skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I had less savings than you did before starting our company 10 years ago. I was 30 and living in Canada also. But our path was not "quit paying job > make a product > hope it breaks even!" We started by taking development consulting gigs and bootstrapping until we made our product. For product, it took years before it broke even, and consulting gigs/revenue kept us alive and profitable; and it wasn't the first product we made - which was a failure. We're now ~40'ish people.

My advice if you are going to start a company and bootstrap it: cashflow is king. Ensure that you always have cashflow.
Funded startup is an entirely different beast where the company itself is the product - so you can burn like crazy because you're (supposed to be) creating value in the business/IP itself.
Another flower in the garden. It would be nice if Apple branched outside their own devices. I'll never use this simply because its not available on the phone I love, my OnePlus.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly lately.

If you'd please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
This implies that the money extracted from the economy is dead money or poorly invested. I've seen no rationale nor evidence for why that might be true.
Eyewitnesses are unreliable, but that does not mean that events attested to by eyewitnesses are likely false, it means that they aren't certainly true.

As I mentioned above, consider the weight of evidence on either side. On the one hand, many eye witnesses many times. On the other hand, a government found no evidence. If that disposes you to conclude that the drones didn't exist, then I think that's probably just too fundamental a difference in our reasoning to reconcile by argument here. For me, I think the government findings are evidence against the drones but not as good as the evidence in favor of the drones.
> Of course the majority gets to decide what happens, that how government works.

That's how some governments work some of the time. Even in modern democracies governments often entrench some values which they purposefully make difficult for a majority to overrule, and this is not something that America came up with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

No presciptive statements have been made in this comment.
> In that assets are only created for people to purchase with informed understanding, I don't think "they were great but nobody understood them" is a possible thing.

It isn't the case that nobody understands them. We understand them just fine now. This is how civilization learns. For a long time we didn't know how to price options - now we're quite good at it.

> The clearest example here is shares in a Ponzi scheme. Those are definitely assets, and they are definitely not fine. They are made to not be understood. The same is more subtly true of the previous wave of essentially fraudulent mortgage-backed securities. But I think the same is also true of any hard-to-understand instrument engineered to look like a good deal at first glance.

Ponzi schemes are designed to defraud unsophisticated investors. These assets serve a useful purpose and work just fine as long as their risks are properly understood, which they now are.

> You also ignore systemic risk. For many years before the 2008 collapse, cognoscenti knew that a lot of risk had gone somewhere, we just didn't know where. But we sure found out! Saying that "all assets are fine" is sort of like saying "all chemicals are fine". It's technically true, in that dioxin and DDT don't intend to be harmful. But if the evidence shows that people can't use them responsibly, then a ban in a totally reasonable outcome.

The evidence does not show that for these assets. You could make a similar case about basically any dangerous but useful technology. When dynamite was first invented i'm sure a lot of people died messing with it. That doesn't mean we should ban it, it means we need to figure out how to handle it and use it safely. We now understand these assets pretty well. I'll bet you basically whatever amount of money you want that the next crisis will not come from these assets.
exactly! I'm so tired of this ongoing voice in my head which is more like a constant noise that takes control of my emotions and disrupts my productivity.
What’s the state of parallel builds? We’re getting 16/32 core cpus. In a few years, we’re all going have Threadrippers.

Of course everything can’t be done in parallel.
Ask HN: Educational PC and Nintendo Switch Games for 6-8 year olds?
I'm hoping to get HN's suggestions for good educational PC and Nintendo Switch games. Especially for improving reading/writing and math.

I'm looking for both games that are 1) more fun than educational and 2) more educational than fun.

Thank you!
Is that really a priori the wrong way to run things?

You have a project, you estimate the cost, you have a contract, then the customer just HAS to add more stuff, so you negotiate about what to add at what cost in time and money.

So, fixed price with adjustments, why wouldn't that be normal (in a vacuum)?
I surprised me as well. And something I've always done is ask myself "why do I think that?" or "believe this particular thing is true?" and take apart my own reasoning to see where it came from and how it came to be.

An interesting follow-on investigation would be to check to see if couples fare better or worse if the partners match in the presence of an internal dialog or not.
Count me as another inner monologue person who can't comprehend not having one.

Walking down the street, you see a car that is a really nice color, what goes through your head? For me, it's literally "cool car, nice color."

My wife just informed me she has a monologue, but when she meditates, it goes away. Again, mind blown. When I meditate, it's just a constant chatter... "I'm relaxed, lets think about a quiet pond, oh look a bird." I verbally build a little relaxing world for myself. It's part visual, but I'm still thinking in English.

Like the author, this really breaks my mental model of people.
It's not actually SES' responsibility, the sender can use SQS to receive bounceback/spam notifications and act on it.
With platformers, if you want satisfying physics, you have to turn up the gravitational constant way up, increase the force of everything even more, then add artificial hangtime to jumps. Which is nothing to say of being able to change direction in midair with no external force acting on it.
Logic also has this functionality built in
It’s honestly really sad that even _professional_ journalists don’t know how to spell it correctly :-(
List of Movies and TV Shows on Netflix
free education does not cost anything (it is free)

Do you maybe need a few minutes to actually think about that statement? Because it doesn't reflect well on your critical thinking capabilities...
> Blaming the problem on "people" is also missing a large part of the problem. The breadth of the crisis meant that it affected a lot of people who had never heard of CDOs, and never should have. People lost their jobs in totally unrelated fields. Companies couldn't grow because credit dried up while the mess was sorted out. People couldn't sell their houses because the entire market crashed. And so on.

Sure, but i'm not sure what this has to do with my point. Should we ban internet stocks because the market was irrational in 2000?

> There were systemic effects, where a whole lot of people were making apparently sensible local decisions and nobody understood the entire interaction -- but that's not really a good justification for shrugging shoulders and say, "Well, I guess it's everybody's fault, then".

Ok, but how does that cash out in any kind of coherent policy recommendation?
Disagree; parties win elections, people lose them.
Everyone should experience an acid trip to get a feel for how other people are wired, or the various neural networks possible.
It reminds me so much of Onett in Earthbound
Isaac Newton was my favorite imaginary person to give "tours" to.
My approach to this is pretty simple. For existing systems, don't refactor from one to the other unnecessarily. If you do decide to refractor, do it in small steps, one piece at a time.

There are huge advantages to both patterns. For newer systems, if there's a clear enough split such as "backend" and "frontend" (where frontend is a statically-hosted SPA) then it could be advantageous to keep the codebases and deployments separate.

If data is shared between services, then keeping the code to interact with the data all in one service is likely most useful.

I like to use a few services, with one often ending up being the large "monolith" potentially with a few supporting microservices on the side as it makes sense. "As it makes sense" means that the service has a specific individual encapsulated concern. Billing could be a good example, depending on how it integrates with the rest of the system.

I find microservices very useful to encapsulate independent concerns and for experimentation (don't want to rewrite the whole app using some new tech, but the billing service is small enough to give it a shot). The main problem points are the glue that holds it all together, duplicating code shared between services, and changing apis / data schema.

Ultimately, it's best to know what you and your team is/will be most comfortable with managing based on everyone's skillsets and the product at hand. If you spend time to understand the differences between the patterns in practice, and remain realistic about the advantages and disadvantages of both, you can arrive at an informed decision that works well for your team.

And lastly, make sure you pick something and then build your product. These details don't mean anything to your customers. If you made the wrong choice, you'll know when it's the right time to switch.
controversial title --> more "hacker" "news" upvotes
>The F-117 had very limited requirements compared to the F-35. What's killing the F-35 is the extreme complexity of the program.

This. The only thing the F35 doesn't do it blow the pilot and hand him a beer. Since nobody is willing to settle for a plane that can do everything and sucks at it (and rightfully so) it's turned into this massive project where there's a billion dollars in man hours spent arguing over each little nut and bolt in order to find the compromises needed to create something that satisfies all the stake holders well enough to get sign off.

I think a lot of this is driven by the fact that we have no real enemy at present. It's much easier to say "no we need a system that can do X and Y and we need it now, Z can wait" when you're worried about the USSR having the jump on you. There is no such pressure for competency at present.
Two things that have worked for me:

1. Look for covers of stuff by older bands you love. Sometimes you don't find much, sometimes you hit the jackpot - I sure never would have run into Kobra and the Lotus's awesome mystical metal if I hadn't gone hunting for covers of Rush's "The Spirit of Radio" one day, for instance.

2. Go onto whichever of the social medias you have the biggest active following on. Say something like "I have $100 to spend on some new music, what is something awesome y'all think I should be listening to?"

Again, not everything you get is gonna be a winner. But all these responses are gonna be from people who clearly have good taste, after all, they're already listening to you right?
Well, taking this as sincere, I would think your satisfaction would depend on them being benign tumors rather than turning out one day to be metastatic cancer. There's no way to have absolute security against that.
there's a C++14 frontend

https://pytorch.org/cppdocs/frontend.html#end-to-end-example

though the typing doesn't dive into tensor dimensions etc.
For me it's because it's what the business mandates. I have a docking station so I still have two big monitors (three if I want to keep the laptop open) and a mechanical keyboard, but the business wants me to use a laptop because it can be locked away after work, it can be brought home for home working or on call, and it's part of the disaster recovery plan should the office become unusable.
I don't think it's a "good solution" for *all" drones to be easily tracked.
In business, ultimate bias is money. Who ever brings in more at the same time saves on expense.
Upvoters want to read and or partake in the discussion that will go with it.

I'd wager that for many of the users here, the discussions are routinely far more valuable than the linked content. The linked content and its title are merely the spark to go from. You'll often see people admit in the comment threads that they skip reading the linked content and go right to the comments.

It means the title: the way OSS is funded today is not sustainable - is of high interest, people want to have that conversation.
Nice! I'll have to use that.
On the other hand, I think it's kinda nice that open source exists outside of our capitalist economy. I don't think you can really argue that it isn't working - lots of people are fine with contributing to open source because they enjoy writing code that helps more than just them, just that maybe it would be nice if more of this labor was paid for.

We have to be very careful trying to extract money out of working on open source, I wouldn't want to see the same kind of perversion of incentives that causes large enterprise companies to produce absolutely godawful software come to open source projects too. (See Linus' many famous rants against commercial contributors trying to push crap into Linux for examples of this).
Travel Nepal 2020
Global companies enter lockdown mode as coronavirus outbreak rocks China
> I wish there were more work done in the area of composable GUIs, where the core logic of applications is scriptable and where these elements can be combined in ways that could be even more expressive than Unix pipes are. Every now and then I have thoughts about taking a modern Smalltalk implementation and writing a suite of composable GUI apps as a demonstration of this idea.

Where the browser is the platform, you might consider using custom elements to fill this role: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/custom-elements.html#...
The worst offenders vary a lot by particular codebase. I had a crate where the compile times were bad due to trait bounds. I was able to refactor to drop times from ~2 minutes to ~6seconds! That should'nt have been necessary for me to refactor though.

Sometimes its llvm, sometimes its rust macros encouraging HUGE functions which then leads to slow llvm optimizations. Sometimes it's large use of generics. Sometimes it is the linker. There are various ways to hit slow compile times.
I agree somewhat. The problem is that there are so many bullshit patents in the world that mostly just create a minefield for those trying to create new things.

A proposal (in “Radical Markets”) I agree with is to charge a property tax of, say, 2% for each year that a patent holder wants to keep the patent. The value of the patent is whatever the owner decides it should be but (to prevent claims of $1 values) the owner must sell the patent to the first entity willing to pay more than the declared value.

This, in theory, would ensure that only patents that were genuinely useful would be kept around rather than being used as tools to stifle innovation or rent seek for those that actually create great works.
I think that this is a false trade-off. Being "in the moment", or "present" doesn't mean turning off your brain and not planning for the future. It is possible to be present while you are planning for the future.

This amounts to, when planning, not being overly invested in emotionally anticipating the outcome of your plans. (Both good or bad, as anticipating the good will hurt your ego when the plan fails, and dreading the bad will hurt you now.)
I think they are lumping subroutine and function calls into the same bucket. Basically, avoid anything that pushes stuff on the stack?
Well, this is Vice we're talking about. It's a tabloid dedicated to sensationalism, prurience, and cynicism. Don't look to them for high quality journalism or analysis.
Yeah, if the US military starts sucking that would be bad but I'm not too worried about that. And to be honest, if they're going to suck at this, they're going to do that whether or not I put another $300k so I'd rather be wealthy and in trouble than poor and in trouble.
Because it's light and fun. AR-15s are cheap and customizable too. Having lots of different guns at a certain point has zero to do with need, if it ever did. Many people just like to shoot guns, but far fewer say that.
How is increasing the supply of housing going to increase gentrification? The housing shortage has resulted in high housing prices, which is the main driver of gentrification.
Yes...this is a big reason why Ada exists.
"These aren't the drones you are looking for.."
I have used both ImprovMX and ForwardEmail.net so can comment on them.

ImprovMX has always worked great. I have used it for a handful of email addresses that all forward to my personal account. If your personal account is gmail it's also very easy to set up a "send as." I will definitely use this first next time I need something like this.

ForwardEmail is indeed open source and works pretty good. It's a little more setup than ImprovMX and I did have an issue where sometimes mail would bounce back to the sender and they would tell me about it. I don't know whose fault it was tho, because it was only one sender and her SMTP server was strict. I did also have an issue where all the mail was going into the spam folder of my personal email, but I'm pretty sure it was my fault. I clicked "spam" for a spam message and then gmail started assuming everything from forwardemail.net must be spam so silently "helped" me by hiding everything D-: Once I figured it out I was able to fix it by marking the emails as "not spam" but it occasionally would spam something I needed. So, if you use either of these services, never mark the message as spam. Also if you use forwardemail throw the dev a few bucks (https://forwardemail.net/en/donate) .
Here's the code: https://github.com/forwardemail/free-email-forwarding
Okay, there is one and presumably many more examples of people mistaking non-flying lights for flying things. How many times do people accurately identify drones though? I don't mean airline pilots flying into or out of airports overzealously reporting nearby drones, but how frequently does your average person see something they are so confident is a drone they go to the trouble of reporting it to local officials, and turn out to be wrong?

It seems to me, if we had that latter figure, and we knew how many independent reports there were, we could calculate the likelihood that every reporter was mistaken.
"This thing is unsustainable but will go on indefinitely without a change"

This does/does not have substance kind of like a moebius strip does/does not have two sides.
Ha! When I need to take some idea apart and try to understand it, I often find myself explaining it to a highly perceptive Charles Babbage who has had his wish to see the future granted, albeit without having to sacrifice the rest of his lifespan.
There can be others, but Babbage is the most frequent visitor by far. I have no idea whatsoever why.

As for the rest of perl4ever's comment, there is not a single word or thought or sentence in it which I do not completely recognize and relate to.
"That’s because the drones never existed."

This is the kind of narrative embarrassed authorities push when they've utterly failed. "Nothing to see here, move along."

Legally, the drones never existed, otherwise the authorities have to admit incompetence and an inability to defend against and investigate this sort of activity.

It's far more plausible that multiple hobbyists have been simply playing with drones in the area. They are after all fairly popular, and to assert the drones never existed is to also assert that absolutely no hobbyists are flying drones at night in the area. How can you possibly assert that?
Facebook closes down 6%, wiping out more than $30B in market value
Thank you. Noted. Shared feedback with the team to review the password policy.
Could you please give some specific feedback on the UX for customer portal and signout flow? We can setup a 15 min zoom call with you to understand your challenges. I will reach out to you via email if that's OK with you.
You can share a Membership as long as you don't mind sharing the username/password combo. You'll all end up recording your data to the same account, if you record tracks, photos, etc.

Your family might not need a Membership at all though - that's only if you need to download maps for offline use, or if you want to use different map sources... Gaia Topo and all the features besides mass-downloading are free.
The popular observation (truthful joke?) on campus is that they could give a full ride to 15 consecutive classes of undergrads with all that money...
I doubt you can appeal to ten million people without turning your language into just another Blub dialect. There's a joke that Haskell is navigating between "avoid success-at-all-costs" and "avoid success, at all costs".
Minnesota Will Pay Homeowners to Replace Lawns with Wildflowers and Clover
Seconding SomaFM! I especially like the DEF CON Radio. I've found some great underground stuff there. (The Music Director is very responsive, asked about an obscure track recently :)

https://somafm.com/player/#/now-playing/defcon
Responsibility, shemonsibility. I want my e-mails delivered, if SES has a poor IP reputation, it's devalued regardless of whose fault that poor reputation is.
At first, I assumed I was going to be only angry at the justice system, but after understanding the contract document was split in 3 with very wishy/washy language, part of the problem is on the contracted company.

This is why you have explicit language in your documents. It's not there for when things go well - it's when things go bad like this situation. In fact, I argue this is an expected outcome. How can you run a security contract that does explicitly illegal things w/o having clear language about what is supposed to happen.

FWIW:

- The pen testers should be ready to spend time in jail and be compensated as such. A piece of paper should not get you off free immediately. That thing needs to be verified, so expect it to take time.

- Language in your doc needs to be clear exactly what will happen. The whole fiasco afterwards should not needed to have taken place. If the customers want 'more pen testing' charge them for it.

Overall this is a great outcome. Just need to clean up the edges a bit.
The author of this tool is Chris Barker -- back in 2015, I took his course on "Continuations and Natural Language" at the LSA. He's working on a lot of really cool stuff, so its fun to see him pop up here. The class was a summary of the research he had been doing at that time; the central idea was that some constructions in natural language can interact with their own continuations[0], dynamically changing their scope and arguments in much the same way that continuations in e.g. Lisp work. Here is a paper where he introduces the idea quite clearly: https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~hxt/cw04/barker.pdf

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation