skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It’s a common saying in South Africa. Just like a common expression of happiness there is “funding secured!”
I agree, but to me that's why it's dangerous to think about refactoring the whole codebase at once, whether strangler or rewrite. Project design is just like software design, you need to be design it for failure scenarios, eg business priorities shifting, poor execution, etc, without leaving the overall situation in a worse state than when you found it.

If you design a long lived code cleanup project where the only option is "we can't stop this project for another 6 months or we'll have an even bigger mess on our hands," that's poor project design. In this way, rewrites are almost safer. They're usually "atomic" and you can "roll back" by throwing it out if you can't focus on them.

All this is based on dynamic business and product needs that are shifting every couple of quarters, and a technical team that's getting new people, and shifting off more experienced folks every couple years. That seems to be a pretty standard expectation to me, though I'll admit I'm mostly looking at this through the lens of early, mid, and late stage startups. It may be big companies that move slowly and can guarantee resources for a larger project for a long time are a different story.
>Who the hell copy pastes code into their program without first

Millions upon millions of people learning via googling

But yeah hopefully not in production & ideally sandboxed
In my case, the answer is: my job pays my bills, while I work on my startup after hours. Also, as many mentioned, standard interviews are so much pain.
> Not sure I would call it "ragequitting".

Expecting to maintain a large public reputation and stay anonymous and then stopping when the facade is cracked is pretty unrealistic.
Conway’s Law Is Temporal: Why Tech Strategy and Vision Matters
Search and replace is a pretty reasonable way to delete a quote; lot's of editor UI's make that much more convenient than finding the end of some blob of text you just pasted into some pre-existing context.
The only thing I disagree with is best. Best is subjective, I find most news boring an irrelevant (a lot of gossip about people I don't care about) so while it is great if you can stand it, I tend to get mad about the subjects they consider worth covering and turn it off.

This is a reflection on me of course - you should have your own opinions.
This is really insulting.
Maybe it’s a sign that we shouldn’t want government bureaucrats to invade every area of our lives and let grown people make their own informed choices.
Depends on the university. Mine teaches all three, for example.
I like the hard-nosed business evaluation of this article. However, the difficulties of a successful “AI” company are the same difficulties a “web” company had in the 90s. How many “World Wide Web” (back when we used that phrase) products survived the bubble? And how many people made a lot of money while creating software of very little value? People understood, correctly, that the “Net” (sorry, can’t help my nostalgia) was a breakthrough technology that would change everything. But very few people understood how to use it effectively in that moment to provide business or consumer value.

The same is true today for deep learning models. The tech has advanced to the point where there are clearly products waiting to be built upon advances that are largely open-sourced (if not pretrained). But building a product that is useful hasn’t changed from being a very difficult task to easy simply because a new technology exists. Moreover, as the article points out, costs in terms of dollars and manpower are currently higher than a making another web or mobile app.

All this should make hackers salivate. The higher than challenge and the more advanced the stack, the greater an opportunity becomes.

A useful way of thinking about this moment is that we have another platform to launch products from: first desktop, then web, then mobile, now “AI”. Each platform enabled a new kind of product. Unlike the other platforms, which were essentially hardware mechanisms of software delivery, ML/DL is a software mechanism of delivering software. It is a fundamentally different way of creating software that produces fundamentally different kinds of software — the kind you couldn’t make any other way.

The article is right to throw the cold-water of reality on the hype of AI. But the backdrop is one of breakthrough technologies that are just waiting to be leveraged.
Bitcoin is the ecological desaster that OP talked about.

Smart contracts have the fundamental problem of people having to write perfect, error free code (as it can't be changed later), i.e. an impossibility. Often these smart contracts deal with a monetary value (as people strangely assign value to those "coins"), so something like the DAO hack on the Ethereum blockchain is inevitable. Also to do anything on a blockchain, even just add 1+1, on any hardware, no matter how expensive, no matter how far in the future, has to work at full capacity to hack some crypto. Your laptop will heat up and the fans go on full. Sounds trivial but if you've experienced it it's weird.

Oracles are a fundamental problem of blockchain: If you trust an outside source of truth, why need the blockchain? Go straight to the oracle.
This is weak evidence as these rules could be implemented at the point of new password entry, prior to encryption/storage.
Indeed, and the example above is just one of many possible ways to achieve the same result. That one works out of the box, but is tedious and cumbersome as you noticed.

To reduce voice strain and make input more reliable, one would spend a little bit of time to set up shortcuts so that e.g. "i enumerable" produces 'IEnumerable' and "of type" expands to '<‸>' and places the cursor at the caret. The voice input system is fully programmable at different levels of abstraction.
That's a lot of work for a sessions replacement... http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2016/06/19/stop-using-jwt-fo...
Its a Mac app: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/sequence-diagram/id1195426709?...
None of those objections seem right at all. The coronavirus deaths so far have been long, drawn-out affairs compared to the recoveries, so there's no particular reason to expact recoveries to lag deaths. We know China has been undercounting deaths as well as cases, and in any case thse estimates in this are based on non-Chinese numbers. Also, transmission outside of China hasn't just "petered" out - it was aggressively stamped out via contact tracing, which is why the non-Chinese numbers are likely to be a fairly accurate total count of infections. It's obviously pretty infectious judging from the clusters we've seen when someone from China who's infected does make it outside, and that level of contact tracing probably isn't going to be viable forever or in less developed countries.
The Only Full Scale Test of a Nuclear Missile Was 57 Years Ago
Everything you know about 5G is wrong
Unpleasant but Necessary: How to Fire a Remote Employee
Not making judgment but people rarely take the time to become informed before making a choice.
Is it faster to read? Maybe in terms of bytes/s, but not in lexemes/s nor in terms of getting an overall idea of how everything works.

Compare with this, which is probably more in the style you're thinking of:

https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/blob/master/src/Compilers/C...

There's so much "noise" that it's hard to see the "big picture", and the repetition of VeryLongIdentifiers causes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_satiation to occur quickly.
When breaking news came out a newspaper would sometimes publish an extra edition to go out in the afternoon. The paperboys would stereotypically say, “Extra! Extra! Read all about it!”
>The proposition was that they had a very nice workflow tool to take data, scrub it, partion it, build models against it, view performance

question - what is the best tool in this exact space right now ? (minus deployment)
The concept of ownership of an IP address, implied by “obtains”, is pretty clear and well-understood. The story was exactly what I imagined after reading the headline. Rather than making an obtuse joke, how would you suggest it be improved?
Reminds me of https://chirp.io/technology/
Pen Testing Ships. A year in review
Can't state level actors take over 50.1% of the computing pool and achieve the same result?
The interesting thing about grandmasters is their ability to recognise a winning position regardless of working out the moves yet, something AlphaZero (chess engine) seems to take to the extreme of recognising winning patterns that it can intuit will lead to winning games without hard calculation.

Maybe the architect equivalent is someone explaining the structure of a system and instantly knowing roughly where the problems are before inspecting the individual parts. Like the grandmaster the architect will intuit better than most where the problems likely are given a high level overview.
I do not think politics is entertainment, and I support the creation of virtuous cycles.

I think you've created a bit of a dichotomy where none was implied. All of our experiences online can be a form of entertainment, at least in part, politicians may be elected or not based on perception, and it's critically important to have and express values using good people. These ideas do not have to be in conflict with one another, and no cynicism on my part was intended.
>It is also difficult if there's an ill-defined interface that exposes implementation details, or no interface at all.

I've successfully strangled a large codebase that had these issues, though we did have the benefit of a client/server application so there was a place to actually define interfaces.

We started in the middle by creating a logical service layer to group all the bits of like functionality. We left the implementations alone, just moved them to align with the new "service" layer. We slowly worked our way up the stack, including defining a new client API, and then changed the existing API methods to be a shim on top of the new methods.

We were then able to update client code to use the new interface, but the old ones stuck around for about 24 months while we sunsetted older clients. The actual strangulation took about 2-3x as long a stop-and-rewrite effort, but there were VERY few regressions because we were still in a constant test and release cycle and managed the scope of strangulation changes in each release AND all of our testing was still valid since we weren't changing input/outputs or any expected behaviors.
HN has an overly optimistic view of the EU and doesn't see it as another government body with limited oversight.
Exactly this. That is why there is such pressure to keep Warren off the ticket. I'd love to see her swallow her pride and jump to a Sanders/Warren ticket. If she does well, then she can get her chance in a few years.
You will mentally read "token" every time you see "tk" anyway.

The same way you "grep", "ls" or "cd" --- it easily becomes as natural as any other language, unless you consciously try to stop yourself from learning.
I would expect a database of valid email addresses had been compromised. Context of what is being “obtained” matters, of course. But the sum total of valid IP addresses is a fixed, finite, and well-known value. Can you write a script to generate all valid email addresses?
If you carefully read Nils Melzer's report(s), you'll see that both women are unwilling victims of what's going on.
> It pains me to come to the conclusion that in Facebook, we have created something that should not exist: an addicative worldwide mob where peddlers can sell emotionally manipulative ideas to the people least able to handle them,

Or maybe, alternate world view, it does not even matter as much as you think it does.
> While I agree with your other points, the idea that transmission in Japan is petering out is wildly optimistic

Does that take the Diamond Princess cases into account, or just the others (66 last time I checked, and IMO the most important ones are the cases reported outside the group of people who were repatriated and quarantined)? IMO it is clear that keeping all those people in close quarters in the cruise ship wasn't the best idea after all (because interactions keep on occurring, and thus infections keep on spreading).

I also don't find the story of the health officer infected for "10 minutes contact" (or so the NHK says) very credible, or at best, it is a stochastic event.

A real problem is instead that, for outside infections, people kept on working and having contact with others despite being sick.

I don't want to downplay the issue at all, but as far as I can see the Japanese press (I can't say much about the actual people living there) going absolutely hysterical over this (but it was the same with H1N1 back in the days). The government then follows suit.
A simpler and more obvious theory is that the USA's "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program" (to detect and identify UFOs) was just that - meant to identify any unknown potential threat in the sky. Any plane, drone, satellite, rocket, missile etc. is technically an Unidentified Flying Object till it is identified.
https://coincircle.com/l/MfCCgWqnhZ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LNR8u19x6Y
Hindering someone from grabbing an emdash with copy-scripts is pretty petty. Edit: Anyway, reminds me when I used to troll my buddies with the ANSI.SYS hack.
For me it's 3), although I'm no public policy expert. Why wouldn't they discuss a potentially great idea with the chief decision maker?
Really even if VCs were utterly rational their model already incentivizes "go big or go home" on a grand scale. You as a founder would be perfectly fine with a "mere" 10% chance of a "just" 10M$ company to early retire, work with independence to be able to walk away at will, or bootstrap depending on ambitions. VCs would win more amortized over all of their funding a 0.01% chance for a $100B company. That fits with the current big money model of trying to pump up a given service with no business model to get user base and then have it collapse after they alienate their users trying to monetize it. It looks utterly stupid and may be a form of economic resource misallocation (both as a matter of opinion and derth of comparable data) but it benefits the VC.
You don't mention how much data. At some size point, a cheap storage server and minio (open source s3 compatible) might be a better value.

At the low end, OVH has a 4×4TB HDD SATA + 1×500GB SSD NVMe server for ~$90/month.

Of course, you have to configure and administer it, so not for everyone.
North Korea managed to survive up until 2006 without nukes, so obviously there are other means.

At the same time, there are plenty of military planners that don't view nukes as a definitive reason not to pick a fight considering the large amounts of effort they put into planning a nuclear war.
The Mighty Yamaha CS-80
Your comment seems to be assuming bad faith. This is not helpful for a discussion, nor does it add anything to it.

My own problem with GP is that they claim "attacking toxic masculinity is not attacking masculinity", but I don't think the people using this term would defend similar language if the genders were reversed. If we called stereotypically bad feminine traits "toxic femininity" it would be called out as sexist. Indeed, it is[0]. I can't imagine most racial descriptors would fair much better. "The limits of my language are the limits of my world," and we shouldn't be surprised when attaching a descriptor of a subset of humanity to a negative term sparks backlash. It seems like we face this general problem where it's shitty to use group descriptors for negative behavior, but sometimes groups of people are disproportionately responsible for some subset of negative behavior, and we've traditionally been more willing to attach negative terminology to oppressed groups, but now some of us are simultaneously realising that was a shitty practice and deciding to attach negative descriptors to the oppressive groups instead... which is kind of understandable, since those groups have been oppressive, but we're still dealing in broad group identities that encompass some individuals who have behaved less oppressively than other individuals who fall into less oppressive group identities, and using group identities as a linguistic weapon in this way is sort of obviously going to engender mistrust and negative reactions. So, maybe it would be more helpful for the dialogue if we found linguistic constructs that didn't pair "man-" or "male-" with some harmful follow-up. If we find ourselves in a situation where it is useful to discuss the intersection of group identity and negative behavior, it might be nice to slow down and say exactly what we mean rather than calling it "toxic masculinity" and then being surprised when this is taken as an attack on men.

That said, I do agree that GP's subpoints are actual issues which we should address. I just have serious reservations about this language.

[0]: https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Toxic_femininity
You would think there wasn't chess clubs all over the world where you can walk in and find people who know something about chess and copy their game. Just copy a game two ~1700s play in a friendly match and have your characters play that exact game - you will have your choice of games so you can choose who wins. Get the best player in the club to advise you if you want the characters to talk about something - it isn't hard to get this right with a little expert help.
Well it isn't like novels and books haven't been warning of the danger. My favorite being Stephen King's The Running Man and the first movie made from it; both are good for reasons.

What we see in a video can equally change what is portrayed by careful selection of the what leads to the event being shown as well as what follows. The other threat to justice is video existing that is not entered into evidence whether by procedural means or deceit. Throw in that not only is the image portion valuable and subject to manipulation but audio is far easier to tamper with.
That's just how you call P.R.China (Zhongguo Dalu), excluding the SARs (Hongkong, Macau) and, of course, excluding all the territories that China illegally claims from all it's neighbors (Taiwan, Japan's Senkaku Islands, India's Arunachal Pradesh province, parts of Malaysia, parts of the Philippines, parts of Indonesia, parts of Vietnam, etc.)
Having multiple almost identical ways of achieving things is a bug magnet in programming languages. Differing programmers will presumably use different styles (why else even support differences?), and if you mix code like that, bugs ensue. This a hassle not just because autoformatters are liable to make churny changes (which distract from real changes, which makes history harder to understand: bug magnet), but also because people will make mistakes e.g. when find-replacing (another minor bug magnet!). Then there's the fact that some of those quotes aren't symmetric - so you need to think of something to have happen when they're unpaired or used incorrectly, and it wouldn't surprise me if no matter what you did, you surprise somebody (bug magnet!).

Sure: these are all quibbles, and a language wouldn't die from all these minor cuts. But they're definitely downsides, not upsides. So: where is that upside? Why would you ever support something like this? "It looks a little nicer" sounds like a pretty weak argument compared to "it's inconsistent, hard to machine process, and may cause a few bugs"...
We use JWT for doing time and ip address limited cross domain redirection. We also use it for partners who want to provide sso access to our site with having to implement a full oAuth. They just provide us with their public key and use any of a number of libraries for to generate a JWT with the ip address and an short expiration and an email. Once we receive a JWT key and validate it using their public key (and other associated fields) we establish a standard cookie session.
I've never seen a Wikipedia article on the front page of HN. Any idea why this particular one made it?
Usually it seems to be a “wow, that’s neat” quickly followed by forgetting about the feature.
I've been at a mega-corp that let newly hired developers to build new stuff while senior devs are busy putting out customer fires that in many cases, were caused by those junior devs in the first place. "We want to make sure the junior devs have interesting things to work on so they stick around."
Linkedin request sent.
You going to work also serves the purpose "to get somebody to [give you] money they otherwise wouldn't have". So that definition is obviously too broad, and different from the definition of fraud mentioned above.

Advertisement tends to deal in opinions, not facts. And where specific factual claims are made against better knowledge it does constitute fraud, and is occasionally prosecuted. See Volkswagen's emissions claims, for example. Or, just this week, some hand sanitiser got hit by the FDA for claiming protection against Ebola and Coronavirus.
Tell them to Bing it instead.
We like to see ourselves as good people doing good deeds. Nazis were bad, I would never do what they did - even if they won, and ruled the world. I am ethical and do what is right. Same with office politics, religion, donations etc - I will move towards/away what I evaluate as good/bad.

If I see wealth as corrupt evil and middle-class as a wholesome ethical alternative, I will strongly resist everything that creates wealth to reinforce my self-image and world view. If I see money as a powerful positive lever in life, I will relentlessly try to create a profitable venture because that re-inforces my positive self-image. It doesn't guarantee I will become wealthy, but not doing this guarantees I won't.
That reads like Vogon poetry.
I second the camino de santiago, crazy good shape, electric paragliding, volunteer, donate blood, help homeless people in the streets, be gentle with people, use a sensory-deprivation tank, experiment with psychedelics; Becoming a farmer seems really interesting as well;
I've gotten multiple Tumbleweed badges for answering an old question with a better answer. You can't blame the system for the fact someone who either long ago fixed the problem or gave up doesn't come back to change the "correct" answer.
Why is that impressive? JS is one of the most powerful and performant general-purpose languages in common use.
> If you claim Leslie works at 10x the speed and only needs 2x the salary, the math works out for a business major. So I guess that's the reason you need the number.

I think that's perfectly justified. So much is lost in software quality because those people think programming as dry labour and outsource to cheap sources, losing so much in future revenues but unfortunately that's not even measurable.

Joel Spolsky put it nicely in a post: It is not that it requires `n` bad programmers to do what one good programmer does. It is that `n` bad programmers can't build what a good programmer builds, no matter how big `n` is or how much time it takes.
If you know how to master that process, then you're probably already good at sales.
Any master against me can call mate in 40 and be right.

I did remove grandmaster though. Grandmaster is a lifetime title, while master is something earned and taken away. Thus former great can earn grandmaster and then go senile and play at a level below me - well at least in theory, I don't know if any exist but I'd love to play one just so I can say I beat a grandmaster.
Consider non-native English speakers. For them, the abbreviation makes it much harder to read.