skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That still holds, though.

Stock market vs. cryptocurrency vs. cash vs. guns in a bunker is all a bet on what the future looks like. When you say "There's no other choice - where else can you get high liquidity with good returns and a government backstopping the risk?", that's an implicit bet that a.) people will continue to demand stocks b.) for more money than they pay now and c.) under the government as it exists currently. That has been a good bet for the last 80 years.

But there's a saying in financial markets: "past performance is no indicator of future results". If you believe that the future will be worse than the present for the vast majority of people, your priority shouldn't be to make more money in the future - it should be to preserve what you have and make sure you're not the one left without a chair when the music stops.

And the way in which the music stops determines which asset class you might want to hold. If you believe that investors en masse will have a loss of confidence in the future earning power of American business, but without a monetary or political collapse, you should move to cash. If you believe that the government's support of the stock market will hyperinflate the currency, you might want to look into one of the many cryptocurrencies that promise quick transactions. If you believe we're headed for widespread social collapse, you should get some guns and plant a garden in a small non-descript home (or bunker) in the middle of nowhere.
I have seen similar business model in Germany.

Basically small shops doing 40-80% of their revenue by delivery but limit delivery to places reachable shortly with a scooter and min amounts of 20€ or so.

This shops then have their own delivery person working part time for them and when they have many orders or orders at times where the delivery person doesn't work they order an external delivery person (and then often make very little profit with that delivery).

The only difference is that you pay the company and they pay the delivery personal.

Orders are mostly done per phone. And payment mostly done in cash. Through often the delivery personal has a mobile card reader, too.

Through we also have US stile apps, with similar problems (but better labor laws, so at least wrt. employee abuse they tend to be slightly less terrible).

(Ref: Germany, Berlin)
Diversity loss is a problem. A too-strong middleman will eventually cause roll up in the field to businesses with enough size to have bargaining power.
This is what I am currently working on. I think I paid $80 to get one shipped to the US most of them seem to be in eBay in Europe.
https://twitter.com/enjoy_digital/status/1257985111469015040
Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund Seeking $10B Margin Loan Against Vision Fund
My favorite project in this thread. Great work.
There are all sorts of old FPGA-in-a-PCI-slot dev boards floating around eBay, with a few nice looking ones under $300 if that's attractive.
If you get a chance let me know what you think of our take on https://ops.city && https://github.com/nanovms/nanos .
Sure, but then... what's the second step? Because that's what the OP was asking for here.

IMHO it's kind of against the Principle of Charity to assume that someone asking a question about how to do part N of a multi-part process, hasn't already figured out how to do the previous N-1 parts of that process. They must have, to get to the point where they're motivated enough to reach out for help with part N.

In programming terms: if I'm writing a compiler, and I'm asking about codegen, the Principle of Charity would suggest that I've already solved enough other compiler-writing problems that I have an input to feed to a codegen pass!

Ignoring the Principle of Charity in cases like this can lead to some really useless/unproductive advice.

For example, I've been writing a research decompiler for an ISA that has less embedded information than usual (e.g. no reified CALL/RET ops, just plain branch instructions.) It needs some weird heuristics to derive subroutines from coroutines, and to properly scope variables. This means that I can't immediately derive an interprocedural SSA form for the variables, in order to help calculate a dominator tree. So I want to ask people how to calculate a dominator tree from stack variables, because having something like that would help as an input into those heuristics.

But every "solution" on StackOverflow-like sites insists that the context of the problem—the assumptions it makes—are impossible/invalid. They try to mentally rewind to step 1 themselves, and then can't understand how I solved it (because I didn't write out the textbook worth of novel algorithms I used to solve step 1 in the problem description), so they don't even believe there is a step 2. Rather than just... attempting to help me with step 2. Which doesn't actually require any understanding of step 1, other than its outputs.

It's sort of the opposite of the XY problem. Rather than the parent problem X being best solved through a different strategy that avoids problem Y, people believe that the parent problem X itself is unreasonable, because they model an X that is solved through Y as requiring that the solution also flow through a previous sub-problem Z; and they think that Z is something that people just don't bother to do, so nobody could actually be asking in good faith about XY.

I've also suffered through this with doctors, who literally won't believe me when I list off the entire sequence of steps they would try and say that I've tried them to no avail. I only go to the doctor when I run out of ways to try to solve the problem myself, so if I'm here, it's because the problem is a zebra instead of a horse! A horse, I would have fixed on my own!
> was written as a singleton

Can you please explain this? What does it mean exactly? And is it different in versions of the kernel that aren’t the ones you explicitly mention?
The number of people here convinced there is no alternative to stocks and that they are a good bet makes me wonder whether we’re at a temporary peak.

After the previous bottom sUch threads here, on reddit and on the financial times were convinced markets had nowhere to go but down and couldn’t possibly go up.
Show HN: A lightning fast personal website built with Next.js
The dishonest way to answer is to figure out what they have a shortage of and pretend you fit into that slot.
I suppose this depends on what kind of landlord you are. At the end of the day, a lot of people don't want to deal with home ownership and want to think about providing society with other things. Is that evil?
I've definitely been bit by this and it definitely took hours to debug
Agreed. Careful/Restrained OOP / 95% FP [the ML branch] / DOP, all names for the same sweet spot. The push back is against hard OOP culture, rooted in confused thinking.

* Everything is emphatically NOT an object. There is immutable data, there are functions and there are modules. These are not the interchangeable, learn to use them in the proper context.

* Everything is emphatically NOT a message. There are plain functions, there are polymorphic functions, there are RPCs and there are async messages. These are not interchangeable, learn to use them in the proper context.
Also note that these design changes affect the desktop extension as well.
> This is an absurd appeal to emotion — it implies that you should treat COVID-19 as something you will deterministically die from.

It's not an appeal to emotion at all. If we allow the virus to run unabated through the population, it's a statistical likelihood that someone you know will die from it. I think "someone you know" is generally understood to mean friends, acquaintances, near and extended family members.

Of course, we're only talking about probabilities and at the end of the day there would be people who would end up having no one they know die, and others who would see half their families wiped out.

> I’d probably accept a 10% risk of my own death to end the lockdown

Accepting a 10% risk of death to "end a lockdown", of all things, so that people can go stand in stores, is completely incomprehensible to me, which just goes to show that not everyone's risk tolerance is the same.

You can't dictate to others how they feel on this topic.
I read Range by David Epstein a few months ago. He makes the case that you shouldn't try to have a "5 year plan." You should just be prepared to adapt to whatever opportunities/challenges come your way, or allow yourself to pursue things you discover you like.
>Do critics of government hold other prediction "markets" to the same standards?

You realize that modern economics is basically divination for the same reason that climate science is uncertain? Structurally the two sciences are actually similar in critical points, namely that the domains are non experimental and purely model driven. Yes, you should be extremely sceptical of any economist who tells you that he's certain about anything.

>People predict sportsball outcomes. A much smaller problem domain, with far more historical data, insane audience engagement (interest), and ample expertise

You can't seriously compare the complexity of climate science with sports betting.
Do you think this is wrong? I’m not jesting, I want to discuss this.

I often times find that making functionality takes me barely 30% there. Making even a short stand up status update that drives the point to the whole team is very valuable - it energizes everyone seeing that good progress is being made, it makes sales (they also do customer development) know to push new things or inquire about adjacent needs, informs support of what’s possible and worth asking about.

Then there are more detailed feature lay downs, for the same reason. Then there is the interface itself. And fumbling through often imprecise and sometimes angry customer requests. It’s all non-feature work, and it takes huge amount of time, but it seems very valuable in the end, however non-fun it seems.

So I’m wondering if I’m a regulated work like yours there is similar benefit to non-feature work?
This story got me to read up on the Monster group, watch the linked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsSeoGpiWsw and understand at least the basic definitions involved. My newbie take: in the realm of group theory it's as if we've categorized all prime 'numbers' into one of 18 infinite streams or one of 26 'numbers' that don't belong to any such streams. Amazing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_finite_simpl...
> Historical rate of return on stocks is about 7%. So in theory, a stock trading at a price to earnings ratio of 14 or less is good value

Why? I'm not saying it's incorrect but I've never seen such an approach to valuation.
You didn't motivate your claim. Could you elaborate?
Job hunting during a global pandemic is not easy. I send out 5 applications a day with a custom cover letter and hear back on 1 out of 10, usually a rejection, not even a phone screen. Available, qualified candidates are on the rise and hiring freezes abound.

But amidst all this craziness, the last thing I wanted to avoid distraction. I needed a project to continue growing as an engineer and doing what I love--coding.

I recently spoke with a friend from undergrad, Jared Gorski. We talked about web development, his work at Liferay, my work on Nautilus (a dev tool that visualizes Docker Compose instances). He also started sharing with my how he recently updated his website to improve speed. After our conversation, I checked it out and was inspired. I had already been thinking about SSR (server side rendering) and how to leverage it. Thus, the mission to build this website was born.

I would love any feedback from the Hack News community on the site. Thanks!
Our checkin process is abysmal. 2 hour regression that you can’t avoid. Several additional test suites that you have to run manually which, if you break them, you will hear about. Perforce version control is terrible compared to Git and makes branches difficult.

Tons of time wasted reverse engineering what the developers did, because they don’t document decisions and protocols between modules in any precise way.

Project planning is big show for management and ends up very disconnected from reality. So many status updates. Sigh.
Jira is like Democracy; It's the worst system of government except for all the rest.
No, I have the right idea just as you corroborated. There are amenities of legitimate value in a metro area. You do not care for them, so it doesn’t make sense for you to pay for easy access to them. However, saving money by reducing consumption is a lifestyle choice. Many people would rather choose to consume. That’s all I was trying to point out.

There are network effects as well. I live 15 minutes from an airport with daily direct flights to the my parent’s home country. There are only a few such airports in the USA. Places with that kind of infrastructure also tend to have other valuable infrastructure. So even though I don’t benefit from the live music venue 2 blocks from my home, it’s part of the deal of being able to return home on short notice in emergency.
I think I must have imagined it while making a basic extension and seeing the contribution API. I thought it would be sandboxed. Maybe with Deno floating the idea of code not having access to the network by default...
Absolutely. As of course you know but for the benefit of others reading this, Red Hat [we both work there] is concurrently looking at many different approaches (straight containers, Kata, restructuring QEMU, optimizing the kernel, unikernel Linux, and probably half a dozen others I've forgotten). I doubt that any single approach will be always better.
Yeah, I figured it might not be currently possible. I was thinking about something like Scala HList[1], which provides a map/flatMap (which enables for-loop) method for tuples (among other functionality).

[1] https://github.com/milessabin/shapeless/wiki/Feature-overvie...
I read a great comment on Reddit on the news article about the 7th Amazon worker dying of Covid-19, and their refusal to even share the number of positive cases with the other employees.

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/gkbcee/a_sevent...

Quoted in full:
"I automatically get angry when I hear the word hero now lol.

It's propaganda. It's not for us, it's to help the customers and society not feel bad about shopping. We're not wage slaves stuck in our shitty dangerous jobs for shit pay, because if that were the case people would have to feel guilty about coming to the store to shop. People might even feel so guilty that they boycott and cut into profits and we can't have that.

So instead we're heroes! We're loyal dedicated members of the Retail Family, we're choosing to work to help society get through this tough time. If we're heroes, customers don't have to feel guilty about coming to the store. If we get sick or die, they can throw a parade in honour of our selfless heroism instead of doing the hard work of actually improving our situation. Calling us heroes is like. A warm and fuzzy way to dehumanize us."
In what empire throughout history is that not true? The USA will not be notable in that respect.
If I heard that objection I'd record a video of me ordering from a competitor down the street compared to placing an order with the prospect.

Showing the prospect how easy it is in some situations against reality is a good way to highlight a real pain point.

Prospects tend to fall into three categories: [1] they'll buy no matter what you do, [2] they won't buy no matter what you do or [3] they'll buy depending on how you sell to them.

Many prospects feel they're in group 2 but if you can outline how your solution solves a problem or provides an opportunity, many of those group 2's will change their tune. The hard part is keeping their attention so you've got to get to value quickly, making it personal is just as important IMO.
The whole work with the change would still be under copyright
I wish this kind of thinking would die. 9 times out of 10 when I'm working on a large code base at (any company I've worked at so far), the main problem I have is with disorganized, messy code with poor abstractions, state everywhere, functions that are too long, functions that are too short, references to objects everywhere with no regard for lifetime and the list goes on and on. The times I have been stumped with clever syntax are few and far between. Almost never have I said "oh man I wish they didn't use a std algorithm/container here, makes the code more obfuscated!".

Yes I have seen cases where classes or functions are unnecessarily generic, adding templates when you only needed to support a specific type (YAGNI).

But in the end, most bad code I look at, I completely understand it's syntax. It's the semantics of this so called "dumb" code that prevent me from modifying it or fixing a bug in it for days until I actually understand the rats nest of ideas expressed in the code.

I think using features like using const as much as possible, preferring return by tuple rather than multiple in out parameters and a bunch of other modern C++ features more often than not make code bases simpler than the other way around.
Like too much these days, the alternatives we've been provided are at the extremes. They seem to be offered less as viable solutions and more as tools for sorting people into one of two buckets.

So, we must be either communists or laissez faire capitalists without a hint of regulation.

But, of course real solutions--particularly to such macro scale challenges--are seldom found at the extremes.

If we could spark an earnest discussion about what a saner version of capitalism would look like, then we could find a solution, and relatively easily vs what our "manipulated" experience might suggest.

EDIT: looking at the responses, then rereading my comment, I realize I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is the state of things is such that the solutions offered are characterized as communist, with the offered alternative being a form of laissez-faire economics, positioned as "standard" capitalism.

My bad. I blew that one.
Jira is customizable, so one user might have a vanilla experience while another one might have one with enough issue fields to make an airliner cockpit blush with envy and complicated multistep workflows.

The latter tends to be horrifically slow from what I understand.
I like this. On desktop the "move here" could be on hover, maybe, to prevent so many added elements.

It kind of reminds me of spreadsheet functionality in terms of inserting x rows above or below.
Any benchmark to prove it's effectiveness or demo page to test it out?
A singleton is a design pattern making sure only one instance of an object can exist
Way cheaper. I have some Kintex7 PCI boards that were under $150 from aliexpress. Which is less than the cost of the FPGA.
My traditional answer has been one that looks backwards before forwards. I'd entered college assuming I'd be a doctor, then focused my vision on being a researcher enough to see what I knew I didn't want to be (That has a bit of a jingle to it, quite enjoyable). Eventually I found a new wind (Still in college, thankfully), focusing on computer science, which led me to my first role that was a combination of biochemistry and computer science. Always trying to find a vision, but never being able to project a flashlight that far into the future. Or maybe never willing, graduate school most certainly would have set me on a track for 5 years (And likely many more).

In crux, my answer is that I couldn't have answered that question in a meaningful way 5 years ago, so I've learned to express that I don't expect myself to have an answer based on my experience.

I have, however, learned some characteristics of where I hope to be -- the problems must be interesting and the people thoughtful. New ideas excite me, so I'd expect there would be some component of that as well. I'm only 26, so I suppose I'm living in a brackish estuary of naiveness and perspective. I wrote an essay when trying to get into one of those fancy "Top ranked" colleges at 18 -- the prompt asked, in short, "What is between living and dreaming?" -- I said "pursuit", and I would still say so.
or Stylus(https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stylus/clngdbkpkpe...) and Userscripts
Man it's super fast! I wish Google were like this.
Template metaprogramming is not 'smart'. In fact, it's the dumbest and simplest programming language, not counting esolangs.

You just need to know functional programming.

Know your tools, people.
Much easier to have a vitamin D deficiency in Britain than in India/Pakistan because there is so much less sun.
So you're saying unikernel experts ended up writing a non-unikernel database. There's a lesson right there.
It’s much easier to tweak a normal kernel (or just use whatever is already there, eg real-time scheduling to get rid of preemption) than move to a unikernel.
We do, they are the ones writing the poor requirements.
I strongly disagree. Move Semantics allow you to communicate ownership information at API boundaries with the type system.

C APIs come, of necessity, with tons of documentation about who is deleting what, when. Or, you know, maybe they don't and you have to learn the hard way. std::unique_ptr (implemented with move semantics) largely solves this problem.

And you can imagine notions of ownership more complex than "I'm deleting this at some point" (maybe "I'm versioning this object now, don't worry about it"). If you want to encode these transfers of ownership into your API, that's Move Semantics!
What? You don’t think people give more thought to who they vote for than buying a burrito?
This guy really deserves an award. I wonder decades from now, how many people would look back and say how much these books have influenced them.
> Also, alcohol will certainly leave your hands dry and cracked given prolonged contact.

Indeed, alcohol will dry the hell out of the skin, which is why alcoholic hand sanitiser have some sort of moisturiser included (e.g. glycerol).
Hackers Claim to Have Trump’s Dirty Laundry and Demand $42M to Keep Quiet
The big difference here is that the risk of climate scientists being right is that billions of people die. Meanwhile, all the observed evidence either fits the models or is rapidly outpacing the predictions made by the models. We're not longer talking about hypotheticals here, we're observing these events happening right now. If you look through the links in my above comment you'll see that a lot of them are talking about observed events.
@beders: “Ah, hacker news, the web site that can't detect duplicates or afford a message preview.”

They could provide a report a duplicate link.

@beders: “Anybody else amused that we use this bare-bones, no-frills forum to discuss high-tech? ;)”

I find it one of, if not the best tech forum online. They could stop modding comments that they disagree with into oblivion.
During my time at university, "Numerical Recipes" (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_Recipes) was always the gold standard for implementations of standard / common numerical algorithmis.

Then of course there is "The Art of Computer Programming" (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Computer_Programmin...) which has one book dedicated to numerical algorithms as well.
Rounding critically ill down to seriously ill is also misleading, if that is what he did.
You've probably seen this, but for those who haven't, Bostrom's written an interesting formalization of this hunch: https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf
Anything that doesn't fit into a keynesian model is called "animal spirits". Wouldn't it be great if we could keep newtonian physics and call all that radioactivity stuff "quantum spirits"?
Is the irony not lost on you? You're not really avoiding a COVID conversation in your comment...
REI’s “co-op” brand undercuts the big brand names, though only a bit. Probably same ballpark as Columbia.