skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> they're expecting that the word private means something

In a world where Facebook and Google have widespread vulns exposed on at minimum a yearly basis, that's their fault for not reading, and just "trusting the computer".

I'm not a chef, but I make sure I know where my food's coming from to the best of my ability.
I'm sorry I didn't solve the problem until late. This situation was caused by Firefox's lack of support for RegEx's lookbehind assertion. I'm trying to create a non-lookbehind version for RegEx.
How? Every campaign spends money on advertising.
I'm pointing out that an arena is more about "a region of memory that you can split up to use later" than "a region of memory that must be allocated and deallocated all at once".
Amazon has been in thousands of legal cases throughout the years. Nobody really cares. Besides, small claims cases don't really create a record.
The tweets in their example look like people clicking a share button, which commonly use a link shortener and are often formatted like “article - link,” you can see this by searching for headlines of nearly any publisher on Twitter. Here is an example for an article currently on the NYT homepage: https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=Bernie%20Sanders%2C%20th...

The OP’s hero image caption states:

> Twitter says duplicative messages violate its policy against platform manipulation and spam

Does this mean people should start to worry about clicking share buttons now? It is hardly bot activity to use a feature of the platform. Everyone who clicks a share button by default is tweeting the same message.
That is nowhere near their goals.

Maybe if Go didn't start as a hobby project inside Google, then they /might/ even have seen some opportunity in Ocaml / Standard ML, but now that Go exists, and has a quite good toolchain, the incentive is low. Go and its foundations are radically different from a FP language like OCaml though.
A certificate is a secret. The longer you have a secret the more likely it is to be learned by others. Expiry is about risk mitigation, the shorter the expiry the smaller the risk.

Here risk is exposure of the key or the certificate being compromised. If it takes X time to break a certificate then an attacker will know your secret for expiry - X. We’re being hopeful that 13 months is unattractive to attackers given the current values of X even at the nation state level, and with cryptography we always have to look into the future not what’s capable today. There’s also a “herd immunity” thing going on if we all have shorter expiry as there are no easier targets and the attacker has to become much more focused.

IMHO there’s also benefits in rotation your cert more often. If you do it once every three years it’s more likely the folks who did it last time aren’t with your company or just plane forgot what they did. I think 13 months is still too long, I’d prefer every quarter because it forces the investment is a control system to facilitate rather than half-automated manual tasks. But that’s not what this proposal from Apple ios about.
I doubt wealth is exchanged 1 on 1 so clearly, there is lot of wealth accumulated in assets that change price for example. Or the commons, a limited wealth up for grabs at the expense of everyone else.
My problem with that is that it seems to be expected that even a developer without any experience should somehow be able to do this kind of estimation?
This is why I like small organizations where compensation can be tied to impact.

In large orgs, there are so many positions that are important but have unclear or many levels removed from impact (HR, audit, sanitation).

I've also encountered many people who aren't motivated by the mission, but rather have other motivating factors outside of work and still want to progress. I think having some systematic way to include and grow people who don't have natural motivation for impact is important, for large orgs.
This article says the people are disclosing.

"We ask that all of our deputy field organizers identify themselves as working on behalf of the Mike Bloomberg 2020 campaign on their social media accounts."
Searching for things like "MISRA C" and "real-time computing" will help you get started.
You know, we had a road trip in California, not only in that problematic part of it where the fire developed while being on the road (2 days out of 13). Which forced us dropping previous plans, revising plans due to parts of our destinations became unreachable. And the alternates becoming occupied making us searching for new accommodation extended beyond nightfall and destinations anticipated.
The rest is on us, yes, not buying our own offline navigation just for this trip intending to use the one from car rental assuming they provide one that is adequate for the area they operate in. Or not spending extended time on building up the offline map to the desired resolution for much more than we intended to go to. Well, we knew about the blind spots but planed for it except the consequences of the newly developed wildfire.

Probably next time you should only express opinion in topics you not only see from the idealistic viewpoint of an outsider.

Or simply not deviate from the topic of bad cell coverage just to criticize someone in something you cannot comprehend fully.
Requirements are hard, but the core problem of software engineering is complexity.
The embedded world is very slow to change, so you can read about "modern approaches" (i.e. approaches used today) in any book about embedded programming written in the last 30 years.

I currently work on spacecraft flight software and the only real advance on this project over something like the space shuttle that I can point to is that we're trying out some continuous integration on this project. We would like to use a lot of modern C++ features, but the compiler for our flight hardware platform is GCC 4.1 (upgrading to GCC 4.3 soon if we're lucky).
https://github.com/Amanieu/intrusive-rs implements what you're looking for with no heap. There's no need to flame or misrepresent what the book says (no one said embedded was a joke). The Rust embedded community is strong.
Can you share some of the highlights that made it worth a listen?

I don't really want to listen to that guy babel pro-ISP nonsense.
If requirements volatility is the core problem, the next question to ask is, Why is this the core problem here and not in other engineering disciplines?

I think it stems from a mismatch between the perceived cost and the actual cost of changing software, which one of the first comments on the article captured:

> That’s my take – the perception that software is simple to change, which stems from the lack of understanding of its inherent complexity by users, and the fact that it is, up to a certain point – is what makes requirements volatile.

Part of the problem too is that the actual cost of changing software varies by an order of magnitude or more, depending on how fluent the developer is with the tools they’re using, and how good they are at accommodating change. If that’s not something even we as a profession (if you can call it that) have been able to reliably quantify, expecting a client to understand it is beyond the pale.

I’ve been programming for most of my life, so if I see an app then most of the time I can get a sense for how long it’d take to build. But I still have this nagging feeling that building software — the act of translating what’s in your head into working code — seems to take way longer than it ought to.
<rant>I don't think most people know what they're doing when it comes to managing the delivery of software. The field is full of canards, facile simplifications, and self-referential, circular reasoning. A few examples.

- The problem is requirements. Is the system broken? Yes. Do the requirements say for it to be this way? Yes. Must be broken requirements, right? Since requirements are the "driver" of the process, if the process is broke so must be something about requirements.

- Software is never done. Bullshit. Do I need somebody to reprogram my decades-old mp3 player? I do not. Would it be nice if somebody did? Maybe, but it's not required for me to enjoy the software. The software is written, does its job, and needs no maintenance. It's done. There's plenty of software being updated today for pretty good reasons that for all intents and purposes is done. Just nobody wants to admit it. If it's possible to add stuff or update it, we do. It's what we do.

- FTA, "...Requirements change. Every software engineering project will face this hard problem at some point..." That's true, but woefully incomplete. Your job creating software is not to meet the requirements, it's not to change and add stuff as the requirements change. That's viewing the work, once again, as requirements-driven. No matter what your process or paperwork, the work is ultimately user-driven, not requirements-driven. Your job is to scope a domain, anticipate change in that domain, and provide easy-to-use configurable software that anticipates that change. You do that by knowing the users and the work, not by reading requirements or responding to updated requirements. That kind of thinking removes the key piece of the entire work, the user. By the time somebody gives you a requirement, it's too late. Your design is whack.

How do we make aviation and space travel gear safe? We fly the hell out of it. What's the wrong way to go? Build one-at-a-time and ask for changes and complete reworks for every new project. How do we build software today? Like we used to build rockets; using the wrong metaphor. We need reusable, configurable, capabilities-driven software, not endlessly worked-on huge hunks of bytes from BigCorp feature factories.</rant>

EDIT: Just to clarify the rocket metaphor, we'd be far, far better off using COTS tools and writing minimalist, simple code that only does a few things, then pounding the hell out of it with actual usage to figure out which "axes of change" we missed. Instead, more and more everything has some unique tech stack, a byzantine testing and deployment deployment system, the entire thing fun of tons of complex one-of code everywhere ... then we stick on new features one at a time every time there's something a user wants that it doesn't have. From a managing-complexity and managing-cost standpoint, it's actually worse than the Big Project rocket situation we had for decades.
Some people have purposely avoided studying any of the last 3000 years of human history involving communications. Especially those involving deception.
You can. Rust allows full memory addressing.
I'm not an active seller anymore so I can't check how it currently works. I believe it did show whether the return is in or out of policy. I'm also not sure if there's actually a deny return button, or only an accept button and an option to close the return (which you could if you resolved the issue without returning, which sellers are encouraged to do).
I guess that slowing down doesn't pay well in an industry where a startup can get from zero to billion in a few years?
Custom Object Recognition for Non-Developers
> Hilarious that the author felt the need to add "can give feedback without hurting people" to the senior engineer bullet list.

Why is that hilarious? Anyone can give feedback, maybe even correct feedback, but what is the point of feedback? It should be to help the person receiving the feedback improve. A senior engineer should be thinking about the team and not themselves. This includes their ego. If they are giving feedback to show off how smart they are in a way that hurts the team, that is not senior IMO.
This is also standard in certain secure facilities and I've visited companies that use them. They're called scramble pads. I think you get better at entering the numbers, and you wait until you see the sequence before going for the pad.
So promote until the Peter principle is activated?
There are different kinds of killing machines. And accurate missiles are among the least bad.

With the exception of nuclear weapons (that's another topic), missiles are designed to destroy one particular target of strategic importance and nothing more. They are too expensive as mass killing weapons, but they are particularly appropriate for defense.

Without missiles, you may need to launch an assault, destroying everything on your way to the target, risk soldier lives, etc... Less accurate weapons mean higher yield to compensate, so more needless destruction.

War is terrible, but I'd rather have it fought with missiles than with mass produced bombs, machine guns, and worst of all, mines.
English might not be his first language. Not mine either, so I did not notice the bad grammar!

I have noticed in my own use of English language that after getting into a level where I get understood well enough in work situations and such, my language skills have started to stagnate. It does not help that even I use mostly English in my daily work, there are practically no native speakers around.

But I do agree communication skills being part of what is considered seniority. Also, being able to hold different viewpoints and communicate those to others could be considered part of being mature too.
> he pulled me aside and sternly instructed “You should never repeat that story”

We really need more exposure for the things that people like that want to silence..
Yeah I don’t know how you handle something like this and don’t end up in a place where only sanctioned decrees and declarations from the ministry of truth in information is allowed. Not that there’s an obvious solution to this mire
My older co-workers have some great alternative definitions of that initialism.
I live in a high-tourism city that is not Paris and AirBNB severely reducing the amount of housing on the market is definitely a problem that high-tourism cities are having.
Well that's microsoft 101, what did you expect?
the question of facilitation of piracy can be an issue

it doesnt have to stick if you get enough copyright trolls on you your wallet will get thin as you handle multiple court cases regardless of outcome

I recall something about canada considering a publicly broadcasted TV show to be in the public domain so that things like threes company or happy days are fair game in canada... is that true?
The idea that you can't be anonymous in such a situation is a "junior" attitude.

The "senior" attitude would be to find ways to achieve autonomy and improve the situation. They would either succeed or determine the company doesn't actually want a senior person in that role and move on.

In talking with senior people who have been in such situations, you hear stories about their valiant efforts with partial or full results. When I talk with junior people, you hear about complaints and wishes but little action beyond their own work.
Hypothesis does not rely on wealth exchanged 1 on 1. The idea of modelling is to capture essential features.

This model looks at the case where everything is fair and everybody is equal. In the sense it's the best possible world scenario and it demonstrates that inequality builds up even if no player is better than other.
Ringing the alarm about paper mills
If you don’t mind moving away from the VNC protocol, the NX protocol (via NoMachine¹) is a fantastic alternative. Faster than VNC and can forward audio from the server to the client as well.

――――――

¹ — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_technology
See for example: the professional Instagram shills like fuckjerry (of Fyre Fest fame) always mention it was paid for by Mike Bloomberg in the text area

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/instagra...

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/mike-bloo...
That's exactly what senior behavior looks like, and is what propels you to the next level.
You're like the sixth person to argue I'm somehow "misrepresenting" what is being said in this book? I'm quoting it directly. The "flame" is in the original, and I'm responding to it.

Take it out. It's bad.
What's visibility?
He's already spent $460 million.
It’s certainly a silly word to gatekeep.
That's great, as long as you're happy with the POSIX Unix utilities (probably, wouldn't bet my life on it) and whatever Bash 3.x provides.

This can break quite fast if you rely on something from Bash 4 (released 11 years ago, still not on OS X by default), or some command-line tools that's either not installed or uses switches/functions only available in their GNU incarnations.

For anything that involves more than one file or with a line count going into triple digits, I wouldn't recommend bash. And heck, for those kind of scripts, I'd go one step further and stick with plain 'sh', just to be really sure. Bash adds little. GNU missed the train of transitioning to something like ksh93, probably because RMS thought that everyone would be using Guile once Hurd is out. (I once worked with a pretty large piece of software for packaking/administration mostly written in ksh93, as this was more palatable for commercial Unix users -- not as important these days where you won't run into AIX, HP-UX and Irix anymore)

For anything more involved than a few straightfoward lines, I'd probably still pick Perl 5. Very common, especially as some operating systems/distros have it in their core tooling (e.g. CentOS) and because it's included in git, so even available on Windows. Standard functionality is good enough and it's no big jump from sh/awk/sed.
Rather do that before I depend on some obscure gawk function or gsed switch, especially as it's really hard to tell whether that's proprietary or in what version it was first introduced. Cross-browser checking is easier these days than cross-distro/unix.

Python does have a better/bigger standard library, but isn't as common and you might even run into Python 2/3 shenanigans these days.

Still, the situations where you have something moderately complex and can't install stuff should be pretty rare. Might not be able to do it for the whole system, but things like perlbrew/rbenv/nvm/pyenv-du-jour solve that mostly. At that level, Go might be an option, too.
And this is a part of normal functioning american politics. The manufacture of consent, as Noam Chomsky described.
Having used both for years, nowadays I would recommend using F#.

The syntax is very similar but it solves many of Ocaml's pain points and you will get better tooling and more libraries thanks to .Net.
There's some truth in your statement that most people do not wish to admit and are quick to dismiss as "rebellious, arrogant juniors".

I generally see two kind of seniors. The first group is senior in terms of experience and hard work. The second group got there only through obligation, working for years without growing a lot. Unfortunately, I see most management puts a hard cap on minimum experience before being a senior, so the former group and the latter group become indistinguishable. Other problems include Peter principle, where because someone got promoted to senior, he is now attributed as a good leader, despite having no experience leading as a junior before. Skills that are at best orthogonal are attributed to seniority, despite the fact many junior and medior people may be better at teaching, leading and mentoring others than their seniors. Nothing in the track guarantees a senior ever has to practice or show their excellence in these skills, either.

Furthermore, most people aren't doing interesting things. They get a revolutionizing experience at work maybe once a month at best, if not far longer. Couple that with an echo chamber and suddenly, they believe it is normal to take 3 to 10 years to become an expert on fairly trivial domain knowledge. We're not talking about top-of-the-line C++ programmers, ML experts, people driving innovation, veteran software architects or whatever. We're talking your average CRUD web programmer who did some backend, maybe some frontend. We're talking people who believe one can only be senior being able to deploy an application from scratch into a new environment, thinking this takes at minimum 3 years to learn when in reality, you could pick up a guide how to do this today. The only real thing you'll miss out are office politics and navigating in a group setting. The former is so volatile and context-dependent, you might as well learn it on the fly or wait until 15 years have passed by and pretty much any possible situation has come up. The latter is severely overstated in difficulty and most people will pick this up in no time, unless the team is dysfunctional to begin with.
My god, would LOVE PR interdependence. Esp if I could leave a review like "approved after #123 is merged"
When I was first getting started with Rust this tutorial was eye-opening. It gave me a clear view into the somewhat impenetrable world of working with Boxes (pointers to the heap) directly, in the context of the borrow-checker.

It also convinced me that you usually just want to use the standard library data structures if you can :P
10 Italian Towns in Lockdown over Coronavirus Fears
Not most programs that I run (ie, hexchat for IRC which is better than discord in all ways). And those that do don't do it silently every time they start, and not just after they start, but any time they're running with no notification to the user.

No, a program with an 'update' feature built in is much less offensive than a program who's entire code is remote and new every time but still has local privs.
Hacking Awareness
Zelda, Speedrunning and the Controversy over Arbitrary Code Execution
There's nothing to prevent you from doing this, although you may have to wrap it in an unsafe block.
> It's a fine data structure with several great use cases, but those use cases are exceptional, not common.
I’ve been enjoying this letter when this weird outdated analogy stopped me cold in my tracks:

„In reviewing my uneven record, I’ve concluded that acquisitions are similar to marriage: They start, of course, with a joyful wedding – but then reality tends to diverge from pre-nuptial expectations. Sometimes, wonderfully, the new union delivers bliss beyond either party’s hopes. In other cases, disillusionment is swift.“

What’s bizarrely archaic about this is that if he had simply said „Dating“ or „relationships“ he would have been equally correct, if not more so. And unlike a marriage, he can trade portions of his company holdings back, which in a sense makes it more like dating than a marriage proper.
Probably. Berkshire itself doesn't seem to think this; the letter starts off by arguing that GAAP earnings are a misleading metric and encouraging shareholders to ignore them.
You could shrink the keypad and randomly place it on the screen. Or independently change the width and height of the columns and rows of buttons. Or combine the two. This would make it harder to guess the PIN from the accelerometer and you could still use your muscle memory. Designers would have a fit though.

Edit: though on reflection, this might make no difference. Knowing the relative locations of the key presses is probably enough.
it's against Twitter's terms of service:

"We have made this decision based on our belief that political message reach should be earned, not bought. "

https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/prohibited...
Coronavirus wreaking havoc in the tech industry, affects FOSS
Bloomberg is not manufacturing any consent though. He's just proving, again after Hillary did it in 2016, that money doesn't win elections.

I for one am glad this talking point is being finally put to rest.
> Why is this the core problem here and not in other engineering disciplines?

Software is the blueprint of a process. Software engineering is basically the art of exact specifications.

Once you've unambiguously specified what it is you want, you're done. The rest is pretty much an appropriate language an a compiler but we have plenty of those.
https://nypost.com/2020/02/22/first-coronavirus-death-in-ita...
Thanks a lot for the keywords; these are very good starting points to look for further stuff on the topic!

Didn't know that there was a term (i.e., real-time computing) for this kind of systems / constraints.