespace etc into logical commits.

I may then go back and clean up and flesh out some of the commit messages before pushing the lot upstream for review. Or, in practice, there's usually no review of my work other than testing it, but so that others can at least read through the commit messages and patches to see what was done and how; hopefully learn from it.

The above cycle is usually done about every 1-2 workdays, but it can be longer if there's a tough problem being debugged or a complex new feature (but for big new features a branch is more useful). If something turns out to be too big, though, it doesn't matter because I can always commit any work in progress to a new local branch or stash, and rewind back to a stable worktree.

The final, logically coherent and documented set of commits is very satisfying to push, and rarely contains "junk" commits or unexplained changes, even though what I commit locally at first is often like that. I guess it helps to know Git quite well.
It's not the same, but I'm using Zello (IP walkie-talkie basically) with my wife and it is very convenient. For example when we are in a shop or have to quickly sync on something, especially if you have children. I imagine it could be quite helpful for remote work, but it depends on many factors, work time is one of them.
How do I collect so much data on self, and why?
This article fails at being precise about what 'nformation' is. Some physical pattern only represents a '0' or '1' if we mean it to.

> Experiments have proven the process of deleting a bit of information dissipates heat energy, but after information is created, it can be stored with no energy loss.

To be precise here 'deleting' is a reduction in the number of possible states of a closed system. All '0's or all '1's is not a state of low information. They are both highly ordered states. The state of no information is total randomness, as in heat death. It does require energy to maintain (i.e. keep storing) for information (an ordered state).
I've been looking into anti facial-recognition make up, and I wonder how much you'd have to apply to defeat the algorithm - like, would a line of make-up breaking up the contrast pit of an eye be sufficient?

And then there's reflectacles - glasses designed to reflect IR and visible light. I presume they'd mess with an algorithm, but could you code that algorithm to recognise them and raise a flag requiring human input?

Ah man, I love how the cyberpunk dystopian future of my youth has slowly arrived, sadly with less magic and orks, and last I checked, no shady street samurai in bars looking to hire me for my leet decker skills.

But you know, I live in CV beDazzled[1] hope.

[1]https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-03/designer-a...
The article doesn't say who should be asking these questions.
I hate to say it, but sometimes "ordinary" software programmers (the most dangerous are the kind with just a little experience but not enough to know that they don't know) will start to feel that they should be asking these questions of the people asking them to build something. It's a good sentiment, but often (especially when there are sales/competitive/pre-emptive/other factors) at play, they're straying a little into "too big for your britches" territory and should just build what they're asked to. Leave the questioning to the engineers who both know how to build it in their sleep, and understand why it's needed...
> Fundraising numbers.

Fundraising is just a means to get money to spend (often, ineffectively) building/maintaining support. If you are raising and spending more money and not moving the needle in the polls, that's not progress.

> Others dropping out would count as progress too I guess.

No, if the field is narrowing and you aren't getting any of the support (and your remaining competitors are) that's also the opposite of progress.

> Although polling is still in single digit but 5-6% is certainly progress from 2-3%.

It would be, if he was consistently polling at the former and previously polling at the latter. But that's not what's happened to Yang. His national polling in January has ranged from 2-5%. His national polling in December ranged from 2-5%. His national polling in November ranged from 2-5%. His national polling in October ranged from 2-5%. And the margin of error on most of the polls is in the neighborhood of ±5%.
When I coded a Forth virtual machine in 8080 assembly in 1985, I soon realized Forth is a write-only language.

Fun, but totally unusable for a mediocre programmer like myself.
A Guide to Self-Care in Jane Austen's Time
Of which we have not a single working reactor. Just saying. We in Germany spend a lot of money on it and did not get it to work.
I'm not so sure a multi-paradigm language is truly the ideal alternative. Languages that brag being multi-paradigm, such as Python or Javascript, in the end offer very few facilities for actual functional programming. It just doesn't feel idiomatic with them.

FP and OOP are both well tested design patterns. Mixing them up in an incoherent way just makes the whole software architecture somewhat unpredictable.
Because I use Laravel and Lumen every day. My comment doesn't mean "Go change the name because some other project took it". I'm also very sorry you felt attacked immediately and had to declare Laravel's Lumen an abandonware project. However, I am surprised no one bashed the language it's written in (but the night is still young) :)

I understand that there's hundreds of millions of programmers and that we're bound to name-clash, it's just the nature of limited data-set that vocabulary represents. I don't offer a solution here, but this just goes to show how people think. And if people think like that, search engines might have a few thoughts on their own when it comes to words "Lumen" and "Illuminate".

Have an excellent and productive day.
3: It's easier to work when everyone's working hours overlap
Geostationary orbit is very high. It would be cost-prohibitive for satellites designed for geostationary service to maintain enough fuel to drop their orbits into the atmosphere. Instead, they move them into a slightly higher graveyard orbit, where hopefully any collision or breakup debris is unlikely to be able to get to an orbit where it could intersect a satellite still in service.

I guess there's a hope that someday we'll figure out a way to recover and permanently de-orbit all of them.
> you just select a region that contains that location and call undo.

What the fuck, how did I not know this. I am now glad that I read this thread. So much time lost undoing a bunch of changes, killing the piece I want to restore, redoing the changes and then yanking.
It does but hey, I'm just a mere mortal forced to use the internet for work so I don't always read the whole sentence or title..
Having a helluva lot of dimes would actually highlight a part of an MRI scan.
robot.clean_self()
China Puts 13 Cities on Lockdown as Coronavirus Death Toll Climbs
Mexicans slightly raise one eyebrow.
That is an absolutely awful article. Example:

> The same problem as before repeats itself. Complexity grows to a point that we yet again need a real language to do the job. A script language which allows us to write some code that explains how e.g. our C++ values should show up in the debugger. Not to mention that debuggers for statically typed languages themselves tend to grow into complex behemoths with a dizzying array of functionality to deal with the complexities of statically typed languages.

This is just blatant nonsense and the author of the article clearly has no idea what a powerful static type system is capable of.

If you want to get a feel for what structural typing can give you, you don't need to look further than TypeScript. If you want proper row polymorphism, you can try PureScript.
FWIW my then one year old knew the alphabet and how to count to 10 in three languages, count backwards from 20 in English, and we very often dumped him in front of a screen. We never structured any learning time on those subjects. He picked it all up from his wooden letter board and YouTube.

He's now two and when he has an off day because mom and dad are sick or exhausted with the baby, he gets a lot of screen time. And he will on his own take what he's been watching and apply it to his building blocks and other toys. He will spend an hour singing to himself and counting as he plays "Speedy the Number Train" with Duplo.

So much anecdata and so much parental fear. Justifiably so because you only get one chance at this and everyone's afraid of screwing up their kid. But I'm still incredibly skeptical that much of this matters a whole lot.

My own parental advice that I'm following for myself but not trying to push on anyone: above all else, configure my life so that I _always_ have a few hours a day of dedicated time with them. It doesn't matter much what we actually do. And avoid at all costs over-structuring their day or play. Let them lead.
I'll end it with this interesting tidbit I found on hacker news about timescales involved in cyclical universes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20116147
IntelliJ IDEA 2020.1 EAP is open
> we

What a strange way to spell "I"
How the Pentagon’s JAIC Picks Its Artificial Intelligence-Driven Projects
Show HN: Live status dashboard of market data recording for crypto markets
China Locks Down 40M People as Anger Grows over Virus
> "get the best people for the job"

Absolutely I want the best person for the job. How do you measure that? What's the metric? Years of experience, years of relevant experience, whether or not it says "Google" somewhere on their resume, height, attractiveness?

Sure some of my examples seem crazy but studies show that taller, attractive people are generally more successful.

There's no accurate measure you can use to assess "best" reliably. A lot of hiring is rather a lot more subjective than anyone admits. Not my employer though, we only hire "the best".
let churn = (reduced income from existing customers cancelling the service)

let use_increase = (Increased income from existing customers using the service more)

assert churn > use_increase;

net_churn = churn - use_increase;

assert is_negative(net_churn);
> What is this, a court of law?

You're talking about legislature (i.e. state stepping in). What did you think this was about? Crossfit?

> You don't get to blame the GDPR

Of course I do. Badly designed laws need to be blamed.

> MS Office and Google search aren't niche products either.

But ProPlus is. Either you are deliberately conflating the issue or you don't know what you are talking about.
The DoJ filing is an original source for the argument. The video above is much closer to hearsay than to an original source. I would no more (and no less) accept hearsay as original testimony from counsel on either side of the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard_orbit puts the difference in delta V requirements for a geo-sync orbit at ~1500m/s to de-orbit vs 11m/s to get boost up to graveyard orbit.
It's not what you add to a language that's important, it's what you take away.
It should also be noted that historically these were restrictions on the federal government only (see Barron v Baltimore). This is a pretty important distinction since states were not limited here. In practice most states have their own constitution which generally follows the federal constitution to some extent.

Of course after the 14th Amendment was passed the legal theory of selective incorporation under the Due Process clause was developed in the early 20th century. Interestingly we are still in the process of incorporating the first eight amendments to the states 150 years later; e.g. the second amendment is the most recently incorporated amendment, the third still hasn't been incorporated though.
Robo-heart could solve organ transplant crisis
Great forward thinking wish list!

I have a strange relationship with Haskell. I love Haskell repl driven development of pure code for playing with algorithms and ideas. I use Haskell in this use case much like I use Common Lisp and Scheme languages. However, I am not very good at writing impure code and the interfaces between pure and impure code. To put it more plainly, I enjoy the language and I am productive, but I suffer sometimes figuring out other people’s Haskell code.
It's not that hard. If you can't put 10 minutes effort into choosing a unique, searchable name for your project, what other corners did you cut?

It's not a dealbreaker, but it's certainly a red flag.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” ― Martin Luther King Jr. 1963
No, renewable are incredibly expensive, on the contrary. Why is that? Because renewable produce when wind blows or sun shines, and not when we need power. That's the first point, we need to produce exactly as much energy as we consume, at any time. Renewables fail utterly at that, and that's why renewable energy appears so cheap when you simply consider the price at which it's sold on the markets: production occurs at random times when it isn't needed, pushing market prices down in the toilet. But that's an undesirable side-effect, and not a good thing.

Renewable produces only a fraction of their nominal output (typically 15-20%), and at random times. So typically a huge, sprawling 12km2 900MW solar plant produces a small amount of power during the year, in the best case (in the desert) 1.4TWh, while a 900MW nuclear reactor produces typically (actual numbers) 6.5TWh every year.

You also need to complement renewable production with an equivalent amount of steerable power (usually natural gas), or a large amount of batteries which multiplies the price by 5, 10 or more. So you can't consider the renewable price alone; you must take into account the price of the substitute power source, too... And its environmental price!

So renewable energy is cheap because it isn't worth much. It puts extra pressure on the grid, it forces nuclear plant to run at reduced capacity, which reduces the yield, and artificially lowers their profitability for no good reason at all.

In fact, renewables, by reducing profitability of nuclear power, has another very undesirable side-effect: making nuclear power companies cut corners on safety to save money.

Renewable power is better than coal; but it isn't, by large, as good as nuclear.
Met Begins Operational Use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) Technology
What is the issue (for those of us who don't have a google account)?