skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Absolutely. Completely anecdotally I know but I switched to the Brave browser recently to try it out. It came with DDG installed by default so I started using it in the omnibar or whatever it's called. Like many here I do some coding so I've been looking up stuff to do with Ruby, Vue.js. APIs, and the lambda calculus. DDG results were not very helpful so I've gotten used to navigating to google.com just like the old days.

As in, I'm so used to ctrl+t and type something to search that I had to train myself to type begin typing google.com again. Yeah, I could switch the default search engine but being forced to compare results is a good habit. These articles about how DDG is hit the front page time and again on Hackernews, this has never been my experience. I appreciate the privacy aspects 100% so I'd actually prefer if it was genuinely competitive with the big G but sadly this has never been my experience.
I'd be careful trying to gauge levels of respect based on a rhyme - And I'd be even more careful trying to assess the deathrate this early in the process.
> treat patients within Louisiana’s Medicaid and Department of Corrections populations

Only Medicaid + inmates, not everyone in the state?
> The whole point of capitalism, the only justification, is to benefit society by driving profits to zero.

I actually agree with the sentiment; but I'll quibble because bringing profits to 0 is very easy and we don't need capitalism to do that; cavemen managed a 0-profit society without any difficulties.

The point of capitalism is about creating a concept of property rights then letting everyone simultaneously make decisions that optimise their outcomes given their circumstances. We've noticed over the centuries that, surprisingly, the snags that might reasonably be anticipated turn out not to matter and capitalism works really well for maximising prosperity. Crazy world.

> The collapse of interest rates and profits are evidence of success.

Interest rates aren't low because people are making decisions that they think are sensible in the absolute; they are low because a suite of irrational government policies are undercutting the market and making rational actors do stupid things with money. It beggars belief that a free market would decide that there are nearly no risks in the future. Risks are the highest they've been in the last 30 years.
I think Netlify's success has got nothing to do with "microservices". The new (not so new now actually) trend that allowed it to prosper is when people started splitting up backend-rendered webapps (where the backend was effectively rendering most of the html, classic mvc/rails style) into a static frontend/single page app making api calls to an api backend (or multiple but it doesn't really matter here)
They are only if you make them that way.
Looked around for a few minutes and can’t seem to find anything that’s censor-worthy. Actually quite some pro-government stuff are included. I guess the vast majority of this archive is just posts from random spammy accounts that got shadow banned, not really surprising given the vast number of bots posting in popular hashtags.

Concrete example: all I see under the hashtag “facing an epidemic, the police don’t retreat” are copy-pasted official press releases and stuff https://weibo-uncensored.github.io/#/weibo-viewer/#疫情当前警察不退#...
Ah yes, the famine caused by having to grow cash crops to pay rent to a foreign empire, leading to overdependence on a single food crop that provided several times the calories/acre/year of anything else. Definitely the magic hand's fault.
If that's the reality, should we whitewash it?
What level of wealth are you talking about? Cancelling your Starbucks habit will save you 1-3k a year. What are you investing in to turn savings like this into real wealth?
Rephrased, LE/IC will have a more difficult time fighting crime, not that they won't be able to fight crime at all.
> If two programmers were assigned a task [...] would [person with better math knowledge] be able to produce a better/faster solution?

It really depends on the task. If you work as a software engineer in a somewhat enterprisey setting, arguably many tasks don't even particularly require engineering or programming knowledge, let alone knowing any mathematics beyond high school level.

From working on a couple of decision-support-systems for larger enterprise clients, maybe the core 5-10% of some decision support systems needs some nontrivial understanding of operations research (e.g. linear programming, mixed integer programming techniques) / applied math (how to approximate functions & compute them efficiently) / basic comp sci algorithms concepts (e.g. graph theory to model networks for flows of traffic, goods, project dependencies, etc). The remaining 95-90% of the programming work is stuff like data validation, arranging things (data, code, libraries, build scripts) so they can be kept organised, writing tests, bolting on reporting systems, adding extra fields to things, figuring out how to cope with missing input data, etc. These kind of math-oriented decision support systems probably cannot be built with at least one person involved who is across some of the theory/practice of how the core of the system can be designed and built. So the difference between not having someone with a decent background in applied math/OR/graph theory on a project like this might be: the project just fails --- maybe something gets delivered and perhaps the client accepts it, but it probably doesn't really work.

But, that said: most of the programming work in the business world is essentially unrelated to maths/algorithms/OR stuff. Most line of business software projects have no clever core at all, e.g. web service exposing CRUD API for some kind of enterprise data. In these settings it is far more useful to be good at something like "project management" or "requirements analysis" or "designing the data model" than math, since the projects need essentially no math beyond perhaps the ability to do capacity planning or estimate if the design is going to under-perform massively.

If you specialise in some tricky kind of maths then depending on what you specialise in exactly there is some career risk that you will be very good at solving problems that hardly anyone has, so it may be hard to find work in that area, and if there are more specialists than work, the work may not pay that well when you find it. From a career perspective, if you are flexible about what you do for a living and what you learn, it's perhaps better to ask "what skills are likely to have demand outstripping supply in the future? which ones would it be feasible for me to learn? do some of them sound more interesting to me than others?".
How could that possibly be legal? You don't get the thing you paid for.
A Hue Bridge is not like a hammer. Your analogy is cute and appealing, but not actually analogous (the biggest problem with analogies...)

> Philips has the resources to keep this up and running.

See how your analogy doesn't work? A manufacturer of a hammer doesn't have to continually expend resources to keep your hammer operating, secure, and compatible with other devices. Because it's just a hammer.
This one seems a bit better in my opinion

https://freeweibo.com/
With politics its ALWAYS an emotional play. That's the only way you're going to achieve any kind of support in a large portion of your constituency. Politicians are only going to try plays that they think will work, and logical arguments have to be so blindingly obvious that they are hardly logical at all -- because there will always be someone on the other side, with a playbook that knows how to shoot down anything.
My other point is that pair programming is a learned skill. If you just put two unprepared programmers by a computer, you'll most likely end up with two annoyed programmers, and not great code.

This is a popular argument among pair programming enthusiasts, which suggests there may be some merit to it. How do we reconcile it with another popular argument, that many programmers will naturally pair up on an ad-hoc basis when they're working on something challenging and/or interesting?

I can't imagine not wanting a second opinion from time to time, and I've certainly missed having one sometimes when I've been working solo on something and there was no-one else to talk about it with. But personally, I also can't imagine being comfortable in a full-time pair programming culture with necessarily restricted schedules and limited solo time. Sometimes, I just want to do some research or think through some ideas or play with quick and dirty prototypes for a while, even if I might be very interested in discussing my results or initial conclusions with other interested developers afterwards.
Introduce free TikTok fans, followers, and likes to your account
On the Princess Cruise everyone received top notch care. What if there were no available hospital beds and respirators?

What would be the death rate when the medical system is so overwhelmed none of the acute cases can receive any medical care? That's the number that should influence how far we go in trying to control transmission.

In Israel the single serious case is 38 years old. He is on a respirator. No some 80+. IIRC from the Washington cases there were some in their 20s who are hospitalized. Israel is less likely to have random unknown cases given their stringent border control, quarantines and testing.
When you look at Hollywood plot lines, they’re often with a singular hero, who goes nuts, breaks laws to do what’s necessary. You rarely see communal action or a society standing together. There are exceptions, like Selma.

They definitely have a certain political agenda
Thank you. I didn't think of this more charitable interpretation of the comment, and I should have.

I disagree with the cost benefit analysis argument (at least, I think in this case the benefits are worth the costs), but if the argument is more nuanced and less categorical I have a much easier time understanding the opposing viewpoint.
Infrequent Access is closer. But wow, one-zone sure is only 20% cheaper than three-zone. And the retrieval cost is significantly more expensive than glacier's bulk price.

Actually, looking closer, is one-zone even storing fewer copies? It's offering the same durability, except in the case of "availability zone destruction". So if they're selling three copies for $10 a TB, then the equivalent price for 64-of-96 would be $5 a TB. Cutting that down with cheaper worse hardware would go a long way to get you toward the $2 goal.
This has been my issue as well, I started using their analytics when it launched. I thought they must still be working on it from the state its in, it is absolutely not worth the cost currently. You cannot even see the data from the previous months! Despite having paid $9 for them just to store page view totals.
Thanks. Sorry if my question seemed like I was challenging you, I was genuinely curious to know if that was the reason why. Makes perfect sense and your explanation is very helpful.

I like to think none of it applies to me because I don't consume, but that's another story :)
Nice to see another Arweave project here. Spent quite a bit of time working with this tech. A bit of a shameless plug, but I used it to create a mirror for the Gutenberg book collection here: https://marcojrfurtado.github.io/bookweave/latest.html
The concern is about privacy. How to demonstrate anonymity is a good question.
"Privacy: No personally identifiable data is collected. Location data is slightly altered before storage." is a great start. My thought when I saw this, was how long is this information stored, even in an altered form?
Also the question of who this information is shared with. Obviously, it is used to create the map, which is what makes the map great. I think stating whether you share it with other parties, such as google analytics, or other tracking services. I can see from inspecting the page loads, that you aren't doing anything like that, which is great. :)
> LE/IC will have a more difficult time fighting crime

I'm not even sure that's true. LE/IC will have to rely more on different methods of fighting crime, but it's not at all clear that those methods are less effective than snooping on everyone's communications. Snooping on everyone's communications sounds easy until you realize how tiny the signal to noise ratio is--that is, if you're actually trying to find real criminals instead of just finding reasons to mess with more people in general.
<anecdote>This thread made me change to DDG (again). A few minutes later gimp was crashing on me, so I did the lazy thing: C&P some of the error into the search engine.

This is the result of my fist search switching to DDG: https://i.imgur.com/05LxLDv.png

DDG results are utterly useless, while google gives three highly relevant results solving my issue within a few seconds. Happens all the time. DDG: I want, I just can't.

PS: And I'm not a person searching for anything gimp all the time, my browser history shows three prior "how to x in" gimp searches over the last year. Adding to that this is google.com not logged-in in a Firefox container solely for google searches where storage is scrapped somewhat regularly.
</anecdote>
If you don’t understand why people love Slack, then you don’t understand what usable enterprise software means or why people love it.

Imagine how many people never used a chat app in a business context before. Maybe this is hard, as you can’t imagine who they could be — or you don’t remember a time _before_ the ubiquity of chat apps in the workplace. But trust me those people are a majority of the workforce.

Now imagine you are an enterprise user who has no control over how they work, and they’re told to use “something new to increase productivity”. They sigh because it is probably bullshit and they’re being forced to use it by the “decision maker”.

But lo and behold, Slack is actually useful and usable! Because in large part the value of any chat app is how well it is adopted by one’s (relatively non techy) teammates!

Slack is a masterclass in commercializing enterprise software through ease of adoption and use. The core tech is completely undifferentiated, but the understanding of enterprise environments and workplace psychology is second to maybe only Microsoft.
Yeah it's hard to understand the point - like, other parents were upset because their children were exposed to mold and asbestos, but I, being enlightened, deconstructed their worries through innumerable "mental models" to demonstrate and convincingly argue that actually our children being exposed to mold and asbestos has not yet been proven to be harmful or negligent.

Even granting the argument, I wonder why just staying home from a raucous school meeting - as the vast majority of parents do - wouldn't be an easier way to "stay calm". Beyond that the author provided no actual data/evidence to support his conclusion that the "potentially harmful" leak in fact wasn't.

What's the mental model for recognizing a huckster company hocking to HN a mental model "learning community" for $150-250/year that promises to "repeatedly invite me to expand how I see and think. The level of IQ and EQ members offer is unprecedented and has me visiting daily"[1]

[1] https://fs.blog/membership/
> This may or may not be good economics, but it's terrible health policy. If the goal was stopping the spread of COVID19 and masks were an effective preventative measure you would want them to be as cheap as possible to encourage use.

"Health policy" has no exemption from economics. The way you get enough masks during high demand is by someone stockpiling them. If you want them to be cheap, someone has to stockpile even more of them. That could be the government, but only if they thought to do it ahead of time.

If they didn't, now you've got a market problem that pricing is the best way to address -- prohibiting price from rising due to demand only causes misallocation, because people who have more masks than they need have a reduced incentive to sell them to the people who need them. The first guy in the store buys fifty when he only needed one because he wanted to be sure to have enough, but then the store runs out before everyone has one and there are fifty unused masks in the one guy's basement.

Charging more is how you get him to not buy more than he needed.
A good life tactic used by and useful for most elite post graduate tech people I know is treating their careers as if they were sports stars.

The big time early years have massive rewards. One in a handful go on to be the team coach / manager. A few more graduate to coaching support staff at a much lower salary. A very lucky few land a job for life at ESPN or BBC Sport. Some don’t need the money. Some do.

The majority move on though and retrain as gym coaches, teachers, parents, therapists, firefighters. They take a pay cut and a role with much lower global impact and a much higher local impact. Often because the latter is genuinely very rewarding.

It’s something to look forward to as you get older but a drop in salary is going to be a fact of life unless you have exceptional transferable skills that put you at the top of the game in your chosen second career, be that in the private or public sector.
I think you pretty much nailed the bottom of that argument. I'd like to point out one thing: from a country¹ in which firearms are heavily restricted (non-law enforcers can't carry), there is little stigma if any on recreational shooting², and it's certainly a right to own such firearms at home. You just can't take them to work or to do shopping, only at the shooting range or equivalent, with precautions like partial disassembly, unloaded, in a bag... Normal practice.

So it's really not about weapons in and of themselves that the rest of the world is puzzled about this American debate, not about the supposed cruelty of everyday people (nobody believes that). It's really about the fact that carrying a gun to work is a very slippery slope, even if the gun is in the car. Same idea with not carrying dangerous explosives if you can help it, the risk is too high compared to most perceived benefits.

I think the self defense argument is very much biased by the fact that once others have guns, you may feel threatened not carrying yourself; conversely if no one carries you'd rather it stayed that way... It's a snake eating its own tail from both sides.

The truth is, it's actually not normal people carrying that kills a lot in the US (although child accidents are statistically too high compared to eg Europe or Asia iirc). It's really the problem of gangs etc. Most lethal shootings are statistically related to someone's lifelong "job", not everyday honest people. But removing guns from wide circulation means we don't have e.g. teens shooting others anywhere else in the world, nowhere near the same magnitude, which is a troubling fact. Indeed, it's the person that holds the gun that counts, and young minds shouldn't have access to guns in that regard. Not enough control yet, it's a biological fact.

[1]: France, but it's the same culture in most western EU countries afaik. Not sure about those closest to the Russian federation but I'm inclined to think they generally agree with us on the matter.

[2]: Hunting is certainly midly popular here in rural areas, and those who voice criticism are 99% about the animal cruelty angle, they couldn't care less if the killing was done with knifes or arrows instead. The gun angle is just not a thing in most countries where guns are effectively banned from regular society but obviously totally accessible for sports: it's OK, really.
I'd be curious to know what project you are working on that requires Geo coding?
If this same argument took another form, e.g. if this were an attempt to ban walls made out of non-transparent material because opaque walls allow child abuse to occur hidden from sight, the obvious violation of privacy would be evident to the average person.
There are multiple conflicting reports of the death rate. However, if hospitals are overwhelmed by the serious cares, which I've seen estimated at 15-20% then the death rate, whatever it is, will surely rise as serious cases go unattended.
What inevitably happens with laws that create such a drastic power imbalance between your average citizen and the governing entity is that those with power and status are exempt.
My point was people's reaction is probably the main issue. And I tried to illustrate how illogical it is based on the risks people take when it comes to things that are currently proven to be deadly, not maybe deadly. The other day someone complained to me about the dangers of Corona Virus WHILE smoking a cigarette! (blew my mind, though I didn't say anything)

The overreaction is perfectly illustrated by Marc Lipsitch who estimated 70% of the world population will have Corona Virus before the years end. At 7 billion, and with 3% death rate, it would mean 147,000,000 million dead by the year's end. I think we can agree that this is a VERY extraordinary assertion. I seem to also remember him making similar claims about SARS and MERS in years past.

But going back to his extraordinary claims, even if this virus was 10x as deadly as ALL the flu strains put together we'd still be talking about 3 to 6 million dead world wide (high no doubt, but still less than tobacco deaths which stand at 7 million/year) By calculating 10x all flus we are actually calculating 30-100x worse than any single virus strain we know, since the 'flu' is an umbrella for many different viral strains. So basically, IF this virus was 100x worse than any previous virus, we'd see Lipsitch is exaggerating by a factor of 50x. And if this new virus is 'only' as bad as regular 'colds', he'd be exaggerating by 5,000x.

There seems to be a feedback loop: the more people get scared, the more the media sells fear. The more the media sells fear, the more scared they become.

Again, I can't stress this enough, Corona Virus is real, it needs to be addressed, our leaders need to make it a priority. People will die and we should avoid it. But also true is people need to stop fretting over things they can't control and the media needs to stop whipping them into a frenzy with fear mongering tactics. They should be using this to remind people that they should ALWAYS, every year, get their flu shot. That they should ALWAYS wash their hands, not just when they fear Corona Virus. Overreactions can be just as bad as under reactions and humans have a long history of mass hysteria that only make things worse.
Sia isn’t cold storage.
In the "bad old days" a company would commission capacity studies to see how many server they would need to run the parts of their service in data centers and colos. Then they would buy racks and racks of hardware that all had tags for which part of the system they were destined for. An army of network engineers would make sure that the systems were interconnected to the right routers and switches, and that the networks were appropriately segmented. An army of sysadmins would take all of that raw hardware and would painstakingly follow endless checklists and procedure binders to make sure that each piece of hardware was correctly configured to run its part of the system.

But, with the cloud, you buy hardware, stick a base OS on it, and it becomes an amorphous amount of cpu cores, RAM, and harddrives (or at least we try to make people think it works like that). And if everything now runs in a VM, or a container, you can "just" write software that says "I need 6 database servers, 8 event bus servers, 9 back end servers, and 3 load balancers, and we'll use a CDN for all the static assets." (gross oversimplification). And if you need to reconfigure it to be 5-7-12-5-9, you just stop the old VMs and start new ones. You don't need to follow a checklist to make sure that you've correctly uninstalled MySQL 5.6.9, and need to install MariaDB 10.1.35.

DevOps is a very different mindset to traditional System Administration.
There are plenty of companies trying to serve ag with what they think ag needs. Most of them fail.