skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've been using clubhouse for myself and it's pretty much what I need in terms of "advanced to-do list" but "not as heavy as JIRA".

What I'm more interested in is how project management software like this keeps popping up and I genuinely wonder what the rationale is?

We use JIRA, Trello and Asana at work and between three of them, yeah, things are working. How much more do we want out of them? Not much. Let's just get on with actual work.

But I must be missing something - some market research, some user research where there is a big unmet need or problem that none of these tools are currently solving and not just in "missing a feature" way, but at a fundamental level where it justifies an entrepreneur to jump in and create an entire software from scratch.

I'm not in the domain, so I obviously don't have the data. I know lots of people complain about JIRA (including me), but my complaints don't warrant me to move.

Maybe these companies are targeting "new" users? New companies, new teams, people who are starting projects anew and looking for project management software?
We are trusting a few large companies to moderate acceptable speech on the internet. Is it a good idea to entrust such power to a semi-homogenous group of liberal Americans in the Bay Area? Shouldn't the rest of the planet also have a say in this?

Suppose America goes to war with Examplistan. What does that mean for the Examplistanis? Will they get deplatformed as enemy propaganda? Will the internet become a propaganda machine for wherever those large companies are headquartered?

What if Google was anti-LGBT? Would we grant it the same moderation powers? Would we be ok with YouTube removing or demonetising videos featuring homosexual displays of affection?

I find it crazy that we grant those companies so much power simply because they happen to share some of our views.
I do. They allow people who are lending money or extending credit to know what kind of risk they are likely taking on. They also let you know how risky you appear to be when you ask someone for a loan or credit. This allows people to reduce their risk, and it allows people to understand and manage the risk that they present.
The folks over at ArmsControlWonk Slack channel are saying they are probably tests of guided MRV warheads.

It's easy to get objects with no wings to travel at incredible speeds if they are in re-entry. It also explains multiple objects flying in formation.
Talko: An End-to-End Chat Application
What are you using for SSR with Svelte?
Is that really a US thing though? I agree that throughout the western world, our lives are intimately tangled with "corporations" and their products/services. Everything that we eat or touch was likely made by or in part by a corporation.
This general technique is (or was) called SWAR for SIMD-within-a-register, before CPUs had actual SIMD registers and instructions. I played around with bit-parallel Game of Life a while back, calling it LIAR (Life In A Register). If you are doing really fast hashlife then the very low level supercell representations can be small bitmaps for which LIAR works nicely. https://fanf.livejournal.com/93032.html
For those who don't like bare links: Yes, he said it. No, the rest of the virology community does not agree.
The US also devoted up to 4.5% of its federal budget for the task (https://storage.googleapis.com/dbc2017/April/April%2011%20NA...) when the current budget is half of a percent. The priorities are definitely not the same
This is great. I was just thinking today, I don't yet have enough uncertainty about the javascript I have to interact with, and I should add some more, programmatically.
Looking at Amazon's stock, one of the more surreal financial things going on during this pandemic depression, is seeing the Bezos fortune cross $200 billion today while we have 30 million newly unemployed persons in the past six weeks. Had Jeff and MacKenzie not gotten divorced in the recent past, Jeff would presently be listed right at about $200 billion today. As it is, Jeff is up to $150 billion and MacKenzie is at $50 billion. Jeff is nearly worth as much as Warren Buffett & Mark Zuckerberg combined (#4 and #5). If the tech juggernaut outperformance (they're levitating apart from much of the economy) continues for a bit longer, it'll take Bill Gates + Warren Buffett ($180b) to equal Jeff alone.

It's safe to say Jeff is the wealthiest person that has ever lived, short of fantastical examples like Genghis Khan. Gates hit near $100b ($152b inflation adjusted) during the peak of the dotcom bubble. However, logically only some split of that $100b should be exclusively credited to him, as he was of course married to Melinda, whereas Jeff is worth $150b alone. By contrast, Rockefeller was likely never worth more than $25 to $50 billion (inflation adjusted; at his peak it's thought he might have approached $2b in his day; the historical record is certain he crossed $1b; the reasonable inflation adjustment back to the 1920s and 1930s is anywhere from 20x to 30x depending on how aggressive you want to be).

(ignore the stupid, yet persistent claims that Rockefeller would be worth $300-$400 billion today as an adjustment; those claims are not using any manner of proper inflation adjustment; instead, that's based on taking Rockefeller's wealth as a percentage of the US economy at the time, and then doing the same thing for the US economy today (eg if his wealth equaled 1.5% of GDP in 1928 or 1937, then 1.5% today would be $330b), a complete non-sense approach for numerous obvious reasons)
I have no idea why anyone would say "research generates no revenues" when most universities have systems to spin out viable research and profit from it. Universities quite literally profit financially from patented research funded by taxpayers. The government gets no direct return on this, and the usual argument is that it increases economic activity and raises the tax take - which may be true, but it's still a uniquely privileged position.

But most universities are more about property speculation and bequest farming than they are about education or R&D.

The system is entirely corporatised and often predatory. Professors are only as valuable as the grant income they generate, adjuncts are gig economy labour, students are a barely-tolerated annoyance, and property speculation and "administration" are considered the central mission.
Right. And I've come across websites where the alt text for their external-link image is something fairly verbose like "external link opens in new window". Now, imagine if instead, we had a standard symbol, and screen readers could map it to short sound effect that users would come to recognize.
Because a multiple for earnings per share gives you a rough idea of a fair share price. If earnings per share is $1, and the Share price is $5, that's fantastic. If the share price is $50, not good. You can track that multiple over time to know when to buy or sell a stock.

Of course that's only a superficial analysis. You have to take into account the book value (asset value). If the company is high growth. What industry it's in. Whether a change in earning per share is due to a one-time event. Etc.
It's short for function ID. If you want to route requests to specific closures, you have to have some sort of ID that you can send down to the user. Arc stores closures in a hash table keyed by random ID, but we use lexical structure plus lexical values (like username) to make the key deterministic. It greatly cut down on the number of closures that needed to be stored.

Basically, if you have a closure that does a certain action – e.g. editing a comment – Arc generates new a closure every page refresh. That was the root reason for the "dead link problem" during the early days of HN. I reworked it to make the closure IDs deterministic.

If you walk the source code from the point of the closure up to the root, and then you stick all the local variables in a list and use that as a key, then hash that, along with the actual source code, you end up with something that (a) has a very low probability of collision, and (b) is deterministic each time the page refreshes, unless the variables' values change. (E.g. if you store the current time in a local variable, the value changes, so the fnid will change as well, since that value is captured by the closure and therefore the closure has to do something different by definition.)
I'm no expert but it seems like we keep subsidizing both coal mining & coal burning, as well as creating legal obstacles for better energy technology, for the sake of propping up an industry with a lot of jobs.

I feel like, lately, there's been a big effort to keep these things going in spite of greener energy options being more and more affordable just so we don't put a lot of people out of work.
I think they said "aspire to", not start with. I would start with a naive bayes classifier, understand why it is naive and then go from there.
I am honestly amazed at such an incredible bad reading of my comments. Next time I'll just write a phd chapter instead as apparently this is what is needed sometimes.
Thanks, that's fair.

I gave a lot of thought to how to word it to not project intention onto Stripe. But I did think one of the most important parts of the story was Stripe's lack of disclosure about the behavior.

I considered and rejected "secretly" and "surreptitiously" because they suggested intention. "Silently" was the best word I could think of to convey the lack of disclosure while minimizing judgmental undertones. I understand that it still does suggest something underhanded, so maybe it would have been better for me to omit the word entirely.
> If you can prove the data has never been made available, you can prove it wasnt used.

Considering that Equifax announced they experienced a data breach, it is clear the data has been made available to someone that isn't Equifax. So I don't know why we're entertaining that avenue, when it's admitted that the data has left the purview of the entity to which it was trusted.

I think we agree that it's very hard if not impossible to determine the source of identity theft. I believe that even if the data were made public, we would not be any closer to making most of those determinations. Which is why whether or not we've "seen" the data from this breach, to me, is immaterial - the fact that the breach happened in the first place caused people to enroll in credit monitoring, suffer emotional distress, and other quantifiable damages/expenses that would not have happened had there not been a breach.

That all seems to be perfectly within the scope of "time spent recovering from [...] other misuse of your personal information caused by the data breach" outlined on the settlement website[0] as validity to a claim. The "misuse of [my] personal information" happened the moment the data left Equifax's servers. It has nothing to do with whether the data got used for identity theft (yet) or shared by the thieves.

It does not say "you must prove that the pieces of your identity that were stolen came specifically from this data breach", or "if it turns out whoever stole the data sits on it for a while, then you don't get compensated" -- these are impossible stipulations, and we should hold Equifax to a higher standard in this landmark case.

[0]: https://www.equifaxbreachsettlement.com/
> You have to work a late night the day before sprint release? You were in the room when the team agreed to the body of work that would be committed for delivery in this sprint.

Fuck that. The fact that my estimate does not work out as expected should not be a reason to work late nights just to get it done.

That’s exactly the death march that you were saying Scrum is not.
Just so we can all see what is going on here, I’ve vouched for you one last time.

I believe the way shadowbanning works here is that your account is in a state where most people cannot see or reply to your comments. If someone chooses to see [dead] comments, which is a bit on their profile, they can “vouch” for such comments. They then seem to be reply-able and visible to all.

I was trying to explain something about your account state to you that you could not see yourself, as I saw some merit in your posts. I was mistaken in doing that and this is the last time I’ll interact with you.

A thought: if after 9 hours you are still bothered by something someone you will never, ever meet or know, has said in a comment on the internet, a change of perspective could be helpful. Have a good day, pdubs1
It is vindictive. When non-vindictive measures failure, the measure of last resort sadly tends to be the vindictive one. I don't know if this was part of your point (I imagine it was), but the vengeful carcerality of vindictive justice is independent from meaningful structural change that would prevent bad actors from repeating similar actions in the future. Everyone performs their role feigning outrage, repentance, regret and reconciliation, until the same thing happens all over again.

I would be surprised if that did not happen here. The collusion between credit bureaus, banks and lenders is well known for its issues to consumers, but without consequences for adverse consequences to them, business will continue as usual. Will it be savvy fraudsters who place backpressure on the crumbling ability of credit bureaus to prescreen for credit-worthiness? Will upstart incumbents see high margin, low fitness targets ripe for disruption? Will corporate raiders see ossifying remains just ripe enough to be scavenged? Even if all answers to these questions were in the affirmative, I don't know if any of that would lead to immediate change. But, I'd be surprised if business continued as usual forever. The bar for a step function level improvement is quite low, if you could somehow retrofit a better way to pull credit into legacy underwriting processes.

Source: Early stage engineer and prior executive at $PREVIOUS_FIRMS that included two growth stage consumer lending startups.
How could the result have been any different or better? I don't see where anyone's claiming the government was unhappy with the final result. Rotten firms like this need to die.
Yeah this seems like a good take. Otherwise it's like saying anyone building alternative or similar runtimes for existing languages is evil. This is common. People don't always contribute to existing languages or runtimes because it's fraught a lot of politics and it can just be easier to fork and do what you need, rather than trying to get what you need into a project that might not want it.
Woa—this is really beautiful! I need to give this some serious thought since I’ve gone heavy on the idea of not having dependencies, not using modules, not requiring Node, etc. You’ve definitely given me something to mull over here. Well done :)

For reference, here’s some of my original reasoning:
https://quantumjavascript.app/contributing.html#JavaScript_s...
A lot depends on the ability to refuel in orbit. To do that they’ll need multiple starships flying, and to have worked out the kinks in orbital refuelling. It might sound trivial, but it’s never been done before.
That's non-negotiable to me. You can make a short-term decision e.g. this implementation will only scale for the next month, but automated testing, clean code, other standards must be maintained.
It's not only exhausting, it's counter-productive and creates moral hazard. If companies think they will be put through the wringer regardless of whether they do the good thing or the evil thing, they will always do the evil thing. Rewarding good behavior incentivizes more of the same, cynically dismissing it ensures you won't get any more.
Isn't that just writing to disk every n seconds? Even if n is 1, data will be lost.
Hypothetical response: "An operating system? Is it better than Windows? What games does it have?"

I'm not convinced that's an appropriate term to use here, even as part of a simplified explanation.
Some arc code I wrote back in the day, for generating textual descriptions from structured data using a web frontend, is still in production at a previous company of mine (as far as I know). It was indeed a useful tool.

It's a shame arc didn't have persistent data structures (besides alists :-) and a native hashmap type though.

For those confused, we're talking about this: http://www.paulgraham.com/arc.html
An opposing view is we don't have fair trials due to the expense of representation and plea bargaining.

Possibly op was innocent but too poor and risk adverse to try and fight the harder charge, so op plead for a lesser charge. Possibly op gunned down the farmer and plead to a lesser charge. We don't have fair trials so we'll never know for certain what happened.

If we had fair trials, the general public would feel less need to be judge jury and executioner. But we don't, so its just added responsibility for a hiring manager.

"We, as a society, decided long ago" Who's this 'we', not me, that's for sure. Its not my failed system.
At the risk of sounding crazy, I think this is a pretty big milestone towards some semblance of AGI (or at the very least ASI that writes songs). The fact that neural networks are even capable of producing such outputs (even when cherry-picked) is surprising. In a sense, showing off the promise behind this kind of technology provides a cohesive vision of what this could be in its final form, which in turn inspires people to work on it and fix the pending issues.

Just think about how GANs were viewed when they were first published. The common sentiment was that it was as an interesting "research contribution" that could never live up to the hype. However, the promise behind it inspired people to continue to work on it and now we're able to produce realistic human faces that humans can't tell are fake.
would you consider showing me a previous appearance of ApplicativeDo (not do notation of course, that shit is almost older than me) in scientific literature before that paper ?
As surely, if a concept had existed for a long time it would be more relevant to start by the original paper that introduced it ?
C++/WinRT and C++/CX are not the same; they are different enough that Microsoft Docs has a whole page explaining how to move from C++/CX to C++/WinRT:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/cpp-and-winrt-a...

In particular only the older C++/CX has ^ pointers or other Microsoft-specific C++ language extensions. C++/WinRT is standard C++.

Writing your code using WRL (Windows Runtime C++ template Library) is good if you want to learn enough about how the Windows Runtime extensions to COM work in order to debug effectively. However, its close relationship to the underlying COM and Windows Runtime APIs also makes it far too verbose to quickly write good API-consuming and -producing code, in my opinion.
BTW here's the paper by Hartley cited on the first page it is also very readable and insightful. I found it helped clarify some of the subtler points in Shannon's paper to read it as well.

http://keszei.chem.elte.hu/entropia/Hartley1928text.pdf
For the university, research in the sciences brings in way more money than it costs, and subsidizes a lot of other things. Most professors in physics, chemistry, etc. largely pay their own salaries out of grants.
An obvious solution would be a comprehensive tuition cap for public institutions. Financial aid makes college more affordable, but allows colleges to raise tuition. Getting rid of financial aid could lower tuition cost due to market pressure but bring back the problem of affordability that it intends to solve.

I would like someone to point out why a tuition cap would be a bad idea, since regulation often carries unintended consequences.
and? That's not PGSQL fault, is the DB architect (or lack of) fault. You definitely can drive the safest car in a ditch, no?
When will you share it?
Selecting and Safely Using Collaboration Services for Telework [pdf]
Looks great. Do you know how nicely their trackpads work?

I wish there was an option with a Ryzen 4000 and discrete graphics card, but it is still really compelling and I would buy one in a heartbeat if it was not for the fact that I wouldn't be able to get it serviced in my country.
where can I find a good summary/timeline of events of this whole Equifax breach?

EDIT: googled, reading this[1] now.

1- https://www.csoonline.com/article/3444488/equifax-data-breac...
Casual users still received updates for Windows 7 until January 14th, 2020.

Businesses can get "Windows 7 Extended Security Updates (ESU)" for a maximum of 3 years after January 14th, 2020.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4527878/faq-about-e...
AWS Hits $10B for the Quarter
Ask HN: What are you enjoying about now working from home?
For those of you enjoying the transition to remote/work from home, what about it are you enjoying most? Do you ever feel like you'll go back to the office?
Particle: Job Scheduling Simplified
there is no alternative to testing;

that coverage as a metric is insufficient to quantify the quality of testing is not a surprise to anyone.
> Outlawing things to a group of people isn't going to serve them better. It will mean that the entire middle class will be unable to educate into jobs. Educating them about the effort college requires to be successful once you leave would be better.

Making it harder to get a student loan is hardly "outlawing" anyone from going to college. Schools would still give scholarships. Plus, tuition would almost certainly go down. Right now they can charge as much as they want because banks are will to lend whatever colleges charge. If all of a sudden people stopped buying their product when they raised the price too high then tuition would come back down to what it was only a few decades ago.

Even if fewer people ended up going to college it wouldn't limit opportunity. If anything it would likely make it easier to get ahead. Fewer jobs would require a college degree - there wouldn't be enough applicants who have one - and we'd likely see alternatives to college become more popular and widely respected, which would give high school grads more options for how to get started with a career.
It’s really a loss for consumers across the United States.

The reality is that a large part of the fintech sector still depends on the data provided by Equifax. Their data is also used for KYC and other security use cases.

We have started Truework (https://www.truework.com) to break that dependency and give consumers control of their data. If you’re interested to help us, please contact me by email.
I'm not. The scheduler decides what code to execute next, the caller does not. With coroutines, the caller explicitly decides what code to execute next. That's a fundamental difference.
Things might have changed since last year, but it hasn't been smooth at all for me.

Not only you need a Windows computer to unlock, but then it takes literally months to proceed and if you happen to do something that you're not told you should not do (like logging out or re-trying to unlock), the counter is reset and you have to wait even more. Plus the unlocking program on Windows randomly doesn't work and error messages are not helpful at all.

My Xiaomi is an impressive, nice and powerful phone that hasn't cost much. But it was so much pain to root that I won't probably ever buy a phone from them in the future.
I’m not the original commenter so I’m only speaking for myself here but if a company has shown itself to be ruthless and harmful (to its employees, the environment, small businesses) I don’t think you need to give them the benefit of the doubt when they do a solitary good thing.

I’ll give Amazon props when they start supporting warehouse unionization, lobby the govt for a carbon tax, sell off Whole Foods, AWS, amazon basics + all in-house home goods into separate entities. Of course that will never happen because anything that actually stops the harm that Amazon does would be detrimental to the business.
Scientific Returns
Thus why coroutines are more fundamental and powerful.
What is Ethos Capital?