skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> While not all users have Chrome installed, the vast majority do. For those who do not, we are using the browser fallback method described above (option 3); other than adding one line of code, we get the fallback for free from CCT. As noted before, the browser fallback is not the ideal user experience due to its latency, but it does maintain the high level of security that Plaid requires.
I am quite surprised to see those stereotypes on hacker news . Looking at all the accounts with names like systemxxx and throwawayxxx, I feel conspiracy theory is no joke
Costco actually sells a couple of these with a very similar idea [1]. Surprisingly very expensive too (9K+). But they sell sheds too that are 2K- so I'm not sure what the benefits are? Maybe better built quality and finishes?

[1] https://www.costco.com/installed-sheds-by-yardline---flatiro...
Are we even at the point where routers reliably support multicast?
When the federal government acts as an insurer of last resort against correlated phenomena, but does not have any ability to set premiums or regulate behavior, companies will seek to maximize their risk in these situations. This includes buying back stocks with low interest loans. This is not the Fed's job. If these companies want to file claims, they will need to talk directly to their insurer, the taxpayers.
I think it's important to distinguish between the "inherent" complexity" and "incidental" complexity in using Redux [0].

Dispatching actions and writing reducers is _inherent_ complexity. It's part of Redux's design, and is a deliberate level of indirection.

Having to write nested spread operators to perform immutable updates, switch statements in reducers, and `const ADD_TODO = "ADD_TODO"` is _incidental_ complexity. Nothing about Redux's core design _requires_ you to write the code that way. There's valid reasons why those patterns exist [1], but writing a reducer with a switch statement vs a lookup table doesn't change how the Redux data flow behaves.

My goal is to eliminate the incidental complexity, because it's not necessary and does present a barrier to people learning and using Redux.

[0] https://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2019/10/redux-starter-kit-...

[1] https://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2017/05/idiomatic-redux-ta...
I do kind of violate this... I tend to use action creators that will accept an event from a component, and use e.target.dataset.someValue as necessary... it's not exactly a violation... but it's muddy... having clean action handler syntax in my Components though it better imho.

I use createActionsHook below in every actions.js file... combined with thunks, it's awesome imho.

https://www.npmjs.com/package/react-redux-actions-hook
As much as it pains me, I think you might be right. Perhaps we're not ready yet.

Then again, who's ready the first time they do something? This pandemic has made obvious a lot of places where our attempt at globalization doesn't work. I hope our societies will learn from it and do better next time.
I have qualms on Mattermost too, particularly their licensing. Does it even qualify as open source?

I strongly would recommend Zulip - https://zulipchat.com/

```

You are licensed to use compiled versions of the Mattermost platform produced by Mattermost, Inc. under an MIT LICENSE

- See MIT-COMPILED-LICENSE.md included in compiled versions for details

You may be licensed to use source code to create compiled versions not produced by Mattermost, Inc. in one of two ways:

1. Under the Free Software Foundation’s GNU AGPL v.3.0, subject to the exceptions outlined in this policy; or
2. Under a commercial license available from Mattermost, Inc. by contacting commercial@mattermost.com

You are licensed to use the source code in Admin Tools and Configuration Files (templates/, config/default.json, model/,
plugin/ and all subdirectories thereof) under the Apache License v2.0.

We promise that we will not enforce the copyleft provisions in AGPL v3.0 against you if your application (a) does not
link to the Mattermost Platform directly, but exclusively uses the Mattermost Admin Tools and Configuration Files, and
(b) you have not modified, added to or adapted the source code of Mattermost in a way that results in the creation of
a “modified version” or “work based on” Mattermost as these terms are defined in the AGPL v3.0 license.

```

[1] https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server/blob/master/...
Even reading this thread, I feel like I need to get to get a tattoo that says type I : false positive ; type II : false negative
Hmm, that’s strange because I mostly find the ability to open websites in-app very useful: The context of how I was directed to the website exists in the app. I feel that if the site I’d moved to Safari, I eventually forget how I got to this site.

I think the problem isn’t in the WebView model - It’s probably that you have to use the browser to do something useful that WebViews can’t.
There was a spat btwn Sweden and France too. A Swedish company kept masks in a French warehouse and wanted to ship them home because they finally needed them. France blocked it till it eventually relented.
The first book's first 3 chapters are readable, then descends onto hell of manager talk, btw, despite Google talking heads. You're not crazy. This is blah blah mid and small companies do not need or want.
Thanks so much for bringing this up! I had lost all hope. I might get out my old eMate and MessagePad!
I can't speak to Elm, but I'd say the Clojure/Script fiasco wasn't really one sided. Some of the "contributors" not getting their way wasn't like they were wanting to push some amazing improvements. Most of the time, the reason for things not going through is actually disagreement on the impact the change would have to the language, and people complaining about how slowly the discussion around it can happen to drive agreement.

Basically my point is, some people like me are happy that there's a high bar of entry for contributions and that every change is carefully considered, even if sometimes that means changes happens more slowly.

Don't know if that could be true of Elm as well?
Maybe instead of perspective you meant to say scale. I’ve had this pet theory on all this called the theory of the big and small. That is all the rules of the universe are repeated at scale. Think about this virus. Maybe just like we have antibodies the earth has antibodies to get rid of pollution. Its not a new theory but I first thought of this when I saved a bee floating in a pool with a stick. To me it was a simple gesture and to the bee it was divine intervention. Maybe perspective is limited by the mind.
Shall We Play a Coordination Game?
Note that with Redux Toolkit, that store setup is now a single line:

const store = configureStore({reducer: rootReducer})

https://redux-toolkit.js.org/usage/usage-guide#simplifying-s...
Copperspice was interesting as a technical experiment to see if improvements to C++ have made the moc no longer needed. The basic problem with using it to actually write applications is that the development effort on it isn't put into things which make your application better. Modernizing and cleaning up the Qt codebase is great for the people working on Qt (or Cs), but most of the changes aren't actually valuable for users of it.
I also don’t get it - shouldn’t work better testing a random population sample and interpolate the numbers?
You underestimate how many folks like to take a break from work with a quick workout.
Hi,

Thanks for your comment..

The plan for (2) is to found a startup or a startup studio that build this solution for the African and MENA markets.

These kind of solutions need business development. So, after building it, I will be in the ground with a friend of mine to business develop it, raise funding, build a team, etc.

My plan is to start in a given country or small region: the Maghreb region for example as I am originally form there. Then after succeeding in that market, we could expand to other parts of Africa..

The advantage here, is that Africa and MENA countries are homogeneous like the South-East Asia.. So, this kind of startup idea could have a huge success across the whole continent and solve real problems; and people are waiting for these kind of solutions..

What do you think?
I don't buy that. Objective quantitative analysis based on models that don't know about the pandemic should be pricing in a disastrous 30% unemployment, and clearly the market is not.

I'm not in the industry, but I have to believe the quants are doing what all of us are: they're throwing out the models, rewriting stuff where possible, but basically just guessing like the rest of us. And that process is a victim of their own subjectivity. And this is not just a demographic well-positioned to have a good, objective understanding of epidemiology.

Basically that's just a long winded way to say: wall street isn't looking at this correctly and is going to be surprised when quarterly results don't show the recovery they're expecting.
You have to realize that the entire concept of "identity theft" comes from having centralized identity to begin with, otherwise there is nothing to "steal".

Suppose you want to take out a mortgage on a house. If you take it out in someone else's name, this is a problem. But suppose that didn't even enter into it. Instead you prove title to the house, i.e. you authenticate to the city title office as owner of that property using the authentication method you established when you bought it, and that proves to the bank that you own the property. You, having authenticated to the city, approve the bank to take a lien out on the house. They accept the lien as collateral for the mortgage loan, and you get a mortgage loan. Your name doesn't enter into it at all, so nobody could use your name to take out a loan. If you don't pay the loan, they don't care one bit what your name is, they just foreclose on your house.
It is difficult to compete with a strategic program like "Made in China 2025". We'll see. I'd guess, no change - the subsidy program in China will remain largest and most competitive, market will seeks subsidies of the largest program. The externalities, like the single point of failure that you've pointed out, will be ignored.
Would that tell me why US inflation fell to -1% when the Fed massively expanded its balance sheet in 2008?
Malicious Life is a very well done podcast about hacking. I’d say it’s aimed at mid level of tech savviness—you won’t feel pandered to as an expert, but they’re engaging, well-explained narratives that anyone can follow and enjoy.

https://pca.st/podcast/57847560-3e22-0135-9028-63f4b61a9224
You're correct, but there's a bit of "linguistic drift" at play, I guess. The use of the term "closure" in the Swift ecosystem has come to refer almost entirely to the anonymous kind.

(Side note, named functions in Swift are indeed also closures:

let x = 10
func f() {
print(x)
}
f() // Okay; prints 10 as you'd expect

)
Unless that global government is dominated by Chinese communist government ideology or shows the same judgement as the WHO. Thanks but no thanks. At least with nation states you have some checks and balances. It's also way too much concentrated power for my liking.
So many great things about redux that are hard to mimic...

- the ability to create a middleware that is your analytics listeners. Analytics will listen to actions and spit out analytic info when those actions trigger. Because of this there is literally no analytics code anywhere in your codebase, except encapsulated in that one analytics middleware and sub-tree.

- Ability to just see every state update in dev tools which is AMAZING for tracking down what caused a non-obvious problem. For example: Was it a bad api request? Was it a bug in the reducer? etc. Hard problems suddenly become easier with good debugging tools.

- Ability to persist a part of the store to local storage. This is actually quite nice.
Agree. I'm gonna be honest and say I haven't finished the entire article so author might have elaborated further after, but I got a chill when reading the following passage:

> The second is that if you advertise something as Open Source, there is a common set of assumptions about what that means, some of which are explicit in accepted definitions of the term.

It seems the "common set of assumptions" is around that people can get involved and actually have impact on the direction of the project, but that's not at all included in the actual definition of open source. https://opensource.org/osd

And I'm starting to see this sentiment crop up more and more recently, where someone open sources something just to share the code, while people expect the maintainers/creators to fit their project to their worldview. I think this misconception is the source of many throwing a fit on GitHub in issues/PRs where the maintainers won't change something based on the user's views.

Open source is and should continue to be about that you are free to fork the code if you don't like the direction. Otherwise, assume nothing from others work they publish for you to use for free.

Edit: I continued reading and found bunch of more passages where the authors understanding of open source seems to be incorrect. Some examples:

> Bu I think this claim is increasingly hard to defend. For me, real Open Source goes beyond a LICENSE file.

> I’d like to see some kind of openness in the development process before I considered something to be Open Source

> It seems that Evan and the core team have forgotten that languages, especially Open Source ones, operate as platforms, and in these platforms contributions from other developers and reputation are critical.

> Fairness must be a central principle in any Open Source project

While I agree that these things are nice, they are in no way required to called a project Open Source. Open Source is strictly about the software that is under the license, not the community/company around it. The creator and maintainers are free to accept/deny any patches they feel like, and project should still be considered open source, as long as the _actual_ requirements of open source are followed.
$3000 for the air unit. I paid about $800 for the hotel style PTAC unit I put in the office above my garage.
Yeah being President sucks. Supposed to be well-informed and make correct decisions, not rely on journalist's whining to create policy and take action. But so much easier to just issue sound-bytes and respond to whatever is the issue of the day.
> India banning critical medical exports

India did allow export for humanitarian purposes (last month).
Or MobX which is also neat.
That's what forking entails.

It's a bit like Brexit. You don't get to stay in the club.

If there are sufficient people unhappy with Elm but are cohesive enough to push the compiler forward, then why not?
Simula: A VR window manager for Linux
I wouldn't dispute its hard. I don't think coronavirus has any comparative example. Nothing this contagious/disruptive has occurred in modern times. I just find it amazing that we're 6(?) months since the first diagnosis, and we know so so little.

Maybe that's life, but maybe if China was honest or the US got its testing together we would not be here?
Scenario 2 is your number 1, just one step further in the past. Dumping treasuries leads to you having dollars, you've basically switched from interest-bearing (admittedly super low interest rate right now) to non-interest bearing (cash). You still need to put the money somewhere, hence asset bubble.

Also, why does the government debt "bubble" ever have to "pop"? Does everyone still believe the government has to "pay off the debt"?

They don't. Ever. For a large number of reasons, to name just a couple:

- No more treasuries or bonds (how many people would freak out if those no longer exist)

- They can print more money forever. Besides, at this point it's just numbers in the FED computer system. Hardly any of it even exists as a physical object (paper, coins).

Also, I'll let you in on little secret. The Fed is never going to fully unwind its balance sheet.
In some ways it decreases risk though, too. The risk of war, specifically. The US and Chinese governments are far from friends but our economies are much too interconnected to allow either side to instigate too much of a disagreement.

For the most part globalization is good but the pandemic has certainly highlighted the value of strategic redundancy or at least an emergency plan B.
This is true, but it's still significantly easier than doing the same for any other high paying profession, where education is an almost guaranteed requirement.
Why? Isn’t it good to bring the jobs back?
Contradiction != trolling. If you deign to respond please do it respectfully.

>That's internal.
The circumstances of EU members with respect to the EU is substantially similar to the circumstances of states to the US federal government.

>Yet we're the de facto global currency.

This is begging the question.

>Works great.

Hm.

>US doctrine is that money is no object. Ask UK about the alternative.

I'd rather ask the Axis powers about the topic in question.

>Plus a real military, funded by a real economy.

Again, hm.

I think you're proving my point. Real things can weather a period of stoppage. Castles built on data and debt disappear when the lights go out. Again, ask someone in-the-know what happens if funding or supply lines dry up, even temporarily.
I approve of decentralizing a lot of these critical things.

I do think that unweaving the weave and actually keeping these industries competitive / efficient at home ... will be an incredibly difficult task.
I'm not highly experienced in this realm but I sometimes wonder if the liability in our industry is misaligned which may cause many of these symptoms.

When a company faces a huge security breach due to negligence, who pays the cost? I've known many engineers rightfully pointing out necessary work to prevent security issues that have to negotiate with product owners and business stakeholders to find time to perform such work. And guess who never gets the time to work on those issues?

How many companies actually audit their dependencies and run their own package management infrastructure to protect themselves against liabilities?

If developers were liable then companies would be obligated to hire a professional engineer, pay their insurance, and there would be repercussions for avoiding their recommendations. I suspect companies would be much more cautious about "releasing early, releasing often," and "moving fast and breaking things," if there were penalties for making poor decisions that affect the safety and property of people.
I would find this report more reliable if it quotes Italian officials, not Trump administration said this, Pence said that. Basing an entire article on the hearsay of an unrelated third party (that has a less than stellar track record of telling the truth) is just... odd.
> So why it is not in China best interests to offer genuine support when they can?

It's definitely in their interest, because in terms of realpolitik, this is their golden opportunity one-up the US on the world stage, possibly even making Europe more aligned with them than with the States.
Why are 51% of your people contractors?
Lived in China. Also lots of African friends who don’t appreciate how the Chinese do business in their country.
Practical Health Tips to Improve Life Expectancy of Human
and why can't bob find a job even if he was a pedophile or a murderer or whatever?

why is extrajudicial punishment allowed?
`forgetting` is not an edge case. In the context of rust, having an API that invokes unsafe behavior without it being marked unsafe is not acceptable. Keeping ourselves to this rule is what makes the concept of `unsafe` useful because we can rely on the behavior/api-spec of other code.

Failing to ensure correct behavior in the presence of `forget` means that once the program gets complex enough it can blow up in undetermined ways because one piece of code somewhere wasn't aware of a restriction in another piece of code that is potentially very far away.

Failing to isolate this type of unsafety is a pitfall waiting for some future developer to be trapped in.
it doesn't seem to me that your reading of brundolf's post is very generous. the post doesn't mention explicitness at all, but says that increasing the number of syntaxes that can be used for the same purpose increases mental overhead for reading code. also, the post says that this particular proposal "seems really unnecessary," strongly implying that the author does not believe the tradeoff is worth it.

personally, while I can't claim to love writing Ok around return values, I definitely value the enhanced readability that comes with it. rust is the most readable language I've ever coded in, and it's not even close. when I see the "throws" syntax that was proposed, I expect it would make it harder to read the code because the Result type is erased from the type signature. To me, whatever tradeoff I would gain in ease of writing code from this would be far outweighed by the cost in reading that code.
While that could be a factor I think the situation is primarily the result of simple economic considerations. Companies compete for employees, which drives platform commonalities and group think across business lines. It is cheaper to hire a ready to work developer from a competing employer than it is train an employee over time regardless of the fact that incoming employee still has to relearn the new company's business and internal processes. So, there are financial incentives to be impatient and make bad decisions even though there is ramp up time regardless. Even though finding qualified employment candidates generally costs as much as training somebody to be qualified it is generally preferred for its lower overhead and convenience.

In many other white-color industries employees are accountable for their work. A substantial enough violation of that accountability can result in loss of career (from any employer), fines, and even prison time depending on the violation of negligence. Because of that there are conventions in place to define qualification:

* An agent/broker relationship ensures that all employees are essentially practicing interns operating under the guidance of a broker. The poor performance of an agent negatively influences the reputation of the broker so guidance and mentoring are provided as a required effect. Very few employers in software provide anything close to that. If you want that you have to go get it on your own outside of work, which is why so many excellent developers are largely self-taught and have some time in on some sort of extraordinary product before it became well known.

* Licensing ensures that candidates meet some minimal, uniform, standard level of qualification. Usually licensing standards are run as industry specific charities to influence the standards of practice and ethical norms. Software doesn't have this either. Nobody can provide a standard definition of competence in software. In most other industries this one factor drives the direction of education and training more than just about everything else combined.
> Even then, I believe that the control systems are based on voting, where many operations occur in triplicate between various processors and then a consensus is reached for the action.

> But building a system like that is difficult, unnecessary for a craft like the 737 MAX

Why? The 777 has it.

http://www.citemaster.net/get/3c501aaa-39d5-11e4-9cb6-00163e...
Show HN: A rap song about over engineering
I'd agree with this, there's so little overhead with using it.

One other positive side effect is that you can plug QGIS or similar straight in and visualise your data with minimal effort.
The closest I've been to using elm is elmish.

As a completely random internet user evaluating what proglangs to look at next, I'm staying far, far away from elm itself.
At least in the summer you can use a fan, my worry is with the winter!
Why does the absolute size of the balance sheet matter if inflation is steady?
Why don't emoji like 45° transforms?