skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My MacBook Pro 2015 showed this behaviour, however my MacBook Air 2019 starts up immediately with the stock charger, however it takes a few minutes with a lower 15W adapter.
That’s a different argument altogether.
If you have a legitimate demand for something that is impossible, it still won't happen.
Not to knock the live dashboard but from what I read on IRC you will still likely need to use New Relic or other tools to look at logs and explore the state of your system from the past to help track down errors or analyze / filter those logs from the past.

The live dashboard only captures information at the moment. There is no persistence or advanced filtering capabilities. Meaning, if you received an error notification 5 minutes ago but didn't already have the dashboard open, you couldn't just load live dashboard and check it out there. You would have to troll through your own logs or use a 3rd party logging tool just like before.

Where live dashboard seems to shine is if you already have it open beforehand, you can see various metrics about your app in real time. Although other logging tools are pretty close to real-time too.

But it is cool that something like this is included by default. I hope future releases expand on what it allows you to do.
It's not just that - it's what Libra aspired to. Fundamentally, it was wild crypto ancap dreams, where money works like you want because you want it to. Nobodies can say that stuff, because they don't matter.

When some ICO bozo says that, regulators sigh and say "fine, just don't break the laws. Oops, you broke the laws good and hard. Let's have some serious discussion."

When a company with a continent-class user base says it's going to mess with the money ... governments get super upset.
Protocols agility allow applications to pick between multiple settings, let's say RSA128 and RSA256 for example. This allows to add and remove ciphers over time, which is very important.

In theory it's a bad idea, because it means stuff might select obsolete ciphers during operation, which is bad.

In practice, there is no choice but to design agility. Ciphers will invariably get weak after some years (computer get faster) so they need to be phased off and replaced by newer ones.

In the real world, there are meshes of client-server interacting with one another. You can't just upgrade the software on one side to only use the newer cipher, or nothing could connect to it anymore. Thus there has to be the capability to work with multiple ciphers, so older ciphers can gradually be phased-in across systems and older cipher phased-off.

Pretty sure the two other commenters are mostly researchers with no real world software deployment to manage. Otherwise they wouldn't be so strong against agility. Fact is a system with no agility is dead in the water because it can't evolve.
This looks like a neat bit of tech but it doesn’t sit quite right with me. In particular it doesn’t feel very fair to our fellow shoppers.

We wait in line for the ATM or the checkout or anything else because a scrabble is unfair. Using a tool like this when others almost certainly are not doesn’t really feel fair on those other people.

Having to check manually for a slot sucks, but so does waiting in line, and that’s the lowest common denominator of behavior that still counts as fair which we can all adhere to right now.

I get that the grocery companies should make the slot selection better. But laying the blame on them feels a bit like the FAQ for those padlocks that stop the airline passenger in front of you from being able to recline, where the manufacturer tried to claim we are all in this together their product is just part of a campaign for better airline seating for us all. It was no such thing: it was kind of selfish.

In any other climate I’d happily be told to quit my social justice moralism, but things seem quite serious at the moment, and I wouldn’t encourage using this tool, but maybe I’m taking it too far.
The presence of a virus at a virology lab is not legit evidence the lab caused the virus because a virology lab would be expected to have virus either way...
I've spent the last couple of years building a graphql api around my employer's platform.

When it comes to graphql mutations vs. sql writes, the things that can go wrong are ugly and hard to avoid on both.

But for read queries the graphql api is a lot safer. I can think of a few read queries I could make that could make the db server fall over, but those are bugs I'm working on fixing. But with sql queries it's much easier to crush the server, and I've done it way too often just by accident. I would much rather allow Dave in accounting have access to graphql over sql read statements. There's just a lot less damage that he can do.

And the fact is that Dave in accounting has been using the graphql api via GraphiQL, getting great results, and taking a load off of the developers. It's much easier for him to learn than sql. The whole account management staff is gradually climbing on board. They can do things in minutes that would previously have been projects that crossed departments and took weeks. Some clients are using it directly too.

We couldn't have seriously considered opening up sql queries like that, even to replica databases.
It's called advertising. You have to spend money to make money. No one cold called you about a pair of Nikes and yet you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Yes, Michael Lund of CalTech updated the Velikofskian hypothesis: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.12437.pdf
But can you not compare the ratios between age groups? That's all I'm doing here - showing deaths have a higher age correlation with covid than flu. - not making any statement about absolute CFR/IFR.
I feel that the asymptomatic thing is more wishful thinking in places where infection control has failed. Other countries have shown that you can contain the spread of Covid19, even if there are asymptomatic (or more realistic, low symptom severity) cases.
My thoughts exactly. If I could just rent photoshop for a few hours that would serve my needs perfectly. But it looks like I'd need to buy a license, load it on, and pay monthly for storage, so I might as well just pay for just the application and use it locally.
Dang now Harry dun looks like a straight up goooooof. Should have checked the data.
No, because you don’t know what the infection rate is by each demographic.

You have to compare just the case fatality rate. Comparing fatality ratios alone is too likely to measure unrelated factors.
Can you state who this company is?

Isn't "secure egress gateway" descriptive as well?
Random testing in Germany has also revealed higher than expected rates of people with antibodies. Their IFR (infected fatality rate) was 2% overall based on non-random testing. Random testing has yielded an IFR or 0.37%.

This does not increase the risk. These tests only test people who had coronavirus. The larger this portion, the more herd immunity there is in the population. It implies that there were a larger than expected number of people who had the virus, at some point in time. But that's a lagging indicator.
What cherry picked data are you looking at? Just because TOTAL investment amount is rising doesnt mean that it is lifting all boats. Pareto distribution 101.
Phx10.com Microsoft Phoenix Data Center Domain
PHX10.COM Microsoft Phoenix Data Center Domain is Now For Sale at GoDaddy or direct at domains@apachedomains.com
Is that supposed to sound small, because 82% is others?

Because to me it sounds amazingly large, that one company should do 17% of business for any market. And anything that is on a scale of countries, reducing it by 17% is going to be disruptive.
> Anyways, my point is that tons of people who are not at the top of the businesses experiencing increased productivity are reaping the rewards of productivity improvements. It's a falsehood to think that only those making the investments are reaping the benefits. It only looks that way if you myopically don't look beyond the firm whose productivity improved.

Your point literally misses the point. From the perspective of improving the lot of ordinary workers, "beyond the firm whose productivity improved" doesn't matter. What matters is peoples' paychecks.

Before the mid 70's, when overall productivity went up, wages went up. That is no longer the case. It wouldn't be a problem if things like housing (both home prices and rents), education, medical insurance, and healthcare services (which is still important even for those with health insurance due to out of pocket maximums and deductibles). Notice how all of these are basic essentials of life, some of which are essential enough to form the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? I also want to stress that people today have to fund their own retirement, because there are no more company pensions.

Things that have gone up at or below the rate of inflation since the mid 70s are, by and large, not essentials: cars, computers, airline tickets, phone service, TVs, and clothes. [0] Granted, clothes, and sometimes cars are essential, but the savings there don't come close to making up the shortfall in the other things.

> Also, not all productivity improvements are from tools that still need to be used by workers. A lot is from automation.

If anything, I would guess that automation has harmed workers by eliminating good jobs, rather than benefiting people overall. Yeah, we have free stock trades now, but who cares?

I'm open to being convinced otherwise on the automation point, but I have a hard time seeing how people like my mom and dad, neither of whom went to college, could make it into the middle class today if you waved a magic wand and made them 25 again.

---

[0]: https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/growth-strate...
If you have to be a rockstar wizard to grok the SQL, then an abstraction layer that is grokkable by a normal human is an improvement.
Building a Nintendo Switch from Spare Parts
The opposite take would be this: If you need to read a manual that’s a clear sign the system is too complex to be secure. The human is the weakest link so a system that relies on humans being intelligent or careful is insecure. Humans are going to be dumb, sloppy and in a hurry.
It does not change much for the two very ends of the spectrum, that is the solo-hero bootstrapping from scratch and the moonshots however needing a lot of cash... while anything in the middle gets squeezed if not profitable on its own. Good to me as an observer: less serialization and templates, more unorthodox and fun.
Funny you should ask - I actually wrote a short book about it: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M09FA5X.

I own two small apartment buildings in the Bay Area (seven apartments total). I honestly just saw interest rates were low and thought real estate sounded like a good way to take advantage of that. I didn't know much, so I just found an agent through my local Realtor association and started looking at buildings. From there it's not that complicated - you just build a pretty straightforward model of your income and expenses, estimate conservatively, and pay a price that'll make it profitable. Beyond that just use common sense and don't do things like buy in dangerous areas.

I employ a full time property manager, so I have been a full time employee for most of the time I've owned it.
> How Event-Reduce becomes aware of these "write events"?

Some DBs expose an event stream, for example, PG:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/logicaldecoding-expl...
Sadly, nobody mentioned datalog.
I’m sorry people are being so shitty. Some of us understand that we should direct our ire towards the CCP, not towards Chinese people in general.
We need widespread antigen testing in a place like Italy or NYC or Sweden. Would be so informative.
To answer my own question I looked around and while it seems that a fever is the most common symptom, it is not present in all cases where testing indicates the presence of the virus.
Hello! Do you have plans for more new grad positions?
Clapping Music with TidalCycles
Work for YC. Everyone gets a chance to buy in (I think).
> security is almost ALWAYS at odds with convenience.

I hate this attitude. Vehemently. It's borderline ethically irresponsible to say it out loud, because it gives muggles the notion that they can save costs by reducing security, which is often simply not true.

Security is very often the cheaper option, or at least the smoother one. Certainly from an end-users' point of view, it's more convenient.

Let me list some examples:

Windows v1909 has a bunch of hardware-enfoced security turned on by default (=low admin effort), invisibly to the end user (=convenient). Older operating systems either have none of this, or it's a manual task to enable these optional features (=expensive).

A good HR automation process means that when a new employee starts, they automatically gain access to whatever they need, and nothing they don't. This is great for the user, because "everything just works" and they have everything they need available (=convenient), but it's secure because there is no error-prone manual processes to grant them access to things (=cheaper).

Windows 10 Hello for Business is essentially a virtual smart card stored in the TPM chip of your laptop, secured with a PIN or biometrics as a second factor. It uses modern cryptography and works transparently with Kerberos. It's as strong as a Smart Card but is more automatic than a password.(=convenient) It requires no hardware to deploy, and essentially eliminates a bunch of attack vectors (=cost neutral or even cheaper).

Simply enabling WSUS or leaving Windows in automatic patch mode is literally the cheapest and most secure option, yet many organisations insist on spending tons of time, effort, and money on "managing" their patches. This inevitably results in totally unnecessary paper pushing, and no measurable benefit. Meanwhile, Microsoft releases protocol-breaking changes (such as the CredSSP thing recently) in waves, with the "enabling" patch one month, and then the "enforcing" patch the next month. Smooth as silk. Except for every. Single. One. Of my customers that insisted on "managing" their patches in quarterly rollouts or whatever that had a major outage because they skipped patches.

You get the idea. There is a "happy" path of less effort, more convenience, yet very good security. Not perfect, but good enough.

Conversely, this attitude of "we must reduce security to reduce costs or improve convenience" is just insane. I've seen people go out of their way to purposefully weaken the default security of a system because of this logic.

So please. Even if you know better, just never, ever say anything like this out loud. The world is full of Muggles, and they hear this shit and do random stupid stuff that lets the Chinese government steal our hard work.
There is too much money around. The rich are so rich, and they have only a few places to store their money. The banks don't want their money, so they invest it, and one of those places is the stock market.
I'm curious about something because I'm working on a side project that's "in the area".

How does workstream, or indeed any remote computing provider, handle the possibility of people using their service to attack other computers, or to store/transfer extremely illegal data? They're not exactly running KYC identification.
>the attitude that if I'm not always programming, I'm "less than" than other programmers seems oppressive to me.

Who says that? It's so backwards from everything I'm accustomed to in the bay area. (In the bay area I've done 10 years of data science and 5 years as a software engineer before that.) Maybe it's because I didn't go to universities out here and it's university culture? People at MIT can get very passionate about their projects.

I've had companies (many of them) advertise to me saying I should join them because they have a healthy 9 to 5 work culture. But what company doesn't? Maybe a young startup, but you sign up for that at that point.

Everyone I know who regularly works more than 40 hours a week (who isn't a CEO) is almost always because their boss asks for X quantity load of work done, which might be 50 hours of work, so they do the 50 hours instead of communicating they can't do that much within 40 hours. Sometimes it's because they're a junior and are afraid of not fitting in and are afraid of getting fired, but sometimes it's a senior who has their tech down, but not their communication skills down. It happens, and it's sad to see, because it almost always leads to burn out on their end. It's not a good thing.

I love what I do, but I do 40 hours a week. Want more? It better be a rare event (crunch times are a real thing in some industries) or you need to be paying me more, and I'm not cheap.

>So the solution for people like me is to pretend to be someone like you, who loves programming above all other things, and it's mildly exhausting.

I love programming, but it's just a tool. It's like saying you love hammering. It doesn't make a lot of sense when you take a step back. What I love is the projects I do. You mentioned hacking your tread mill, so it sounds like you do more tech hobby stuff after hours than most software engineers.

Frankly, I rarely do projects outside of work, despite loving what I do. Why? Because companies give me inspiration to do specific tasks that I love. Without working I have a hard time finding things to do. If I could find infinite things to do, I'd be a CEO, providing things for everyone else to do. The only people who truly don't turn off, end up being CEOs, not software engineers. (Unless they don't know how to capitalize, or some other edge case, of course.) So it's unrealistic to believe you have to be doing non-work tech to work in tech. That's just absurd.

Also, I can't say from country to country, but within the US software engineer culture, while it varies from company to company and team to team, is generally somewhat similar across the country. On the NYC side, working more than 40 hours a week is common (eg, quant work), where on the bay area side only working 40 hours a week and turning off (unless you're at a startup) is common.

Is it possible this has to do with too small of a sample size? It's easy to stereotype. We naturally do it unless we learn otherwise, sometimes through learning statistics, sometimes through other routes.
Nice. Most of the instructors on our system* have pivoted to run their classes online like that now too. YouTube or Vimeo synchronized with a live Zoom.

It's actually working really well for them as they can now open to a wider audience! It's great to see how people have adapted so quickly in the lockdown.

* https://bookwhen.com/virtual-class-booking-system
I looked into this a few weeks ago. The PCR test has an incredibly low false positive rate, below 1%. It is low enough that it is feasible to test a 100,000 people and expect basically zero false positives. The false negative rate is somewhere around 30%. So the real danger with PCR is that you will miss cases.

The opposite is true for the antibody tests. The false negative rate is around 10% and the false positive rate is also around 10%. So in 100,000 tests, you would expect to miss about 1,000 true positives. But, and this is critical, you would also mistakenly get 1,000 false positives - even if only 1/100,000 people are actually infected!

Next time you see someone claiming 50% asymptomatics. First thing to ask is whether they used PCR. Or if they used an assay with a terrible false positive rate.
Do startups need as much capital early on?
I consulted for a company named FlowCrypt last year. Best email encryption UX of any I've seen. Open source and free-for-most business model.

Highly recommend for personal use.
Actually GraphQL was the thing that made me reconsider if running queries on the client-side was a bad idea or not, which was one of the reasons I started seriously experimenting with client-side SQL.

I absolutely agree that you gotta be extremely careful about security though. And in my experience on large enough teams someone's going to mess that up at some point, so that's a big risk in any client-side querying mechanism.
My fiancee is a veterinarian, and it is the same there.

* Absolutely no overtime for hourly employees (the salaried doctors, of course, do 18-hour shifts)
* Doctors in elective departments (dermatology) are furloughed
* They've all but confirmed the techs will have layoffs
Is literally anyone asking for this? My understanding was most power companies had already invested significantly in complying and aren't exactly wont to return to polluting more, suddenly, but maybe I'm wrong.

I like the Trump Administration. They are the id of literally leaving no horribleness on the table. They take every scrap of profuse awful policy and behavior. They pick the bone entirely clean. It'd be really a hell of a thing to watch, if it wasn't going to kill us all.
> 75% of people who were asymptomatic at the time of the test went on to develop symptoms. So the fact that these sailors are currently asymptomatic does not mean that they will remain so.

There's also a wide range of symptoms from 102F fever all the way to sp02 dropping below 80, with varying impacts on the health-care infrastructure.

At this point, conserving health infrastructure for normal incidence is as much of a problem (i.e even in the best case outcomes, there will be some cases of "stay at home, never catch the disease, but die from delayed response to a stroke").

If the asymptomatic people get immune, then this might drop the other multiplier of the R0.

Oof, optimism is hard to come by in these times.
I assume OP is running https://chasersystems.com/ , and he's being threatened by https://www.egress.com/ .

But yes, obviously "secure egress gateway" is descriptive and can't violate a US trademark. Both companies are located in the UK; who knows what their trademark law says. Maybe there's a bakery over there with exclusive rights to the word "biscuit". But I doubt it.
The first sentence spells it out pretty explicitly:

> New evidence has emerged from China indicating that the large majority of coronavirus infections do not result in symptoms.

This is not far off from the figures I had preciously been seeing of 50-70% of people never developing symptoms.

If this is antibody testing, then the people who test positive are already immune to the virus (there's the question of whether different mutations can result in repeated infections, but that's a bit of a tangent).