skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Other comments have already mentioned the various patterns. What hasn't been mentioned is that end-burners (as they're called) are possible, but have the downside of heat on the casing and change in center of gravity.

Coming from model rocketry myself, I had the same question, so I went straight to wikipedia to find out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-propellant_rocket

Somehow I thought that the combustion of the propellant had to be inline with the thrust, but TIL there is a combustion chamber, and it's the ejection of the combusted gases through the nozzle causes the thrust.

I like hearing other people's experience with model rocketry. It's interesting because I experienced it more as model building (assembling and decorating) with a fun day of launching and running after them. I never got into the physics of the flights (other than lighter==higher) or even thought of investigating propellant properties--geometry and chemistry--as amateur rocketry does. I guess nobody told me "you can make your own engines if you want," but even then I'm not sure I would've pursued it.
So true.

I was talking to someone also in lockdown and she's in the market for a new laptop or iPad/keyboard.

She also wants to play games with family and friends and that's when she realized multiplayer and games in general on iOS and Mac were not a strength at all.

IMO, Apple's above-average hardware (at times, not all keyboards) is severely hurt by the lack of real gaming options on Mac or iOS.

I think that is even more glaring now in our present circumstances.
Fixing E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial for the Atari 2600 (2013)
Tech is an area where the contradictions inherent in the liberal approach to regulating companies are most clear. Liberal theories of nice capitalism require multiple competing companies on "fair" grounds. But it is obviously annoying and inefficient to have market competition in software most of the time - once a tool is developed, it's nearly free for 100% of people to use it rather than 50%, and it's crucial that all such tools interoperate nicely. Hence why various walled-off social media platforms are annoying and people are squeezed into at most only a couple for a given purpose. When right wingers point out that anti-trust stuff is inefficient, to an extent they're right.

The rational thing is to have a "monopoly" that isn't evil. But that means that democratic control shouldn't be after-the-fact, external regulation (shown time and time again to be insufficient and generally bought off) but fundamental to the operating of these companies. In essence, Google makes the case for democratic management of production - socialism - very clear.

But the other important part of this theory is it's not just about "what would be nice to have" in some utopian sense. Larger companies have competitive advantages that cause them to grow even faster - some real economies of scale, more political heft, greater bargaining power. This leads to the system being inherently unstable and tending towards concentration, which is apparent in pretty much every sector of tech. Trying to permanently reverse this trend through anti-trust is as nonsensical as suggesting people go back to living in the woods; it is in opposition to the fundamental trends inherent in market economies. The only way we can move is forward, to the resolution of these contradictions by working class ownership of all by all.
Your analysis is riddled with errors.

Foremost, it's far too early to make the call on the effects of "re-opening".

Another misleading assertion is the idea that our "re-opened" state is anything like the state of affairs pre-lockdown. That is, many, many people are still virtually locked down--voluntarily.

Yet another issue your analysis overlooks is the measures we actually did take prior to full lockdown, wherein we in fact suggested that vulnerable populations self-isolate. This was not effective in slowing the spread; hence, the lockdown escalation.

Still another issue is your somewhat facile assessment of Walmart and other retail scenarios. The relevant metric here would not be closure of stores but transmission of the virus, as many people would be asymptomatic including, likely, workers. Yet, they may still have transmitted the virus.

But the real problem is that you omit the fact that measures we took to limit store hours, numbers of concurrent shoppers, in-store distancing, etc. and the resulting behavior changes (including fewer trips) meant bodies per store were dramatically reduced, helping to undercut transmission. And, the point there is that accommodations for essential trips to the store under such prescribed conditions were provided as part of the lockdown. So, you are trying to use the lockdown design itself as proof that the lockdown was unnecessary.

TLDR; This is frequently the story with these anti-lockdown claims: a revisionist look back at why the lockdown was "unnecessary", using precisely the design and benefits of the lockdown itself to make the case.
I suspect "OOP" is teached like that most of the time. Or more precisely, this is teached as being OOP (as a fundamental distinguishing point from "procedural", most often -- ironically, the opposition "OOP" / "procedural" is then also complete garbage)

I've yet to find a non boring, yet descriptive, consensual alternate definition of OOP; the first thought people have is more Java than Smalltalk, and if you exclude inheritance and everything virtual, then it boils down to syntactic sugar for single non-dynamic dispatch, and encapsulation. On the other (but still very sweet) hand, is Ruby OOP when you write 10.times { puts "hello" }? I don't know. Or rather: it's completely arbitrary. Even what is the most useful, when used cleanly is not exclusive of "OOP": invariants are also most important, and arguably way more well known by practitioners, in FP.

Natural language is inherently descriptive. If there is a better "OOP", you just have to fight to make it prevail, so that people think of it when they hear "OOP". Maybe we can make the bad teachers stop in other ways too. Like not even using the word, and making "alternate" approaches (maybe even what you are calling OOP) fashionable.
Interesting, do you have a source? So you're saying you get a dose of GS-441524 regardless as Remdesivir decays?
There was the Orange Box, which was an absolutely fantastic deal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Box
Don’t forget, even if you can’t physically access it you could always flip the breaker. Run it on a raspberry Pi running off of a 10000mah phone battery, charging from an outlet. Make sure the outlet is on a breaker you couldn’t live without for 24 hours (fridge is a good bet). For physical barrier, put it behind the fridge (if that’s enough to dissuade you, don’t know the use case).
Here's another "kitchen-table" project, it's a muon detector.

This one uses plastic scintillating material in front of the detector.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.01196v2.pdf

github:
https://github.com/spenceraxani/Desktop-Muon-Detector
The danger with arguing from first principles is that a lot of real-world failures sound pretty fantastic. Take communism, or the satirical "A Modest Proposal".
Standard Chartered uses their own dialect of Haskell. There's some talks on youtube about it.
>In the end, restauranteurs who are good at this business will thrive and those who are not good at it will falter.

If the differentiating factor between success or failure is SEO rather than location, quality of food, or service I have trouble seeing how that's a net benefit for anyone but Google. Maybe "fair" was the wrong term. It's encouraging maladaptive behaviors in the industry.
To try to preempt one counterargument: such a system doesn't mean we can no longer have "competing" software projects that do similar things if it is beneficial to compare different approaches. We can easily do that if it's better overall. But in such a case, each approach to a given software problem would be fully open, and developed in coordination with the others and with an understanding of their successes and pitfalls, to maximize productivity. This wouldn't be siloed-off, hostile competition but a scientific, coordinated approach.
Point 2 in the conclusion states:

> Academia, like any other working environment, is full of prominent, successful, well-connected bluffers. The striking thing is not that a decorated professor and A/Chairman @WhiteHouseCEA made a statistical error, nor should we be surprised that a prominent academic in economics (or any other field) doesn’t understand statistics. What’s striking is that the professor and A/Chairman doesn’t know that he doesn’t know. I’m struck by his ignorance of his ignorance, his willingness to think that he knows what he’s talking about when he doesn’t.

The first sentence sounds like it's going to lead to something about bluffers, but the remainder looks like a re-iteration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. A little surprising to not see it mentioned in the article or comments.

> In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Ah, yes, that’s the other one I was trying to remember.

Can you explain your switch and the library choice a bit more? Turbolinks seems to me to be a very primitive version of Intercooler/Unpoly.
Fun fact: you can use sed's replace syntax to do a replace in your last message on Discord.
And just in case 28 was too much, here's an improved version in 10 lines of CSS:

https://pastebin.com/dT4KKt3s
OOP in the sense of encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism is an academic exercise for students to think about organization of data and functions into hierarchies. Objects in this case were mistaken for modules. This is only usable by students and librarians.

OOP in sense of message passing is just a programming language implementatiin technique used in Smalltalk which lets you handle functions of multiple arguments with ease. You basically 'pass' each argument as a message to the receiving object.

That is obviously just a hack to make that feature of nontrivial function call work. Real message passing obviously has to be asynchronous to even resemble concept of real life message passing. Erlang and Actor model in that case are pure models of message passing based OOP.

Somehow all of these OOP systems are just distractions from solving problems using computers because you can represent your problem using pure 'data' such as numbers or strings and composing them to bigger structures with well defined operations - such as lists, dicts and tables and so on. Objects can be purely abstract thing in your mind or documented in code comments.

Imperative programming obviously doesn't scale beyond one machine because of von Neumann bottleneck and suffers from unmanageable global state. That doesn't mean OOP is the solution.

Functional programming is of two kinds - statically typed with powerful type systems - which are systems with very limited field of use and high development cost. Unfortunately unusable for real life problems because of lack of intuition.

Other less strict functional languages fare better, but used naively suffer from von Neumann bottleneck too. Unless they are used in a language oriented programming paradigm, whereby you use your language only to construct a higher level language DSL) which can abstract over more than just a single machine.

Good examples are Lisps and their ability to define other languages such as Prolog or SQL or Linq.

The only way to make parallel computing possible is to use data parallelism instead of task parallelism so data oriented languages such as sql or datalog are the future since Moore's law reached its end. This poses a strong constraint on design od programming languages.

SQL, while not suffering from single processor bottleneck, unfortunately sucks as a language because it is not programmable and nondeterministic in generating physical plans.

Which offers a great opportunity for programming language enthusiasts - build a programmable sql or datalog like language because other paradigms reached some fundamental constraints and hit a dead end.

Or come up with a new paradigm.
I have to admit, I read books a lot less than I used to, but many of the books I read weren't really much more substantial than a TV show in the end. For every high quality book that makes you think i've read, i've read a dozen or more fluff fantasy or sci-fi stories.

Whereas my web browsing habits have probably changed for the better. I spend far less tine reading random nonsense now and most of my time spent on the web is spent either reading things at least I find productive or talking to people.
I don't get those delivery companies (Doordash, Grubhub, etc).

Even with a first-timer promotion, a meal would end up being close to 25% more expensive than ordering directly with the restaurant.

I'm happy to order directly with a local restaurant on the phone, drive 10 minutes (especially now with no traffic) and get my food on my terms. I end up paying way less and the restaurant keeps the full dollar amount. It's a no-brainer win-win situation. I wish more people would order directly with restaurants.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I surely don't want to encourage you to buy Nvidia.

To be fair here, AMD also has some gripes with VFIO: Namely, the reset bug on Navi (which I personally didn't experience, but read about quite a few times) and disabled vGPU support on their smaller cards, which is, as far as I know, only a software solution and not really something that would steal their business customers either.

Still, I'm rooting for AMD, if only for the fact that they're the reason it doesn't take six CPU generations any more to have a 50% performance bump.
If you make a phone version, make the gravity linked to the gyro.
It can work now on android with hackers keyboard, as it can be started from the notification draw.
That seems right, the advisor/subject-matter/interest mismatch seems to be at the core of a lot of his struggle.
What we know so far about how Covid-19 affects the rest of the body
Was discussing this with my partner recently.

We have all these hundreds of games we've paid for, and somehow just end up playing free co-op tower defense mods in Dota 2.
I do feel weirded out. Reminds me of WhatsApp's acquisition by Facebook back in 2014: I cancelled my account the minute I learned about this. The only hope is that Telegram acts as a proxy between user searches and Giphy's servers and somehow preserves the privacy of its users.
I was pulling a salary from one of those companies when that lawsuit went through about wage suppression, and I can tell you, my wage sure didn't feel suppressed.

Always felt a little gross to me that people who make six figures would claim their wages were being held down. It's not like anyone who felt they were underpaid or underappreciated didn't know where the other companies were. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate it and cashed my check for being apparently a part of an oppressed class, but at the end of the day very little changed and the biggest beneficiaries of the entire exercise were the lawyers who got the lion's share of the suit money.

On the topic of monarchies, there was plenty of creative destruction during the monarchy era. Territories and kingdoms were constantly being built, defended, fought over, carved up, destroyed, and rebuilt. Not all churn is good churn.

I'm certainly not against new companies innovating and creating new things. But I'm not sure in the specific space of software engineering, we need the heavy hand of government cracking up a successful company to enable creation of good things. I don't think the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit was a good idea, and it looks like history has borne that out; Apple got themselves out of their own hole by finding another operating system route separate from Windows and rearchitecting themselves on top of it, and Mozilla would always have had a home on Linux that Windows couldn't touch one way or the other. In the long run, all the lawsuit really seems to have done is force Microsoft into a back seat in they have arbitrary restrictions on the way they are allowed to combine their browser and operating system resources, and who benefits from that? Chrome has written an OS and a browser combined, why isn't Microsoft allowed to?

Better software tends to speak for itself. Do we trust government to make these decisions for the people who understand the technology and the people who use it?
You already let us change the top bar color I preferences. Really, this is just a adding “text” and “background” colors - swapping white and black.

This could be a check in preferences, load from the DB the same time as the top bar, then insert into template or however HN is organized server side. Probably <10 lines of total code, If you include DB changes.

It would be all server side so we shouldn’t have an issue in terms of bandwidth.
Putting people on the author list who made no contributions to the paper is known as academic fraud. I am surprised this is allowed.
To be more specific, it's all down to how the society understands and enforces property rights. If land and real estate can only be held in usufruct, for example (i.e. if society only protects violation of those rights), then capital cannot be concentrated indefinitely.
I pretty wholeheartedly agree with your 2nd paragraph.

Regarding your first, I have similar concerns about this gatekeeping of “engineers”. Civil engineers and the like have much more stringent regulations and much more weight put onto correctness, but they aren’t required to prize correctness-for-its-own-sake, or think of their work like art, or be doing the work for its own sake rather than money.

I’m pretty confident that attempting to ascribe a unified motive to any group is a mistake.
Maybe its because I write small software or customize existing mature Enterprise apps. I just dont care about the dogma so much. I think there is a lot to like about OOP. There is a lot to like about functional code. I use both quite a bit with C#. Dont get me wrong though, Im glad people do think about this and try to make software paradigms better. I just dont find that I am overly hampered with current tool sets to worry about this stuff.

Most importantly, I think this is just all talk. This is John D. Cook just spitballing with a contemporary and debating things. I bet the other person in the conversation is probably not all that convicted of his argument and is throwing an exasperated take out there...
> Every time we try to increase the amount we're paid, or set a decent working schedule (longer development times mean more salaries because working on a project longer) we're told that we're "sleazy business men" trying to make a profit.

Who's this "we"? The workers or the shareholders? Is there any unionizing effort on the videogame industry?
Google checks all of the boxes to be an enemy of conservatives in America’s current culture war, even if they have no particular interest in fighting a culture war. Previously they could have relied on protection from the faction of the conservative movement that defaulted to respecting large successful American businesses, but that faction has been seriously weakened. Ever since Google fired James Damore for writing an anti-diversity memo conservatives have been out for blood.
Quick question: Does it mean now we can write games on Windows using SDL + Swift, and it will run on MacOS without any change at all?
Not a very smart move at all.

US companies were breaking their necks to get into the Chinese market. Now they think it's a better idea to get out of the Chinese market.

Gun.Foot.Bang!
Amazon Is Quietly Fighting Against a Sweeping Facial Recognition Ban in Portland
As a fan of the Google Play desktop app, these Electron wrappers around Google apps are really flaky and hard to maintain. Google is motivated to break these implementations since they live outside of their direct web ecosystem, and when they break it always takes some time to recover since it's open-source. So you end up still using the browser solution.

What's additionally weird is that you can pull your tabs apart into separate windows to replicate this exact behavior. It's hard to justify why I need an exclusive browser just for one app. For Play it's justified because of tighter integrations with the OS playback keys that the browsers historically have been flaky with, especially when you're using other apps.
I thought the saying in poker was "if you look around the room and don't know who the mark is, it's you." Which is a little different problem.
This is one reason I believe computer science should be thought in school just like mathematics. The experience is very humbling, you've got all this logic, all the rationale, to you, it must work, but the computer knows it doesn't make any sense.

I've learned that most problems are easily dismissed by people as being "easy", "simple", just do this, just do that. I've found software forces you to really think through, "just do this" is easier said then done, how to do it?

Real problem solving is hard, and I do think computer science humbles you in that sense.

Here's an example, my friend always tells me he thinks we shouldn't take anymore refugees. Alright, I'm not even going to debate the the morals or anything like that. He just think, whoever is letting the refugees in is dumb and shouldn't do that. That's surface level thinking to me. How do you do that? There's a boat arriving to the shore, full of refugees, it's not turning around? What do you do?

This is a hard problem, no matter what you think you want the features or use case to be, how do you do it? The logistics are difficult, how do you scale it? What about all the edge cases? What about the cost?

In that sense I think CS can help you learn how to really think through a problem from understanding the full implications and complexities and the challenges. We learn this by trying to model problems and their solutions very formally.
Instead of TypeScript which is very far from being all-typed, I hope there will be wider adoption for proper Web languages like ReasonML[1], BuckleScript[2], PureScript[3], Elm[4], etc. With a better WebAssembly adoption and once they solve the garbage collection problem[5] and direct DOM access[6] there will no even need in JavaScript "glue".

[1] https://reasonml.github.io/

[2] https://bucklescript.github.io/

[3] https://www.purescript.org/

[4] https://elm-lang.org/

[5] https://github.com/WebAssembly/gc/issues/44#issuecomment-623...

[6] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42628328/wasm-access-dom
I hope they also add better builtins for HTTP. Last time I worked with Swift it was difficult to get a simple server up and running without a framework.
No, it does not, by design. When you use any standard TCP implementation the abstraction provided at both ends is just a stream of bytes. The guarantee TCP makes is that the bytes received at one end will be in the same order as the bytes that were sent at the other end.

If you want to use TCP to implement some (higher-level) message-based protocol, you need to parse those out for yourself.