skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The boiling point of water may not be useful on a day-to-day basis, but the freezing point certainly is

The freezing point of water is interesting, but in practice it is pretty variable depending on what adulterants are mixed with it.

Realistically, any day that it gets up to the 20s F you will get some amount of snow melt.

Any time it is above ~0F the roads will de-ice during the day from the salt they put down.

I don't have any issue with people preferring C to F, but I think any choices come mainly down to what you have been exposed to.

My main point is that Fahrenheit is a very practical temperature scale.

> I think you underestimate the usefulness of powers of 10

Powers of ten are just scientific / engineering notation, they aren't really all that dependent on the underlying base units.

The fact that people gravitate toward the measurement system they were first exposed to suggests that they are both adequate in practice.
100%. That said, it would be more surprising to me if he said two things in a row that were logically consistent, not hypocritical, and made sense. I do not expect consistency from that particular gentleman.
I'm really worried about the total amount of data each user will end up lugging around though.

Also, append only => no deletes, correct?
Protocols and privacy and chat features are all great, but let's not lose sight of the two absolutely killer essential features of every successful chat app / system:

(1) The address book.

(2) The easiest possible signup and setup.

More generally for #1, whatever method(s) you use to find people's contact information and connect with them.

Without that, you could have created the perfect chat experience in every way, but people still won't use it. Because their friends aren't on it and/or they can't find their friends.

A ton of chat apps fail because engineers sit around talking about how to architect things, when the truth is that once you've gotten past the almost-insurmountable hurdle of getting two users onto the system and starting a conversation, the actual mechanism for actually sending messages back and forth is not much more than an implementation detail.

Not that those things aren't important, but they are like 10% of the formula for success, and the other 90% is getting to the point where they can start a chat session.

People's primary need is to communicate. With the people they want or need to communicate with. And via the contact information they have available. (Exchanging contact info for a new service offline is a huge hurdle.) A better experience is better, but at the end of the day, these other concerns will nearly always win out. So you don't get very far trying to use a superior experience as leverage to get people using it. You need to attack that problem more directly.
Triangulation, signal strength, etc.

0 effective difference.
Non-closable popup
I was. The web went from not most people on it to not most people commenting in threads to now where most people are commenting in threads. Newsgroups fall into the first two categories. So I think you're not really disagreeing with me. I might have missed a word in my statement though?

Anyway my point is mostly to suggest that OP is wrong from ignorance.
I think Trump is a buffoon but am still satisfied with some of his actions, just as I support the ACLU despite my belief some of their positions are absolute and misguided. I’ll continue to support them even when pleased with some cases they lose, if I don’t agree with their position. That’s compromise.
The parent to me comment was complaining about the attitude of left-wing people towards bigots. I'm leveraging my knowledge of extremism to explain why left wingers feel such antipathy towards bigotry: because of the genocidal outcomes which are associated with it and nowadays actively promoted by some folk.

Of course, extremism is by no means limited to one particular ideology. I'm not a fan of Maoists, for example.

I believe one can certainly change their views, although it's hard work.
Engineers design technical standards. Politicians enforce them.

It's not like this is something new. We've had national standards for things like AC power plugs and outlets for over a century, and they are mandatory in many countries.
It's just not that clear-cut. Last time around, they apparently culled the wrong animal population. Scientists still dispute to this day whether the action effected anything resembling change. The book "Spillover" (highly recommend it) goes into this in excruciating details, but in particular draws attention to the distinction between a host animal and the amplifier animal. In Hendra's case (Australia), it was a bat -> horse -> human -> random survival recurrence. In other outbreaks, it was not very clear what was what and health officials and some scientists tend to jump to conclusion too early.

What might seem like a rising concern is that there's documentation that the new virus may have made two hops between healthy carriers and infected others.
A Russian satellite appears to be shadowing an American spy satellite
Yeah, the "Great minds" are still going to have a bigger lead when it comes to understanding language details, which are trivial semantic implementation concerns compared to understanding concepts. Programming itself is the boring part; it's merely transcription of concepts into machine-legible code. The concepts themselves, many of which are not even limited to the domain of computer science, are where all the interesting content is to be found.

When I say boring, I mean relatively; there is some "puzzle solving" merit to programming per se. But this is mere mechanics and minor compared to the experience of manipulating ideas into practicable forms before writing them out in code.
Obviously, we aren’t absolutely unable to consider other views. If we couldn’t, people would never change their views and yet they do. Furthermore, evidence isn’t the same thing as a self-sufficient body of premises. We interpret evidence in light of prior beliefs. There are disagreements where those prior beliefs are concerned. The truth is often difficult to know and even when you have it, convincing others is still going to take a lot of work. Don’t trivialize that difficulty.

What this article is really circling are not these things, which are natural and with which there is nothing wrong per se, but about cultivated prejudice. Cultivated prejudice can be overcome, but it requires humility, that is, an openness to considering other views to see if what they claim is plausible, likely, necessary, or whatever. Should you change your mind, it may also require courage to state your change of beliefs to your milieu, but it is possible, even if risky in some circumstances.

I would caution against the opposite errors of relativism and intolerance toward others’ opinions. What has happened of late (a matter of decades) is that quotidian political squabbling has turned into a full-scale war because of the Left’s vicious and total attack on Western tradition and the very foundations of Western culture (in most cases, in profound ignorance of the depths of that culture). In turn, many on the Right have overcompensated by moving away from the cautious, principled pragmatism of conservatism. If you want a more measured atmosphere, where exchanges of views can take place without the strident nonsense that dominates today, then the Left has to stop its total, emotionalist, destructive, oikophobic siege on “the West”, especially as it offers no better alternatives. Nature abhors a vacuum and it will be filled with all manner of demons far exceeding the boogeymen haunting the Left’s imagination.
AI, quantum technologies and new cyber threats – are we prepared?
Just because no drunks were found in a weaving car doesn't mean investigating it is a "hoax". The Tinted One is just a bad policy driver who kisses up to Mr. P because he likes Mr. P.
Sure they do! (Assuming you're not kidding.)

Make the cell connections a secure protocol, instead of something any asshole with an antenna can spoof & create a portable "cell tower".
> If you run an API-based business in the future: Usage-based billing is a really tricky business model for a solo developer.

Can you elaborate on this? Is it just because of the inconsistency in revenue or is there some technical challenge I haven't considered?

I'm currently developing a usage-based API SaaS as a solo developer so this in particular really piqued my curiosity.
Are you responding to something I said? If so I can't tell what.
Brexit and the IT Sector
So, you got to Section 2.2.15?
> Basically get rid of everything that the legacy of C brings.

This is actually happening, but not literally. That is, most of the things you used to write in a C-like fashion - you no longer write today:

* References or plain values instead of pointers.

* std::arrays or other containers instead of plain arrays.

* std::variant's instead of unions

* std::expected instead of returning error codes (although error handling is a really complex issue)

and so on.

> Get rid of the headers .h etc.

This will start to happen in C++20, with modules.

> Make a standard package library that works properly on all platforms.

The standard library works well on many platforms. If you mean package management systems - that's never part of the language; but you can check out https://conan.io/

> Standardize the internal symbols.

Sort-of happening with modules, if I understand what you mean.

> Make templates / everything easier to use,

C++ features are actually easier to use as the standardization progresses.

> make standard internal map and vector types.

Whaaat?! Ha ha ha, certainly not. You really don't want that.

> Change auto to var.

That is rather inconsequential...

> Kinda like the way go did it.

What you suggested is in no way specific to Go.
Sorry for replying so late!

I went mostly by their example page https://visjs.github.io/vis-network/examples/ - the hierarchical layout + e.g. the HTML node style seemed like they'd probably do the trick.
Because physicality is what defines if people are free or not, and freedom is the only moral principle that a reasonable, moral society can be based upon. If you forsake freedom, you might as well forget about morality altogether.

Regulating emotions is arbitrary. Maybe it makes me sad that you post comments on HN. Should your comments be regulated?.

Physical harm is where you draw the line, because it's the only line that makes sense.
The death threats from politicians are individual American Congesspeople, who have no more power to act on that threat than the average American citizen. It's a threat that's worth taking about as seriously as any random online post.
"... and we will find that language, and we will kill it."
Personally I always found it annoying to manually add a common tag to every interface/type on TS just to have it work like an union type. But since TS doesn't leak types to runtime that's the only way.
For AP's, I've been happy with the TP-LINK EAP245's I bought. They're reasonably inexpensive, will do VLANs, and have controller software that's not too different from the Unifi stuff, but it's just for the AP's on the network.
I'll wait.

Where's the opt-out button on my device to ensure my 4th Amendment right is exercised?

Oh, right. It's forced. "Freedom".
They're rampant in the education industry - At basically every level.

School labs with many shared computers for kids high school aged and below.

Larger servers at colleges for projects that are just unreasonable to run on a standard desktop machine.
I'm afraid you've been breaking the site guidelines by using HN for ideological flamewar, personal attacks, and the like. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of which ideology they're for or against, so please stop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What about an FCC shopping page that says the price is “throw one scapegoat to the wolves”?
Could this essentially be achieved with a linter rather than a whole new language?
A very interesting story, I love the whole idea of researching strategies
Apple was quite willing to drop the 3.5mm audio port despite having plenty of customers with headphones that plugged into it - they simply included an adapter with new phones. Why should it be any different here?
FWIW, I'm a Redux maintainer, and I personally have never understood the point of trying to limit what actions are being dispatched. As long as your reducers and action creators are well typed, it shouldn't matter what other actions might be sent through.

On that note, our new Redux Toolkit package is written in TS, and designed to work great in TS apps with a minimal amount of type declarations needed. Really just declare the type of the action in the reducer, and get everything else for free. The new React-Redux hooks API is also a lot easier to use with TS as well.

I showed how to use both of those in the Redux Toolkit "Advanced Tutorial" docs page:

https://redux-toolkit.js.org/tutorials/advanced-tutorial

On a related note, I also recently put up a long blog post detailing my own journey learning and using TS, as both a lib maintainer and an app developer, with my takeaways on the pros and cons of using TS:

https://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2019/11/blogged-answers-le...
It's not really true that "the semantics of C++ aren't that complicated".

Once you take into account undefined behavior --- which you need to, so you can avoid it --- it's so complicated that researchers haven't yet figured out what those semantics are.
Their actions can be regulated.

They don't exist in international waters.
Unless they knowingly and intentionally broke criminal law, that's completely over the top and unnecessary.

Fines should presumably start small and have a graduated structure to prevent the "just a business expense" approach from becoming a viable one.

The current regulatory problems are due almost entirely (IMO) to lack of active enforcement; why care what the penalty is if you know it won't happen to you regardless?
>The standard can be changed, it's just that manufacturers have to agree between themselves on the new standard.

If an agreement of all manufacturers is needed before introducing a new standard in production, it means that it will be delayed by the lowest common denominator of manufacturers until many years later. Which isn't good for the consumer, because they could've gotten a new superior charging standard on their phones many years earlier, as opposed to waiting multiple years until all manufacturers adopt it.
> I can summarize most people’s attitude

I’m skeptical that there is a significant body of critics that share these patently conflicting views. More likely there are different groups who each value one of these, or more likely still, lots of individuals like me who are fine with specific, entirely consistent concessions from each of these major categories. For example, I would like to see C++ support some sane build and package ecosystem and I’m ok if it breaks my projects. I would also be happy to do away with the C compatibility requirements.

It would probably be too much to ask to re-evaluate every design decision that was predicated on C compatibility, but I would be okay with reevaluating them gradually over decades, deprecating language features here and there. In general we need to get rid of the idea that we only need to write software once and then every future version of the toolchain will support it. Instead I would like to see a world where the language changes gradually and project maintainers simply have to make small, almost mechanical changes every 5 years or so.
>Companies that don't adhere to these best practices lose liability protections for user-generated content.

https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/

>we’d be unlikely to ever federate with clients and servers we don’t control

This didn't age well.
I cut my teeth on the "Dragon Book", but as you say once you get past the syntax analysis material it becomes increasingly opaque. Most books are written to be used as part of some CS curriculum. Only a tiny number of SEs go on to work on compilers.

Personally I found the Nanopass approach much easier to understand because it breaks down the compilation process into lots of simple transformation steps: https://nanopass.org/
It's not always logic vs guts. Logic is great when you are dealing with theoretical problems that are well defined and you know the variables involved etc. In real life problems, often there are way too many variables, are time bound, things aren't as well defined. It's in those cases that people resort to gut..
They should be approved or denied. Stonewalling is undemocratic. There is no due process because there is no process. It is effectively a dribble or slowloris attack against the requestor.
There are competing ideas of how to get to a world where C++ can have both (1) backwards compatibility and (2) the removal of old language features.

Some people disagree with that concept entirely (including Bjarne, IIRC) because of the fear it will fracture the language. But luckily the conversations and proposals are actually happening.
No the difference is that we process wood now. Look up dimensional lumber. Its confusing, but makes sense if looked at historically. Iy is not shrinkflation or any other such nonsense.
You can pick any time period to fit your ideological beliefs. The point is that modern day Europe has developed in an entirely different direction from the US, in large part because Europeans have not had access to an abundance of cheap resources and land. Opportunities and a sensible standard of living has thus depended on government guaranteeing them.

It makes no sense to talk about government being in the way of pursuit of happiness when most people are dirty poor renting some land all owned by a small elite, and there being no free land elsewhere.

That is why in Europe the purpose of governments is to a larger degree to guarantee rights of people. You can see that also in the different way free speech is understood in many European countries compared to the US.

In the US free speech is about government getting out of the way, but other entities obstructing your free speech is far more accepted in the US. While in Europe government to a larger degree seeks to protect your right to free speech in a wider variety of settings. That is why e.g. US company rules often restrict speech, while the same would usually be illegal in many European countries. As your speech is protected by government even inside companies.

People can have their preference on what they prefer. But I think the European model makes more sense for European history and society. It may make more sense in modern day America as well, since there the freedom to just find some land in the wilderness and do whatever is basically gone today. The US is in many ways recreating the old rich elite of Europe of old. The US is in many ways developing into an oligarchy and starts to mimic how Europe was in the early 1800s.
I'm more worried when I CAN'T buy that data - because then I have no idea what they're holding onto (for private deals, either with corps, defense contractors, .gov, etc).
Any comment on the implementation Google did for hangouts/google talk? It seemed like that should have been enough of a push.
Why BEAM? I know it’s good, just curious why this specific use case.
Standard charger law due by summer 2020
I hope this leads you to make friends with the other local woodworking nerds :)
I'm not sure about this. Algol 60 was a strong influence on most of the programming languages from around this time.

Algol 60 had a number of obvious deficiencies, which needed to be addressed. Both Algol 68 and CPL were designed to fix these issues, but had a level of complexity that made them impractical to implement.

Pascal, which Predates C slightly, grew out of of Wirth's much simpler (compared to Algol 68) set of changes to Algol 60.

The CPL people were having trouble with implementation, so Richards created a stripped down version (BCPL). Thompson apparently didn't have access to the full specification, but samples of it greatly informed the the design of B, which eventually begat C. Apparently the "killer-feature" of C over B at the beginning was byte-addressing, which is arguably no more or less niche than what any of these new languages claim.
Not the parent commenter, and I am not sure if there is lint in the port of my lightning powered devices, but I am confident that I have never had to clean it out to make it charge.
And if that were true maybe it should be downplayed since the ultimate catastrophe will be impact on medical unfrastructure, perhaps economic.
It gets better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-cadet_keyboard

control, meta, super, and hyper.
As https://blog.plover.com/Unix/tools.html says:

The bizarre mishmash of weirdness exists because so many different people invented so many tools over such a long period. And they wouldn't have done any of that inventing if the compositionality hadn't been there. I think we don't actually get to make a choice between an incoherent mess of composable paraphernalia and a coherent, well-designed but noncompositional system. Rather, we get a choice between a incoherent but useful mess and an incomplete, limited noncompositional system.

I agree that C++ development can be a mess. But it is often a mess for good reasons, not bad.
Maybe internet needs to learn how to paint politicians bringing up child porn regulation as molesters
> Quick, what's 1/3 of a meter?

33 cm

333 mm

333 333 micrometre

333 333 333 nm

... and so on ...

$ units
You have: 1|3 m
You want: ym
* 3.3333333e+23
/ 3e-24

> politicians

Oooooookay.
I love laughing at conspiracy theories like the fake moon landing, the flat earth theory, and ancient astronauts built the pyramids, but this insinuation is a step too far.
The problem with all such applications on Windows was (and probably still is) that it was too easy to install something that could bypass them at the network layer.

The other issue was that their blocking wasn't fine-grained enough; you couldn't, for example, do what others are describing elsewhere in this thread, allowing an application like firefox to connect to a particular site on a particular port only. You could only allow or block the application itself. You could tell the firewall to explicitly ask you on every request, but of course that wasn't feasible for apps like Internet Explorer. So anything that wanted to get around the firewall could just script Internet Explorer to send its request in the background and you would never see it.
And then it needs to dial in. And then you need to listen to the message anyway. You could have just picked up for less time and effort.

That is unless you're willing to pay for transcription service.
"There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses" is his other famous quote. I agree with you that (b) isn't that persuasive. C++ is one of those languages where the organisation using it kind of has to enforce their own subset for things to stay sane.
This seems a strange criticism--of course entries in a map don't disappear for no reason at all. Consider using an atomic cache if you are going to stick so many keys into the map that it becomes an issue. Or else bucket the keys into a known set, if you can tolerate the occasional collision.
E911 is one of those rare, valid exceptions to the bill of rights. Do you think people should be able to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater too?

Plus, it's probably arguable as to whether or not your cell providers' location data on you constitutes a "search" or not. Unless E911 works by transmitting your devices' GPS readings from its own hardware to authorities, but even then I am not sure since they are doing so as a middleman. IANAL

Also, you might wait but I'm not sure that most folk in distress would agree with you.
Thanks for the warning. I'll go with my normal approach to non-entertaining non-fiction and just read a couple of online summaries.

E.g. https://www.nateliason.com/notes/antifragile