skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One thing is that ALB to Lambda restrictions suck.

Lambdas have a 6mb response size. Api gateway has a 10mb response size. If you go ALB to Lambda. And your response is over 1mb. Your response will fail. Because the ALB team decided to introduce a random 1mb limit, not document it as a limitation, and added it to their trouble shooting notes instead.

So if you need to return a small PDF or something from a lambda via ALB. Good luck.
Yes, people don’t leave warehouses without guards if there is anything of great value in them that’s easily to walk away with.
In statistics, there is an optimal sample size for avoiding type 1 and 2 errors.

https://www.stat.ubc.ca/~rollin/stats/ssize/n2.html
> though would drop the merge commit entirely

The merge commit is important though. It helps delimiting a set of commits that have meaning all together from the rest of your commit history. Here's an example:

a -> b -> c -> d -> e -> f -> g -> h -> i -> j -> k

In the history above, did you notice that commits c through h are actually related to one another? They were introduced a while ago by a feature branch.

Compare the previous history to this:

c -> d -> e -> f -> g -> h
a -> b / \ i -> j -> k

Now that's very clear that c through h are part of the same line of work. All those commits were probably part of 1 single pull request and were reviewed in the context of one another.

My history here is still very linear. Yes, there's 1 little branching off, but that's all.

At my previous company we had a codebase of well over 20k commits entirely made of those little branches branching off master, then merging back in. It made it for an incredibly readable history.

An other added advantage of not removing the merge commit is that you can revert the entire merge of your branch in one go.

Without the merge commit, you need to remove each commit one by one (and that's granted you remember which commit was the first one and which one was the last one).
> Squashing that history of 25 commits, will create one giant

> commit of 1500 changes. Have fun finding where in those

> 1500 changes that little nasty bug was introduced!

100% agree, the only purpose of this is to make "pretty graphs" at the cost of destroying the history of the code changes.

I prefer to write small commits with simple messages that explain exactly what that change does. Sometimes it costs some time in Git Gui selecting the lines that make up the commit, but ultimately it's worth it.
Thank you. The game description in the article didn't really make sense since it skips the (impossible) claim that:

1. Every row has an even sum

2. Every column has an odd sum
PHP famously has the wrong associativity for the ternary operator.
Cathay Pacific fined £500k by British privacy watchdog for 2018 data breach
The masks encourage a warm moist environment surrounding your nose and mouth.

If the mask becomes contaminated, it becomes an ideal vector for encouraging infection -- so if you touch the inside of the mask with your contaminated hands (say you move the mask to touch your face or adjust it or whatever), for example, the mask becomes the opposite of protective.

Masks are somewhat effective at reducing spread if the already-infected person is wearing the mask.
I had a 45-minute standup the other day.
This is the most content-free disclosure I've seen in a long, long time. Things I'd love to have seen:

1. attack vector

2. time when attack was detected

3. time attack was mitigated

4. scope of impact

There isn't even a single date! This could apply to just about _any_ breach at any time.

/rant
I run git rebase -i a lot more often because I like to reword a bunch of commits to make the commit messages clearer just before pushing.

And git reflog is indispensable for fixing things.

And I'm surprised you didn't mention git diff. I do that all the time to compare things, like having a single diff of all commits between the origin diff base and current HEAD. Also useful for summarizing changes of entire feature branches.

Git is like C++. People learn and use a different subset of it and everyone claims their own chosen subset is powerful enough and entirely sufficient for everyone.
Didn't know that ALBs could front Lambdas... Will be so happy to be able to be rid of APIGW...
Are you referring to this? https://www.4armed.com/blog/hacking-digitalocean-kubernetes/

I'm curious as to whether that has been fixed and a proper security evaluation done. I've been avoiding k8s on DO for a while because of that (perfectly comfortable with their other services) but it would be good to get an update.
Not quite, you can do some stuff that affects the correlation between one output and the other, but that can't be used for communication as each output in isolation looks random.
Show HN: Lydia – a simple terminal RSS reader
So did lewendowski when the event in question took place.

They are technically on the hook for his too but they will definitely try to argue that since an actual crime took place, their indemnity only goes so far. And I'm sure there is some language to that effect in their policies as well.
Another thing we changed is dropping the "master" branch, since it didn't provide anything useful.

This is the one thing about Git Flow that I never quite understood. Feature branches, great. Main develop line, sure. Release branches, OK. But what is the advantage of maintaining a master branch that gets some nominal end point for releases merged in and tagged?

In reality, one of the main advantages of a Git Flow style of workflow is that it doesn't assume you can just conveniently forget history, maintain a single current version of your product, and deploy changes on a whim. Instead, you can maintain a normal process for new development, but also keep control of old releases and of release processes that might involve significant extra steps. But all of the latter benefits come from using release branches, not the odd way of merging from those branches to master, which isn't at all used in the conventional way in Git Flow.

Indeed, the master branch implies a linearity of releases that probably doesn't make much sense for a lot of projects. You might need to push out something like a security fix for several older versions, which is easily represented by making a new tagged public release from each of the earlier release branches, but then what even should be merged to master according to Git Flow?
Only when the humanities get taught a bit of science.
> Its already time to use a global time and stop with this bs of timezones. Timezones are an unreliable way to measure time the relation between time space

Time zones exist because the Earth is roughly spherical. Going to global time does not change this, and so does not remove the need for time zones.
> Rice's theorem

Is it even a theorem, such hand-wavy thing is a theorem boggles my mind.
Are self-employed people paying less taxes per se in France?
The fact is that this doesn't work for everyone. What we found to be most workable is master is always "stable", then we have a production branch that is cut from master.

This gives you a few things:

1. More predictable deployments (let's deploy every week with X items)

2. Better rollbacks (rollback to last production deploy instead of guessing SHA1 of last acceptable state)
The same research is quoted again and again...

But people do travel in an ever increasing amount over timezones. Often many of them, often more than twice a year. At least here bar opening hours have been significantly deregulated over the last decades. So you can go out and drink until 4am or 5am and obviously people do that.

Compared to that the health effects of 1 hour time shift twice a year sound ridiculous to me.
If you just robbed a truck, are you going to carry all the contents on your back? For two miles?
It's not just which hours, it's also how many.

If you're a contractor hired to build a shed and it takes you 8 hours, you're there all day. But if you can build it in 2 hours, you get to go home, and you still get paid the same.

If you're a Target employee brought in to do inventory and it takes most people 8 hours but you finish in 2, you're only going home if you don't want to get paid for the other 6 hours. Otherwise you're going to be stocking shelves or sweeping floors or working a register until the clock runs out.

Driving works like the first one. If you can make a 45 minute drive take 42 minutes, you get to keep the other 3 minutes. (In theory if you can make a 45 minute drive take 15 minutes you get to keep the other 30 minutes, but good luck with that.)
Once I learned the "elementary back stroke" I felt that I could safely swim in water again.

Something I learned as part of the swimming merit badge :)
Somebody has a war story
Ask HN: Why do people keep saying that software interview process is broken?
The companies that are trying to push this agenda are companies that are in business of selling interview/collaboration tools.

I accept that the interview process can be improved but not so much as broken. I still feel that the ability to solve data structures and algorithms problems is a good measure of swe skill. Though one can argue that swe is much more than just ds and algo problems. But it still is a good measure.

Please give me an alternate perspective here?
It is documented, at least on this page:

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticloadbalancing/latest/appl...

Right at the top of the page, underneath the header "Limits"

> The maximum size of the response JSON that the Lambda function can send is 1 MB.
>It's a different feeling altogether to be discomforted by art, but for no purpose.

There's something alienating in the emotional response evoked by an AI designed to simulate human creativity, which ironically transcends itself in the relationship between a "real" and "artificial" intelligence, creating a legitimate work of art in the contemplation of manufactured emotion. You begin to question whether your response is any less the product of a blind, stochastic machine than the stimulus.

Also some of them look like spooky faces.
Only 50? The country spans almost 110° longitude, from West Quoddy Head lighthouse in Maine (66 degrees 57 minutes west.) to Cape Wrangell on Attu Island, Alaska (172 degrees 27 minutes east.)

That's nearly 1/3 of the globe. So why not ~450 down-to-the-minute timezones? Or, why not subdivide those into 28,000 down-to-the second timezones?

How would we ever ensure that all those times were universally coordinated?

Bonus question: What timezone is the moon?
> Master should always be in a deployable state.

I think the head of master should always be deploy-able, but ultimately it seems better to make use of tagging of specific hashes which realize some degree of reliability for field use.

Obviously you have your unit tests and other kinds of tests, but ultimately nothing beats just using it. If it "feels" reliable (which can be hard to quantify sometimes) or has proven itself (you've been using it without issue for some time), then it's probably worth tagging for that fact.

> Incomplete features that will take more than a week or so

> to develop should be merged to master early protected by

> feature flags. This avoids long running branches.

I prefer to properly scope the time/effort required to complete a feature, rather than having massive features. If a feature is taking more than a few weeks to bring into fruition (assuming ~1 dev per branch), then it's probably too large of a feature and needs to be broken down. A properly sized feature should probably fit within a sprint cycle.
you could even put down tracks for the cars to go on so they could reach higher speeds, and chain them together for efficiency. almost like some kind of train!
Yes yes yes. Different teams have different needs, of course, but what you described should be considered the default workflow.
It's not a copyright system. Sure, YouTube are required to take down copyright-infringing material as defined by law, but AFAIK they are not required to apply considerations for fair use etc. I'm not sure there's any requirement for them to consider the truthfulness of copyright claims at all.

IOW, YouTube's system may be a response to copyright legislation, but it does not apply that legislation. Appeals to the fair use doctrine are missing the point. The doctrine does not apply since YouTube's actions are not constrained by copyright law.

IANAL, as you can probably tell. I may be wrong about what YT are required to consider, but in that case, I don't see how they can operate as they do.
It's broken because the interview has little to no correlation of on-the-job success. The current process does a poor job answering: "Can the candidate succeed in the role we need filled?"
China is loosening up quarantine regulations, bit by bit.

If their numbers are faked, then they're also being faked to internal decision makers.

And, for what it's worth, the WHO confirms the numbers are broadly accurate.
Yeah, it's common for Influencers with a big subscriber base to shove all their videos into Content ID, so other smaller channels get their videos claimed because they happened to play the same video game (and the audio matched as a result).

AFAIK in that case it's at least not malicious, it's just the content ID system completely failing to handle this category of content, where a big chunk of the visuals and/or audio are guaranteed to match with other videos because it's a recording of interactive media.
Nice to see this on HN as it has been discussed on Twitter with amuse.
My feet sink if I try to float on my back w/o swimming. But there's another float called the dead man's float that works fine for me. It also works well in rough water:

https://www.sportsrec.com/survival-float-6582.html
Not sure the relevance of the metaphor. In this case it seems like Goliath ended up stepping o David's head.
The language is so full of weasel words I find it almost offensive, given the context.

may have impacted,
quickly shut down,
immediately commenced,
leading ... experts,

For the future, lawyers, here you go:
http://matt.might.net/articles/shell-scripts-for-passive-voi...
There's a lot of talk about acute risks--what happens a day or two after the time change. Most articles you'll read are all about this.

The second topic, the main one that circadian scientists talk about, is chronic risks, and I believe they are more important to our health. To follow this logic, you have to believe that people will continue doing whatever it is they do today (e.g., going to bed at midnight), and won't shift their schedule around right away to optimize sleep--i.e. they will not recognize that their body clock is set mainly by sunlight. The campaign to change school start times has been going for 25+ years already, so fast changes here are pretty rare.

When the clocks change, people wake up at a different circadian time, and if that time is too early, it is associated with worse health outcomes.

Some large-scale epidemiological tools have been used to figure these things out. One compares the difference between sleep patterns on "work" days and "free" days - like how much do you sleep in on a weekend? (Till Roenneberg's "social jetlag"). A second method uses "position in timezone" - comparing people living on the eastern or western edge of a timezone in various ways.

Roenneberg's work from the mid-2000s showed that night owls suffer a lot under "wake up before the sun" kinds of schedules (their "social jetlag" is bigger) - it makes them fatter, more irritable, get more diabetes, etc. They don't go to bed any earlier, but they're forced to wake up earlier.

Next, when you look at timezone position (this has been done for millions of people), people on the western edge of a timezone (where the sun comes up later but the clock is set at the same time) are quite a bit worse off for cancer rates and obesity - 10-20% more for some kinds of cancers, and a roughly 20% increase in chances of being obese.

I'm worried about these chronic health problems, so I've been writing and advocating for standard time:
https://medium.com/@herf/why-standard-time-is-better-e586b50...
Choosing a shirt and tie doesn't contribute to decision fatigue in fact modern professional dress is designed to mitigate decision fatigue in many small and subtle ways without reducing the process of dressing to absurdity
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” – Salvador Dali
> I imagine each bovine exported off the property represents some amount of water.

A cow contains 100 to 200 gallons of water, by my estimate.
incrediable
At the volume I was running APIGW I saved 91% in cost moving to ALB.
Nearly every other industry has things worse. We just like to complain.
Darn I actually missed git diff. I haven't been using a bash history so I don't have something check against. I'm confident now it's complete tho.

Rebase -i is a lot to fun, I ought to practice it more. Haven't had to use reflog yet, but I'll be expecting it now thanks~
I would imagine it is difficult to do customer service for a phone carrier without using phone numbers in internal emails. Customer addresses could just be something like "customer is reporting poor service at their home address: 123 Xyz Lane, etc". Presumably all orders placed electronically contain a phone number and address as part of the invoice, so that may be part of it as well.
Tim O'Reilly – Remembering Freeman Dyson
That was disappointing, I was expecting more insights into the law and YouTube's system, rather than someone at YouTube thought it pertinent not to help scam NYU Law school.
Gitflow might work for some projects/teams but it shouldn't be treated as a reasonable default.
I think Gitflow is the larger picture, but I think most teams can afford to merge parts together.

I run a small team and we typically will just use "feature" and the master branch. If it compiles and passes the basic tests, it's master worthy. If it passes more heavy testing then it's tag worthy. Features can sometimes be bug fixes depending on the size.

Typically we try to merge branches in less than two weeks to prevent some kind of merge hell.

The assumption that master is somehow perfect is wrong and it shouldn't be treated as such. In my opinion tags are really for commenting that there's something interesting about a commit (i.e. "we ran this for 2 weeks at full load and no issues observed"). Again, tags also don't say there are no issues, it just says there was something note worthy.
One of the reasons I see that happening is because the role itself is so vague that there are no proper boundaries and it is entirely subjective.
OneFlow branching model and workflow (2017)
Best Caller ID Applications for Android to Identify Incoming Numbers
My hot take: Automatic copyright filters help the little guy if implemented correctly, because then independent and established content creators both have the ability to shove stuff into Content ID and other filtering systems. Right now you need to be in the Big Boys Club to get access to Content ID, and once you have it you can do whatever you want. This bias is possible in part because it isn't a regulated program, it's just the result of back-door deals between Google and other companies.

Of course, automatic copyright filters are a complete disaster for multiple reasons, but establishing them universally via regulation in a way that doesn't favor big corporate players is a lot better than the ones we have right now. The ideal is to abolish them entirely.

One of the biggest problems with Content ID is that Google seems to make no effort to verify actual ownership before allowing claims to be made, so you can trivially steal other people's content without being penalized. If filtering happens at a regulatory level, it could be tied in with the system for registering copyrights, at which point anyone can utilize the system by registering their work and you have an easier way to resolve disputes over claims (is this copyright registration valid or not? is the match correct?) vs the current YouTube mess.
Solving the Permutation Rank problem using Python
War Stories Transcript: Crash Bandicoot
Can you please elaborate on this? Might give me a better viewpoint.
Believe it or not, Dgraph has far and away the worst FTS of any graph or multi-model DB I evaluated. After speaking with Dgraph's engineers about it on their Slack channel-- for reasons left unsaid and which I'm pretty sure I would charitably describe as ridiculous-- that is apparently by design.

Like Couchbase, Dgraph has decided to use the Go library Bleve for FTS. Bleve is good at what it does, but it just doesn't do very much. The number and kinds of analyzers that Bleve has absolutely pale in comparison to Lucene. So for starters, it's just not all that great. Never mind that Bleve is pretty easy to extend. I don't want to reinvent the wheel writing analyzers that are freely available in Lucene, and I certainly don't want to have to deal with incorporating them back into my code base and testing them every time there's a new release.

But it gets worse. Unlike Couchbase, Dgraph doesn't even fully use Bleve. Rather than tracking Bleve releases and inheriting its analyzers, Dgraph has made the completely baffling decision to implement only a subset of them. It's already the case with Bleve, for example, that pretty much the only sentence tokenizer available is the unicode tokenizer. I don't want to use the unicode tokenizer anyway, but even if I wanted to do the tokenization myself, there's no straightforward way for me to get them into Dgraph because Bleve's "single token" analyzer (which just accepts a stream of individual tokens) is not one of the two or three analyzers Dgraph elected to incorporate.

As far as I'm concerned, that is some bullllll shit.
Of course the typical non-information made up by a PR department and cleared by legal...

So they are saying a contracted Email provider was compromised. It should not be a big secret what provider T-Mobile uses in the US. Microsoft? Gmail? ...?
Only natural satellites are considered moons.
Bit unrelated, but could somebody highlight the comma splices mentioned in the comments section? As a non-native english speaker, I can’t notice anything out of the ordinary.
How did you get that conclusion? What he is saying if there were advantages over normal employment, it would be more palatable
From what I gathered so far, this is more of a theoretical win for mathematicians, computer scientists, and physicists because it basically proved that if you had two Q-computers with unbounded (read: greater than infinite, basically) power, they could convince a classical computer in poly time that they could run a Q-program to completion correctly, in infinite time.

So basically, we would still need a way to build an unboundedly-powerful pair of Q-computers that were entangled (whoops, forgot that part!) in order to get any direct application for this, then we'd have to actually write the software to run this series of communications the 3 computers exchange from the paper.

So, this is only useful for some unknown, future proof of something else, not to engineer a real-life system with.
No regulatory change will make any difference here unless you ban Content ID via new regulations. Google opted out of the DMCA claim-and-takedown system in order to avoid being harassed by big companies like Viacom, the system people are dealing with is broken by design because it's the system Big Media demanded. As a result none of these claims go through legal channels and there is no way to apply legal penalties, all the users consented to this system in the 375th version of the YouTube Clickthrough Terms of Service.
If you need more capabilities you can also frontend your Lambdas with something like Kong[1]. ALBs and AWS API Gateway can be quite slow and constrained if performance - and a customizable feature set - are important requirements.

[1] https://github.com/Kong/kong
Also, we are very quick to jump the bandwagon and not analyse it objectively. The people who say the interview process is broken are themselves selling the same solution just in a different medium.