skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Barrier to entry for coding is very low.

no it isn't

> Even working as a burger flipper they can get a degree

did you get a degree while working a full time job?

> everyone always can be an entrepreneur

no they can't
This is not cheap.
It's Time to Start Rebuilding
You're casting too broad a net here. I don't think this article is about pedantry. There is a time and place to be pedantic, just arguably in none of the given examples. The place to be pedantic is to point out sloppy thinking. Sometimes you just need precision, and it's not enough to be "mostly right".
People are naturally competitive and often antagonistic. But what are those discussions really about? In order to decide on a suitable programming language for a project, more methodic approaches are useful, like a list of requirements with ratings for each candidate. Debates usually just let the more stubborn and irrational participant win.
History is usually written by some underpaid scientists or journalists. They are rarely among the winners. And yes, a development often takes a long time.
We probably do have different definitions of freedom.
My definition is along the lines of yours ends where mine starts, whereas yours sounds more like 'absolute freedom'.

You're right to an extent, the GPL does place certain obligations on the users, in particular to maintain (at least) the level of freedom they themselves were given, which naturally limits what one can do to an extent.

P.S. Yes, it all depends on copyright law, BSD does too, otherwise public domain would suffice.
I see this incredibly often in medicine-- particularly from nurses, midlevels and patients when they don't have great relationship with the physician. Myself included (although I try to have a good relationship and communication I don't bat 100). People tend to latch on to what they know or think they know, and it's very hard to get them focusing on the more important issue that may be at odds with that. As an example-- I trained at a place where a patient disagreed with his doctor's assessment (something about lung fluid analysis). The patient cited a well-respected journal article that guided standard of care. But, the patient didn't realize something. The doc treating him authored that article.

We see stuff like that routinely-- evidence gets misinterpreted and people get angry because their sources (but not their interpretation) may be excellent.
This has always been more of the dream of BTC than the reality. Transferring BTC around can cost 0.1 - 0.4% which becomes quite expensive. The cost of a wire transfer from Canada to the various countries I make them is a flat $36 - though receiving fees can be as high as $15 (CAD). That means that BTC only makes sense if you're transferring less than $5100.

But moreover, BTC back to fiat is significantly more expensive than "expensive" currency exchange with usually levels as high as 3%
Too late to edit the original comment, but this is exactly what happened
If you read the article, then you'll see that it's mostly about using the JS/WASM runtime (Spidermonkey) that Servo is using. So a comparision of using Deno vs. Spidermonkey from Rust wouldn't be off target.
Video stream, especially if it a group setting is always expensive. I can’t understand why people have such high expectations for video conferencing. This is the reason why Zoom and Microsoft Teams is killing it: video conferencing is inherently difficult and not a trivial task.
I don't know if AGI is possible or not but I do think this is a valid question. The AI risk people gloss over this fundamental question and proceed directly to the question of "AI safety". This is a major weakness in their argument.
I am building a DB based on JSON OT for collaborative apps
I am starting to build a NoSQL database built for collaborative apps. Collaborative apps have a huge versioning issue and current databases don’t implement that well I believe.

The idea is a DB based on JSON Operational Transformation. Updates are made based on operations with a document version. Plus I was thinking of having subscriptions like RethinkDB.

Does that sounds like something helpful? Would love any feedback!
Yup, a lot of weight, now imagine 3 Petabytes[0]

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtZXMj_gUjU
lol. Seriously, for what?
It is mathematically the most "economical" integer base in terms of space, when considering complexity of digit representation along with word length [1].

[1] Hayes, B. (2001). Third base. American Scientist 89: 490-494 (http://lrss.fri.uni-lj.si/sl/teaching/ont/lectures/third_bas...)
Curious, also. I was under the impression that they were not encrypted with group calls
who do I side with, sales leeches or IBM?!
A discussion with started with the first statement and response, and then went on with the statements they listed under "ignores all the larger context of the issue" looks pretty decent to me.

It might turn out that the second person thinks one or more of the bullet points is false, and both sides might learn something.
I think this comes from a fundamental issue: the participant isn't ready and willing to understand the other participant in conversation. The goal of the participant is to smash and belittle the other person instead of trying to achieve consensus.

For example, observe more consensus-oriented cultures: You'll see people talkting to each other over and over until they chip away at the other partys position and reach a middling consensus to move ahead. It's a very slow process but generally achieves good results in practice. This is also how good functioning multi-party governments work, where parties slowly move towards an acceptable middle ground when building policy.

This breaks down if one of the parties isn't interested in building consensus - in a hyper-individualist viewpoint, the goal is to attack, bellitle and insult the other person to build your own following or ego. In that case, there's no useful resolution of that conversation - the goal of the pedant is to find something to attack and attack it with no wish to reach a productive objective. In that case, the only winning move is not to play. At least until that attitude doesn't reach your organization/government and makes the environment intolerable.
> I wonder if that's going to be the situation with 'six' - is it a runtime library, or more of a 'build' tool, to transpile from 3 to 2?

It's a runtime library. [2to3] is in the stdlib and transpiles.

> To answer some of your questions:

That whole paragraph could be put at the top of the file in a triple-quote. It explains what the file is for pretty nicely. If you end up using argparse it could be in the description :)

I'm glad I could help somehow. Have a nice easter!

[2to3]: https://docs.python.org/3/library/2to3.html
LED mask concept lets you smile through the pollution (2014)
Oyster Creek was extremely cheap because the price was set not by what it would cost to build, but to beat coal. It was a fixed price loss leader.

The nuclear industry abandoned such turnkey contracts, and for good reason. They made a desperate return recently, with even sadder result: the bankruptcy of Westinghouse.
White-Tailed Eagles Spotted for the First Time in 240 Years
Bear in mind also, China put out a video in Italy just before the outbreak encouraging Italians to hug Chinese tourists because they were suffering from "xenophobia" due to the virus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNMdg4morQs&feature=youtu.be

That video ... didn't age well, shall we say.

And here's a virologist claiming political correctness slowed Italy's response to the virus:

https://www.theblaze.com/news/italy_political_correctness_ch...

Conservatives in general have developed into an opposition to globalism ("one world government"), a cause the left has championed since the earliest days of the COMINTERN. It's not a huge surprise that they'd emphasise the origins of the virus and nature of the local government there, especially given the recommended course of action is strong border control.

The WHO is an especially clear example of what "one world government" looks like, and there's an established history of criticism of the WHO from conservatives dating back long before COVID-19. For instance in this article:

https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-...

it's alleged that the WHO changed its own definition of pandemic so swine flu would qualify, massively exaggerated its impact and deadliness vs normal flu, lied about its own change of definitions and that its chief gave a speech using swine flu to promote various hard-left ideas in e.g. this quote (but there are others from the same speech)

https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/2009/euro_regional_committee...

"Leaders in sectors with far more clout than health are making a similar point. At the April G20 summit in London, world leaders called for a fundamental re-engineering of the international systems to incorporate a moral dimension and make them responsive to genuine social values and concerns. They voiced a need to invest these systems with values like community, solidarity, equity, and social justice. While this is welcome new thinking for world leaders, this is a familiar vocabulary for public health"

I don't think it actually makes sense to use names based on where a virus was first detected, but it's also pretty common and of course diseases named after the people who first found them is even more common. But there's far more background to this than mere reaction against over-sensitivity. Respiratory viruses have a history of being exaggerated and used to push for certain political ideas.
i think there are some common lisp implementations that do this
I don't think "pedant" as a personality trait encompasses people, who are only pedantic in necessary context. Your answer thus might be a bit... pedantic? ;)
Ask HN: How do I sell a premium domain name?
I bought a nice domain name many years ago, but now the Covid-19 situation has affected me and my family financially so I've decided to try to sell it.

It's a good name for a blog/cms/publishing startup.

What's my options here?
I will likely be downvoted for saying this, but fuck it.

This "copyleft is free (as in freedom)" claim bothers me. Copyleft is not free (as in freedom). Its more like free (but this gun pointed at your temple will shoot if you do not agree with The One True Philosophy). That doesn't sound like freedom to me; more like thinly veiled tyranny. (I suppose this is mostly the fault of the redefinition of a derivative work, but that's a separate issue).

My definition of freedom means that every individual has the right to their own One True Philosophy, whatever that may be. Wanna write your software in the nude (as in publicly)? Be my guest. Wanna write code for Dept. of Defense missiles (which probably should never, ever be public)? Go nuts, IDGAF. Etc, etc.

The GPL is a mistake for software development. I don't mean that just because of what I said above. It's a mistake because of its infectious nature. Whether or not you or I agree (or any reason, it doesn't matter), you must comply. Like a Borg drone, with no freedom. With a non-copyleft licence, any library will still be useful no matter the licence of the software it's linked to (well, except the aforementioned GPL-ed code). See libstdc++ for an example: if it really were vanilla GPL, nobody would use the STL (or at least, not GCC's STL)!

(Written on my Kubuntu workstation).
I think the real issues is communicating the correct point in a diplomatic way that wins people over. Lots of people might be making decisions on a feeling rather than a precise facts. This article reaches a bit too broadly from specific examples. There are lots of counter examples where you neeed to be correct, eg corona response, airplane design etc.
I have nothing against lean VMs/JIT compilation like LuaJit or the way Racket compiles on the fly, but I do avoid Java VMs for various reasons:

- Dependency hell and deployment problems: It's hard to make correct assumptions about which VM version is available on which platform. Pre-installed versions interfere with side-installed versions, and there is a ton of software that requires older Java VMs to work properly. It's a huge mess.

- Potential for losing future OS support: Apple, Microsoft, and others may at any time decide to block Java VM or no longer support it on their platform. That means you have to bundle your software with a Java VM, e.g. Crashplan has done this, making installation and deployment even more difficult.

- A thousand past problems on Linux: Various versions of OpenJDK and Oracle's java in combination with user software written in Java have caused massive problems on my Linux machines during the past 15 years, from causing extreme slowdowns to freezing the desktop until you hard reset.

Nothing else has given me as much troubles on Linux than Java, not even proprietary graphics card drivers and kernel extensions. Whatever the Java VM does, if it can freeze your whole system just because you run desktop software like Jabref, then there is something wrong with it.
GPL does exactly that, prevents the distribution of proprietary forks.

And yes, the GPL does require you to release all your code if you want to use a GPL'd library. It's not "just" a library. The library is presumably needed for your program to function. If yes, there's noting wrong with the author of that library requiring you pass on the same guarantees with your software that you were given by them when you decided to use their library, which they spent their precious time building.
I look forward to the video. The project looks interesting and it could be useful once I understand more about the project and how it works.
EDIT to clarify the parent comment. Essentially the paper claims that using classical mathematical analysis (which is the constructive analysis plus the Axiom of Choice) when interpreting the equations of physical models is poor choice. It is better to use intuition mathematical analysis (which is the constructive analysis plus axioms of choice sequence) as it provides better match with our intuition.

But for me the extra axioms are still arbitrary. As all our measurements have finite precision, all those extra axioms does not matter in real calculations. If some extra axioms helps to discover results that are also applicable to the world of finite precision, then go for it. But not claim that the world is such.
Then again, why shouldn't it be ending with "in Rust" (or "in Nim" or "in Go", etc)?

After all, HN has a focus on technology and programming. So it seems somewhat natural that readers here will be interested in the technology and programming language of a project.
Ask HN: Has anyone you ever shake hands with became a coronavirus victim??
So now we have a 1/150 chance of knowing a covid-infected person and 0.007% of knowing a covid-Victim.

I , a 9-5 cubicle professional, personally know 2 positive persons and 0 deceased. Statistically I should have met 0 infected persons. Does it show tech community has equal (higher) exposure?

What is your experience?
also known as the valley girl talk
In "Learn X the hard way" style, I'm planning to refresh my maths degree fundamentals by working through some of the Cambridge Tripos material at https://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad/studentreps/tripos-spe...

(particularly the Dexter Chua notes). This may be too hard without tutor support, but I figure I can always find easier material if it gets too tough.
Nuclear waste can basically be safely solved by dumping sealed containers into the sea. We're talking about extremely small amounts of waste. A swimming pool can contain a year's supply of waste, and 20 ft of water is extremely effective radiation shielding. The ocean is so large that this would be totally negligible even if the worst happened.
I hoard because shows, youtube videos (youtube-dl) and websites disappear. I use some GTD methods to organize my data (e.g. folders a,b, c...z)
I use recoll to find data https://www.lesbonscomptes.com/recoll/

I would like to use an online backup service but I would like to have my data encrypted.

I tried
https://www.hetzner.com/storage/storage-box

But data throughput to an encrypted storage was abysmal. I tried several methods, even included running an encrypted filesystem in a 10TB file. I tried https://www.cryfs.org/ but nothing worked good and reliable.

I looked into https://www.infomaniak.com/en/kdrive/ but the encryption method seems like snake oil.

Any suggestions?
American history in the US, maybe. Rest of the world probably doesn't care - and if a typical history class is like all my classes in primary, secondary and high school, you barely reach World War II when the school year ends.
Nope - my problem is there because I followed their examples which manage to give you an example of creating a settings page using javax forms and starts with using the IDEA gradle plugin to compile all of it.

Except when you actually do both you realise there’s no way of compiling this plugin through gradle unless you first run the build step through the IDE (which secretly puts all of the compiled forms in the same build directory).

It’s a mess.
Copyleft is NOT free as in freedom. Period.
I've always assumed that somebody must have gone through classifying bugs like this in faulty debate (e.g. based on ancient Greek debating theory, or law, or logic as taught in philosophy?). By using well-defined terms to refer to the bugs, it would be way easier to call them out and mitigate them - as the amount of time wasted in FOSS collaboration with stuff like this is unbelievable.

Some egregious examples that spring to mind are:

* Trying to disprove a point by finding an edge case where it's not true - even if that edge case is entirely irrelevant (a bit like the complaints in the original post)

* Trying to disprove a point by exaggerating it to an extreme and saying that because it doesn't work in the extreme case, it must be false.

* Taking a point out of context and proudly proving it to be wrong... when taken out of its wider context.

* Making an entirely unrelated point which happens to be true, as a way of trying to prove an earlier point.

I guess the second one is a form of hyperbole (but is that the right term)? The third one could be called out as "taken out of context", and fourth is "irrelevant"... but it still feels like life could move on faster if there was a clearer taxonomy for these 'bugs'. (One could even provide the taxonomy as tags/reactions into your communication system of choice - like a more nuanced version of "+5 Insightful" or similar).

Edit: perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies is what i'm looking for, although it feels... cumbersome.
I agree! I love playing devil's advocate. People tend to focus too much on "who is right" and get annoyed. For me, it's about learning. It's about challenging my and my peer's assumptions and finding what are the limits of the assertion.

The article is a good invitation to reflection, but an alternative title could be "let's discover the relevant context together".
>>how the contact tracing API can work while preserving privacy.

It cant, and any claims it can is sheer arrogance on the part of the developers.

you can not simultaneously assign an identifier to everyone, and maintain privacy, they are mutually exclusive. If you can ID someone, and trace that ID back then it is not private
I think the people who sell tools or buy tools usually constrain themselves to "least common denominator" type of experiences.

(This might be true of free/shared/common tools that haven't been configured yet)

But getting past all that, after a lot of craftsmanship and idea sharing, that's when tools start to ramp up in productivity.

I use emacs, because if something doesn't work like you want to, you can coerce it to do so. That said I personally wish it was python-based, because I'm more fluent in python than lisp.
Is this the same general concept as in Spaceballs (1987)?

Lone Starr : Listen! We're not just doing this for money!

Barf : [Barf looks at him, raises his ears]

Lone Starr : We're doing it for a SHIT LOAD of money!
Interestingly, this particular flaw in reasoning (dare I say "fallacy"?) is far more prevalent in the the tech community. Being guided by Vulcan-like logic applied to completely neutral facts isn't just considered ideal but even achievable. Emotions, OTOH, are considered a weakness, as are any product considerations that cannot be expressed in SI units. Design/UI/UX are confused with "making it look pretty" in the same way that what's considered art is usually interior decorating and any actual art is considered pointless at best and another postmodern abomination at worst.

So it's no wonder that they'll frequently believe "I found this one remote outlier" to be a valid refutation of some argument. Because, in principle, it is: If you don't caveat for black sheep, Taleb is going to smack you over the head. And if you list black sheep, I'll spray-paint a sheep red and consider myself extremely smart. Soon, we'll have names for 16.7 million colours so you'll be on the losing side of this argument forever.

The "liberal arts" have their own weaknesses. Engineering can put a man on the moon or a nuclear bomb on Japanese soil and it's pretty well obvious that someone got done with their todo list this week. That other culture doesn't lack in achievements of similar magnitude, such as the rule of law or democracy. But these are hard to measure, are achieved gradually. It's near impossible to assign individual credit and therefore harder to implement a meritocracy.

Yet because they continually live in this sort of murky dialectic discourse, the humanities are far more comfortable with complexity. The tech community even more than the natural sciences has a fundamental problem with getting even close to considering the best possible opposing argument. Considering how great their believe in both the power of "rationality" and their ability to use it is, it's not even funny to see how lawyers, for example, tend to wipe the floor with them. Witness any discussion of law here or among tech-twitter, where dozens of ideas will crop up how to outsmart the law by being "clever" and owning a dictionary ("the contract said "Dollars", but didn't specify USD. I'll just pay in CAD")
Yes, of course: "Fallacies".

But note there's also something I like to call the "Fallacy Fallacy": People read the wikipedia list and consider them some sort of universal natural law.

Case in Point: "appeal to authority". This can indeed be fallacious, within the context where these were formulated, which is probably academic publishing. If someone says they've created an HIV vaccine, it would be very wrong to start using it without clinical trials just because the inventor is some famous researcher.

If you try to apply the same to daily life and online debate, you're going to wither and die within a month.

Example: you're experiencing chest pain. What do you do? You see a doctor! Do you subject them to a quiz on heart disease, and do you re-run every trial that contributed to your treatment? Of course not -– it would cost trillions and take many lifetimes. Instead, you trust your countries certification scheme, and you trust the scientific establishment. Both are authorities.

When you return to your favourite restaurant, you are extrapolating expected future performance based on past experience. in other words: you trust them. Or in even otherer words: you consider them the authority on Fried Chicken and rely on that to guide your decisions.

There are only two ways to gain an understanding of the world around you as needed to do anything: direct experience, and what others tell you. The fraction of required knowledge that you can individually verify from first principle is probably somewhere below 1%. For everything else, you need to rely on other's direct experience, by continually fine-tuning individual measures of authority by comparing to direct experience where possible, and integrating with other sources where not.
I've been waiting for it so long