skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Amazon recently announced that all non essential work travel is cancelled. Friend who works there said they are taking it very seriously - any "essential" travel must be approved from the highest levels.

They also announced that interviews will be conducted via VC going forward during the outbreak.

I wonder if they 'shut down' campus and encourage everybody to work from home after this, self quarantine kind of thing.

IMO it's the right thing to do. Not all sectors can have all of their workers stay home, but Amazon employees (in Seattle, fulfillment centers are a totally different thing) can easily work from home in almost all cases.
Email me your performance #s if this is real. I can help you.

Email address in my bio.

Thanks
While a global solution is NP complete since Morse code is not prefix free, there's probably a decent heuristic approach that maximizes matching of existing english words.
There has been no credible evidence of “organ damage” in survivors.

These are unsubstantiated rumors. Stop repeating them.
Not much information in this article, but given they only just reported new cases that makes me wonder if this person didn’t come to a hospital until they were in severe condition - probably because they had no idea it was coronavirus and were thinking “it’s the flu, it’ll pass.” If so it likely means many more cases in the community than we currently know about.
> Do you have a link to the actual grammar and production rules that apply to all cases ?

A google search returns that Annex A in the ISO standard has something like a grammar. Here is a link to an unoffical version of the standard: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf . However, this is not the right place to look for if you just want to understand the simple principle behind declarations, because the purity of declaration syntax has been considerably diluted in the last decades. So, only look in the standard if you are in good psychological health, and need to implement a production-grade C compiler. Also, note that grammars are overrated and tend to make things more complex than they really are. They are often too theoretical of a construct to be applicable, and that is certainly true for a language like C.

Instead, I recommend you to read the idea from the horse's mouth, here is Dennis Ritchie talking about it: https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.html

> I don't see a "type name followed by an expression and a semicolon", but rather the grammar "TYPE_NAME NAME = EXPR;".

Let's ignore the optional equal sign + initializer expression, and just focus on declarations without initializers. The syntax is (as I said) "TYPE_NAME EXPR;" where EXPR is an expression that makes use of the newly-declared variable.

> (e.g. a function pointer won't work)

Not sure what you mean by "function pointer", but I'm pretty sure it's not a type name in the way I mean it. Here is how to look at your examples:

void (*foo)(int) = expr;
^^^^^^ (optional) initializer
^^^^^^^^^^^ expression (originally it was (*foo)(x),
but as I said nowadays there are
type specifiers in the list which
is a little inconsistent.)
^^^^ type name

int (*foo)[N] = expr;
^^^^^^ (optional) initializer
^^^^^^^^ expression
^^^ type name

Basically, the first example says "(* foo)(int) is a void", so you can conclude that foo is a pointer to a function that takes an int and returns a void.

The second example says "(* foo)[N] is an int" so you can conclude that foo is a pointer to an array of N ints.
Singer is primarily a vulture capitalist, operating on a nation state scale (he resurrected Argentinian national debt he bought and forced payment for example and his wealth exploded after 2008 buying up distressed assets and business).
The 'Republican mega-donor' aspect is a tiny droplet of his corporate wealth, I suspect the main reason for the Twitter pressure is for Singer the globalist and his elite colleagues to control a global medium and manipulate it to a much greater extent than it already is, cracking down on free speech and with much stronger surveillance and data tracking.
The problem with climate change is that it has been politicized so far that both sides are wrong and both sides are making stuff up to support their religion. In this case I think it might be a very weird scenario where the battling factions are causing slow action, which might lead to the right approach in the long term.

When you have a situation where scientists can't speak the truth for fear of losing their jobs, grants, standing, etc. nothing good comes out of it.

The real story goes something like this: Human-aided atmospheric CO2 accumulation is very real and, yes, it is a problem. And we can't do a thing about it because the natural rate of change for atmospheric CO2 is in the order of 100 ppm per 50,000 years if, and only if, all of humanity, our toys and technology left the planet at once. No partial measure (renewable energy, no planes|cars|trains, carbon capture, etc.) can improve the rate of change when the baseline is 100 ppm per 50,000 years if humanity left the planet.

This is based on and supported by 800,000 years of ice core atmospheric data that tells us how the atmosphere behaved before humanity gained the ability to make a difference. The data makes it impossible to claim we can fix it, because the amount of energy and resources needed to affect planetary-scale changes at a rate of change 1,000 times that corresponding humanity leaving the planet is so massively large it would likely kill all life on this planet.

We can't fix it. But we can make better choices and clean-up our act. The only way that happens is if we discuss facts rather than fantasies at both ends of the scale.
Back then there was no "fast fashion" because very few could afford to go through lots of clothes.

Fast fashion and quality probably don't go together, but the quality of more expensive clothing has become ridiculously good. $20-30 t-shirts last >5 years and "outdoors" clothing is so much better than anything even 10 years ago.
I really hope we can get some more serious decentralized infrastructure mainstreamed so this sort of partisan platform stuff becomes a non issue.

Centralized, corruptible bottlenecks like political payment processors and political big cloud providers are eroding the open nature of the internet.

Although I think it’s possible to replace and/or reform some of the current sore spots, the pessimist in me is worried we have deeper social and philosophical problems that will prevent things from moving in that direction. Many people now seem to reject the very idea of apolitical utilities. They consider it immoral to allow the existence of services for people they consider to be severely harming others through their use of that infrastructure, despite the often political and highly debatable nature of that harm.

A free and open internet is built on the same philosophical principles as the first amendment. The spirit of the first amendment is something the people as a whole need to respect in order for it to work.

People forget how much religious sects hated each other when the Bill of Rights was drafted. Europe had been fighting a seemingly endless series of religious conflicts since the protestant reformation, and adherents believed allowing opposing adherents to spread their corrupting influence would literally damn the world to hell.

The first amendment was about allowing others to practice beliefs despite sincere fears that such beliefs would damn the world to hell. If we can’t allow people we consider corrupting to operate, and need to bar all of those corrupting influences from access to core utilities, we are failing to live up to the principles underlying the first amendment and risk plunging back into the kind of sectarian and philosophically based conflict the enlightenment helped us to escape from. If those we dislike and may consider evil are respecting our property rights and are not committing physical violence against us, we should be tolerant and allow them to exist and operate in society and seek to change them only through open dialog, not forceful coercion.
Mid 30s and I would agree with all of this in one form or another. There is a fine line between being a curmudgeon and a nostalgic connoisseur. Low quality beer and burnt coffee is real!

Disagree with OP about induction cooktops; they are magical.
First posted this on another article before seeing this one.

Not much information in this article, but given they only just reported new cases that makes me wonder if this person didn’t come to a hospital until they were in severe condition - probably because they had no idea it was coronavirus and were thinking “it’s the flu, it’ll pass.” If so it likely means many more cases in the community than we currently know about.
If I sold you a car for $1.00 the first day, $2.00 the first day, $4.00 the third day, ... It would look like a pretty good bargain the first few days compared to what people typically pay for cars. Eventually, on day 14, you start to reconsider how good the deal is when you make a $16,384 payment and face making a $32,768 one tomorrow.

If COVID-19 spreads exponentially, it will result in basically everyone getting it. Yes, it will take a little while (and maybe spring/summer will do enough to put on the brakes to let us have more treatment options). The fatality percentage, means if everyone gets it, it will be like several years of flu concentrated over a year or two.

Besides that, it's likely to overwhelm public health systems and have societal/economic consequences from the amount of sickness and attempts to contain the virus.
February of Fortran
The point is that the fatality rate depends on the denominator chosen.

Choosing a denominator of only people with COVID who go on to develop pneumonia, results in a rate of 2%.

Choosing a denominator of all people with laboratory confirmed cases of COVID, results in a rate of 1.4%.

Clearly a denominator of “everyone who was infected with COVID” is larger than the denominator of “everyone with a laboratory confirmed case”.

The question is, how much larger? The number of reports of asymptomatic and mild cases which are asked not to go to a hospital are specific reasons why the true fatality rate is less than 1.4% and may be considerably less than 1%.
The entire analysis starts from the assumption that any administration goal is inherently either a fabrication or misguided.

"efficiencies" is clearly just code word for destroying all things good, obviously, and totally not worth even considering whether there is any meaning to the idea. I mean, if Trump wants it, it must be bad amirite?

Occasionally, they quote folks, like Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University in support of Trump. But every time, they carefully treat the quote and the person as obviously either stupid or corrupted, surrounding the quote with statements like "But critics say it will allow biotech companies to lobby for more of their specialized, and often more expensive, drugs to be included[...]"

Direct quote from an expert, treated as obviously worthless, followed by a weasel-words "some critics" which is treated as the clearly superior refutation of the idea from the actual knowledgeable person.

It's almost like they started with a narrative of "Trump is trying to kill us all by destroying our disease preparedness" and then sat down to write an article that looked like journalism but actually just told that story.
While I know it is common practice to dismiss problem solving questions, a good problem solution can be the difference between intractable NP complete or worse, and a solution that is O(lg N). Additionally, a good solution is elegant and easily maintainable, while a bad solution is bloated and has large code debt.
"Good news: Just today, they released new rules that should increase testing capacity by 400x"

How can new rules increase testing capacity?
All you can do, is adjust the rules to the existing capacities ...
> Amazon recently announced that all non essential work travel is cancelled. Friend who works there said they are taking it very seriously - any "essential" travel must be approved from the highest levels.

Same at Toyota. At least for international travel.
I'm really intrigued by Jai because it has many of the ideas I want to see in more languages and has pretty killer syntax. The concept of a meta program that Jonathon Blow talked about on the "On the Metal" podcast is wild.

A macro syntax that was both expressive/hygienic, but allowed for better integration with tooling (frequently tools have no introspection into expanded macro code, and debugging macros almost always sucks). I'm not sure how to solve this problem however, but I think procedural macros in Rust are a decent enough start (debugging them sucks right now, but I see no reason why that has to be the case).

Along the same lines of the previous paragraphs (programming things around the program itself, like meta programming) is that the build process in most languages sucks, and requires using outside tools in different languages (be it a config file, make script, python/shell scripting, etc). I'd really like it if I could write my entire build process in the language I'm building, including pre/post build steps, specifying a dependency tree, etc.

An idea I love to work with is a purely declarative syntax, similar to configuration languages like TOML or JSON. But inside declarations you can write imperative code that synthesizes your declarative code programmatically. Now you can do this in JS today with some discipline, and make it kinda typed in Typescript. But if you have a fairly strict and limited type system and good error messaging/debugging workflow it's actually a fairly powerful concept. It helps deal with the oscillation in the industry between "configuration is code" and "configuration is actually a bitch to write for complex systems." You can start with a pure configuration for your system, but then as complexity grows write imperative code that synthesizes the configuration.
Yeah, probably such a macro for maps should be provided in the core libs. It would be more consistent with providing the equivalent one for vecs. From a user (of the language) perspective, having one but not the other is just confusing.

Also writing macros is not the first thing one learns when getting to know Rust, so a learner won't know how to write her own.
Could it be that the first excerpt (https://github.com/beemdevelopment/Aegis/blob/def7c676148f26... ) should not have included the line with .setIsStrongBoxBacked(true) yet?

Edit: funny: 0dd0adde looks a lot like deadd00d (like "dead dude") with a reversed byte order. If this is a coincidence?

Edit2: https://www.bing.com/search?q=deadd00d
>Personally I’d prefer viewing a responsive and accessible HTML version instead of having to pan and zoom the original pdf.

It's called epub. I read ebooks and documentation in this format, which is basically packaged html.
Same at the Megacorp I work at and a lot of other places. I’m in the South and my closing is doing it globally with a 14 day self-quarantine if you went to China, South Korea, and Italy.
I wonder if this “temporary alteration” will impact the way business is conducted long-term. Instead of choosing between conference calls or flights, choose VC.
I think that works only if n-by-n can vary to infinity. Otherwise I'll just have a lut for every possible board size.

By the same method, you can sort any finite sequence in O(1).. but then you don't really sort infinite sequences, do you? So I'm not sure this is a good trick question.
We have no idea what's happening[1] so maybe paranoia is a reasonable default?

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/us/politics/us-coronaviru...
Same here. All travel must be approved by the CEO
Yes, for two reasons.

First, a political motive could not have created Twitter. If twitter was created as a tool to influence politics, it would drastically changed who signed up for the platform, and it's influence and reach. There are plenty of platforms that have tried that route, and not a single one has been successful. Reddit is in a similar position as Twitter on this same issue, and take a look at Voat to see what that looks like. Therefore, Singer seeks to obtain influence he would not have had by co-opting a platform created for other purposes.

Second, Twitters political leanings are incidental. Twitter's employees are human beings, and when they make a decision, they are biased by their own thoughts and opinions, which happen to generally be on the left. While leftist, this still allows people like Trump and other conservatives to use the platform... and it limits what political actions they can take (they cant get too extreme or their diverse user base may revolt). In other words, this is a passive bias.

Whereas Singer (may--we don't really know his motives) seek to turn Twitter into a political weapon that he can use to battle liberalism. That's an active bias. And depending on how active he wants to get with politics using Twitter, it may destroy the platform.

A passive bias is very different than an active bias. And I don't know how you can claim they are indistinguishable.
I don’t think I’ve seen any candidate get pressed on the probability of their platform getting through Congress.
This is an article about phishing attacks over email that is using sex and vagueness as clickbait.
I've heard the opposite rationale. Having 'any' kind of mask decrease the number of times you touch your mouth or nose..
Regarding overhead bin space, I think carriers and their onboard staff can adapt by using some of the overhead space in the front rows of economy class as needed, by handling PE passengers’ luggage for them, if this means added margins. The staff already partakes in similar activities when overhead space is limited and/or the passenger needs physical assistance.

Given trends in economy class and how carry-on suitcase traffic jams are at times causing flight delays, I can see a future where carryon suitcases are no longer permitted for economy class passengers. We’re already on this slippery slope.
For others confused like me, this isn't one of the cases reported last Friday that were reported as 'doing well.' Seems this is part of a collection of new cases that weren't reported to the public (and still aren't).
You're absolutely right about the excerpt. Fixed, thanks.
So my understanding is that you're right to say that the manager has a responsibility to listen keenly for the impacts of their decisions. I'd say it is one of their primary responsibilities as part of their responsibility for the health of their team. The

But my understanding is that in general communication is a 2-way street: Both people in a relationship should be listening with the intent to understand the others' perspective and to watch for misunderstandings. Up and down a larger organization, I think this communication tends to be harder because

1) It is often indirect -- multiple hops from individual contributor to CxO.

2) The communication that can possibly happen grows with the size of the organization.

3) People work on things that are more and more delegated. So the day-to-day problems of an accounts admin are very different from the day-to-day problems of the CFO. So the gap of "understand each others' perspectives" becomes wider and harder to jump.

All this doesn't diminish a leaders' responsibility: it raises it. But it also makes it that much harder to execute if the signals from people in the org are hard to interpret.

> A series of easily-digestible info-graphics

Are nice, but "I've noticed a serious problem. Here is a 30 minute screen-capture of it." is faster to produce and send to a direct manager and then you can (ideally) collaborate on how to raise that to the wider business.

------------------

All this comes with the caveat that I'm an individual-contributor-level software engineer who has never managed a team for an endeavor more complex than a care-package-drive... and I might in fact be far enough on the autistic spectrum that I massively misunderstand how any of this works. (See other comment)
> "its just a flu"

Yup, that's what they are saying. And it clearly isn't.

I was at the store a couple of weeks ago and had this mental frame of reference where you are kind of watching from the outside while thinking "I wonder if these people understand what could happen here in a few weeks".

I've talked to very well educated friends, some in the medical field, who are very dismissive and even think it is paranoid to think getting ready is a good idea. I don't get it.

The point isn't to be paranoid. As I've put it in various conversations: I'd rather be wrong about making the assumption than discover the hard way I was wrong about not having made it.

The assumption I made is that we might need to quarantine at home for 30 to 45 days. I made this decision about a month ago. I went out and got enough supplies for that as well as supplies relevant to the issue at hand (masks, gloves, disinfectants, etc.). I would say 95% of what I purchased (food and household items) are things we consume on a normal basis.

So, we have a two month supply of food. It just means that, if I am wrong, we don't have to go to the market for a couple of months. No big deal. I've always had N95 masks around for work around the house and shop. This isn't a biohazard item, it's a normal industrial product. So even that isn't an out of the norm purchase. OK, so I have a bit more Clorox than we would normally stock. That's about the size of my "paranoid" purchases, more Clorox. Not sure why this is weird to some. Getting ready isn't that hard.
Yes but this (sometimes/often) means you actually need less paths in your MC simulation and therefore makes it faster overall. Obviously depending on what you're trying to simulate and what the underlying stochastic processes are etc.

I guess my point was there are often legitimate uses for things that are random-like but far from crypto random.
Yeah this weekend is going a whirlwind, let's see what the President Trumps remarks are today.
I used to run my site with whatever.com as the main point for staff and existing customers, and basically administrative stuff, and www.whatever.com as the main public website. I had other hostnames as well, and the page lacking a hostname provided descriptive links to them as well. I don't do that anymore, but this change would make it confusing at best.

The stripped https:// isn't a problem since the lock symbol is there and only means that one-and-the-same thing.
The company I work for has canceled travel to "affected regions" period -- no exceptions for "essential" travel. But it hasn't cancelled business travel elsewhere (e.g. the US, Canada, South America) . . . yet. I can only imagine in a week or two that will be the next step.
You might care to insert "mind altering" before the phrase.

But as used, relatively common in standard English.
And I've gotten it, too and don't care. It was the right password at the time, but without my 2FA dongle, good luck getting in.

I've succumbed that all of my info is out "there" somewhere and there's nothing I can do about it.

Everyone just needs not to put anything out there.

Rule of thumb: the cloud is just someone else's computer that you have no control over. Stop putting your data on it.
I can see myself (to say nothing of the elderly) falling off the stairs on long haul journeys after waking up and needing to go to the bathroom. I can see endless instances of people spilling their hot drinks and food on the stewardess as it's being handed to them. This seems like a downgrade from economy, where at least you can comfortably walk down the aisle and not get inadvertently kicked in the head.
Yes indeed is very difficult to protect names without trademark them. That's why many startups/companies invent completely new names (ex Google). Once you trademark them it's easier to protecte them than a word that was already existing in the English language like terminator.