skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's traditional to label any left-wing movement in the US as "Marxist", regardless of the actual content of its views, simply because that's an effective thought-terminating cliche for the rightwing audience. Nobody cares about the historical analysis. The intent is always the same; in this case, to make it clear that if the police aren't allowed to murder people in the street without repercussions, America will immediately become a communist dictatorship.

(Some people in the movement do self-identify as Marxist, yes; so what? That's a convenient way of avoiding looking at their actual politics.)
I agree. What use is a Shakespeare API that doesn't include the original Klingon? [0]

[0]https://youtu.be/HsCVuO1yeJc
Aegrescit medendo.
Nope you just have to get the URL right... http://bible-api.com/luke%2014:26
Yep you have every right, you just come across as an entitled white dude who doesn’t give a fuck about the problems in this country. You’re still arguing it should be opt-in which misses the obvious point that something like this could never get enough opt-ins to work because people are lazy and aren’t even going to bother to read it.
If we could start from scratch, shouldn't cars be made of plastic to reduce weight?
Ruby Desktop Apps Webified Automatically via Opal
The world, for better or worse, will be built by the people in their private capacity, whether individually or acting in concert through government.

Complaining about for-profit institutions pursuing profit is, at best, a category error, and has nothing to do with our ability to shape the world except a childish inability to separate an organization represented by people from actual people.

It's like making a pool in your backyard and complaining it's a bad place to jog. That's not what it's for. Private for-profit entities aren't for public policy, or for moral leadership. They're for taking money and giving you widgets. If there's a manner in which their doing so runs contrary to desired public policy, that's a government and regulatory issue. That they've managed to somehow convince you they're "people"/"sentient" adequately enough for you to criticize their moral stance is an astounding success of marketing and branding. Because it takes a lot of marketing to convince people that widget-making is anything other than widget-making, for good or for ill.
My 100 Days: Build websites using spreadsheets
How about instead of "fun" we work on "fixing bugs" and "usability"? Just off the top of my head:

- I miss the old copy and paste UI that Apple originally had on iOS. The magnifying glass worked so well. Now we have the "pure" design where you just drag the cursor. This is partially obscured by your finger and it can be so difficult to get that cursor between narrow letters (like "i" and "l", mainly because they're sans serif pretty much always). If you overshoot you can backspace and type in. If you go too far to the left you have to repeat the whole process. It's just dumb.

- Face ID is so dumb, I miss Touch ID. I get you want to have the full front face for the screen. Do what Samsung did and put a sensor on the back. Apple argues there are too many false positives on Touch ID. I don't care about that. I do however care about all the false negatives on Face ID.

- Let me control security. 5 failures of Face ID = a prompt for your PIN code. I don't want this but I can't change it. Because of all the false negatives I have to enter my PIN code way too often;

- Swipe up is a terrible replacement to the Home button. Again, this is all in the name of screen real estate. I've heard it says that design is the art of compromise. What made the Macbook Air amazing was that it was the "correct" compromise. Fast forward to Johnny Ive's war on thickness and you have the disaster that was the 12" Macbook. That's what happen when you optimize for one thing only to the extreme. So for the edge-to-edge screen we have this swipe up nonsense. Why is it bad? Because which way you swipe depends on which way the app is oriented. Some don't change orientation with the phone so it's a side swipe "up". Some do but the trigger to change orientation fails for some reason. The gestures to get to app selection (with a weird swipe up and right) are strictly worse than a double press of the Home button;

- I swear swiping for text entry continues to get worse. As one example, if you try and swipe something and get, say, "Rome" instead of "tome", you now have a capitalized word. Delete it and swipe in "tome" and it'll appear as "Tome" because obviously you meant to keep capitalization even though you never chose capitalization in the first place.

- Often the keyboard will end up obscuring my messages, like iMessage fails to account for it being there so I have to dismiss it and open it again and it'll scroll up like it should've done. This bug has been around for months;

- Flat design is stupid. The pendulum has swung too far from skeuomorphic design. The whole point of the old design was to give affordances to prompt user behaviour. The designers have gone insane and completely thrown out this key element of UI/UX design.

So before we think about "fun" how about we first tick off "functional"?
Isn't the trouble with that though you have to know beforehand what is correct? I think that is the advantage of free speech, you get to debate the issues in public, sure fox appears ridiculous to many, but there are many that agree with the fox arguments, I have learnt a lot about how other people think, and their point of view from following their positions (I'd like to think anyway). I feel that only by stressing a system can you build a stronger one, the current stressing has perhaps gone too far at the moment, but without the opposing forces of creation and destruction will anything new and stronger be created? That is the risk of creating something new I think - there's the risk of going to far, like its probably easier to just have a nice fixed hierarchy with everyone performing 100% efficiency in their assigned role, but is that the way to growth?
My 100 Days: First side project
This is the inaugural address. He'd already won the election. It's certainly possible he was still lying, but I'd think the smarter thing to do would be to not talk about it for a while so it'd be less obvious when he changed his position.
Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practices
this. so obvious yet we jump to conspiracy.
> Der Ellenator ist der erste PKW, der mit 16 Jahren gefahren
> werden darf, da er trotz 4 Räder als „Dreirädriges Fahrzeug“
> Fahrzeugklasse L5e eingestuft ist.

> The Ellenator is the first car that may be driven at the age
> of 16, because it is classed as a "three-wheeled vehicle" in
> vehicle class L5e despite having four wheels.

Registering a four-wheeled car according to regulations for three-wheeled cars sounds like exploiting a loophole to me.
The problem with stating why "aspect ratio" is a useful concept is that people will give ways to work around it, which would totally miss the point.

This article is about the CSS standardization process, which has left much to desire. For example, it took ages before we could properly align things against the bottom of the page without hacks. The functionality of grid and flexbox has been present in TeX and most GUI tools from day 1, but somehow it took CSS more than a decade to even consider them.
Perhaps, but the "malice towards none" part is disappointing. Many people claim that the problem we have today (with the Confederacy still having its supporters today) is a result of Lincoln's assassination stopping his work, but the Second Inaugural suggests that even had he lived he wouldn't have been interested in putting Davis, Lee, etc. on trial for treason.
Fortnite World Cup: 16-year-old 'Bugha' wins top prize
Or just... don't take books out from a public library during a global pandemic?

What are these public libraries that are even still open? My city's libraries have been closed for physical books since March.
> First, the skateboard and the upper body could be built separately. Maybe not at the same place (a handful of skateboards will fit perfectly in a shipping container for completion thousands of miles away).

I hate to be critical, but this really reminds me of a 1950s "visions of the future" piece more than a practical design choice.

For example, the skateboard is not a new concept [1], and there are reasons you don't see it. Modular design really only shines for low-volume production (or a large combinatorial space). When you are doing 10s of millions of units per year, as the auto industry does, modularity often gets thrown out in deference to volume/cost.

Also, distributed manufacturing is a huge pain, why would you ever want that? See Boeing's experience with the 737 supply chain. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Hy-wire
>Why should it be changed?

The cynic in me believes that Apple is so bought-in to its own hype that they have a need to change it for change's sake alone. Just like their pathological desire for thinner laptops with no practical benefit, they'll rail on about how this unnecessary churn is progress.

I think the Apple Car will be a buggy, unreliable, unrepairable mess that the buyers won't ever truly own.
The problem of embedded isn't really a lack of implementation languages but rather that the ones that are being used are not very conducive to correctness and that the tooling and operating systems / SDKs / frameworks are awkward.

Much of embedded programming is about coping with quirky hardware and nudging bits and bytes around. And coping with rather sloppily put together tooling that requires a lot of hand-cranking.

Introducing higher level languages doesn't really solve this. If anything, it would make things worse because it would focus attention where the problem isn't. Adding lots of complexity by adding transpilers for a bunch of languages just makes things more complex and does nothing to solve the actual problems.

(Slightly orthogonal: just look at how horrid Zephyr becomes due to Python-based build tools that keep breaking things with every release.
Choosing Python actually made things worse because Python brings its own unmitigated problems. It screws up your day even before you get to do any programming)
kind of an odd choice.

> On top of that, the upper body will take the shape and size depending on the need: a sports or family car equivalent, a commercial vehicle, etc.

body-on-frame is not a great design for a family vehicle, as it tends to decrease the interior space and increase the weight for a vehicle of a certain overall size. it's particularly unsuited for a sports car due to the weight penalty and the higher center of gravity. AFAIK, it only really makes sense for large vehicles and/or vehicles designed to have a large towing capacity.

I have to wonder if they meant something more like the volkswagen mqb platform [0] but expressed it poorly.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_MQB_platform
The component makes an assumption that the element that triggers the second header being displayed can get to a point where it will be at the close enough to the top of the screen. On my 15" Macbook Pro with the screen scaled to 'More space' (eg using 1920x1200 resolution) the text in the demo is wide enough that I don't need to scroll down very far to get to the bottom, and consequently I never see the second header. That's a significant flaw.
You're reading way too into this. Someone just decided to have some fun and share it with HN. It isn't really serious, but parody isn't the right description. People aren't taking pride in the measurement system, that's somewhat of a joke. "God bless America" is a common cheer taken from a popular song. The UK has something similar with "God save the queen".
I agree with you on macOS but I also like the current design. It's not that big of a departure and it looks modern without sacrificing anything. Can't say the same about Big Sur though...

I used to feel the same about iOS but if you search screenshots of it now at least to me it really didn't stand the test of time.
No one would complain if it was opt-in because only 0.1% of people would even notice it was happening and sign up. It’s not a straw man because one can’t study racial discrimination at scale by having a few random users opt-in to sharing their race. You either design an effective program or why bother to pretend you’re helping?
Dolphin Progress May and June 2020
I agree that this is the behaviour displayed by (almost?) all large corporations and thus that expecting that they will behave differently is irrational, in the sense that that expectation will always turn out to be false.

That said, I don't see why that means we should expect that behaviour in the sense that we should consider this the expected, correct, behvaiour from corporations.

Perhaps if everyone believed that moral and ethical behaviour from corporations should be the expectation and not just a fairytale for <12 year olds we'd actually see that behaviour in the world. If everyone was like OP in condeming these corporations maybe their expectations would eventually become real.
Linus Torvalds: 'I Do No Coding Any More'
Linux copies Unix (Bell labs), postgresql copied sql (IBM); redis is open core and is a bit of a different situation; newer examples are godot copying unity and blender copying other 3d programs. Each implementation is often better than the original, but they are not examples of novel inventions.

I forget the history of gcc but assume it was not the only c compiler? Anki is based on supermemo, etc.

Emacs was a novel invention, as was the concept of foss development.

I love foss but it’s often more about freedom and trust and community and improvement, more than about innovation.
Like software, America is not the set of opinions it happens to have today but the process for changing those opinions. A healthy software development project has leadership that feels comfortable changing the software as they learn more about how people are using it. If, say, Kubernetes adds support for adding containers to an already-running Pod, that's not an attempt to "cancel" Kubernetes, it's an attempt to improve it.

The founders were, in fact, people who made serious errors of moral judgment, in the way the tweet you link points out. That's a reason we shouldn't, in fact, trust every opinion they had. We can still follow their opinions on process and principles - we can believe that all men were created equal, and take it to the logical conclusion that they didn't. We can believe in a representative democracy with certain features. We can believe in the various branches of government. We can believe, as they did, that people with their facilities of reason can govern better than any king with divine right.

If you really think that admitting that the founders owned slaves is an attack on the heart of America and that you cannot love America without agreeing with the founding fathers about slavery, well, that's the first good argument I've heard for canceling America - but you're the one making it.
Because Flex Ray is better for real time systems and has been around over 10 years. Don't get me wrong, CAN and LIN have their place but CAN has a lot of jitter, especially in a car when you can kinda guess how often an ECU is going to spit out messages to the other ones. The only thing you lose with FlexRay is now your controllers have to speak flexray, which is a more complex standard.
I've on occasion been sitting on my deck reading, while numerous birds are there eating the seeds and peanuts I put out on the deck rail for them and the squirrels.

A few times I've played bird sounds from Cornell's "Merlin" app [1] for them from my iPad. So far I've not got any response at all that I could detect.

I've tried playing sounds from the same species, including alarm or distress calls, and I've tried playing calls from their predators such as hawks that are known to be in this area.

I wonder if the iPad is just not high enough fidelity to fool them?

PS: if it worked I wasn't going to keep doing it. I just wanted to see if they would be fooled by my iPad. Obviously I don't actually want to scare the birds away--if I didn't mind birds I wouldn't be putting out food for them in the first place.

[1] https://merlin.allaboutbirds.org/
I have hardly seen any black or native American viewing its country with contempt. Most of the haters are young native born white leftist without any recent experience with immigration within their families.
Ha, that’s exactly why he says he won’t wear a mask!
The documentation is pretty clear: http://bible-api.com/luke+14:26
I'm not saying the policy is worthwhile or even justifiable, but the comment I replied to later used the word "treason" (sorry, I didn't quote it) which implies that these actions aren't endorsed, and certainly not encouraged, by the US government.
Why not just wait? Virus mantles are incredibly complex molecules, and therefore ... not very stable.

Just wait. 2 hours ought to do it, so just don't touch them the day they're returned and then proceed as normal.

Also the odds of a virus infecting you seem very minimal even if you handle a book with live virus on it.
Simpleton, a simple tool for UDP to SQLite
The political economy of economic policy
> doesn't need more water

>improves magnificently with high temperatures

Thermal solar is a solar heat energy source + classic steam turbine. The efficiency of a thermal->electric converter (turbine) is largely governed by the difference between the hot and cold side.

Increasing both the hot and cold side temperatures equally would not increase efficiency, AFAIK it would actually decrease efficiency, and without lots of water, they can't use evaporative cooling either.
When it comes to phones, the excuse is "security" of the phone, locking down the device as much as possible. And it's sad how that sentiment is echoed even on forums like HN. Apple as already a closed walled garden, Android is quickly moving that way with each release.
I'm not sure Hacker News is the most effective place for this kind of post... but best of luck anyhow.

There are, of course, whole websites dedicated to doing this.
I'm specifically referring to the people referred to in the comment I was replying to, i.e., immigrants who fled trauma in their home countries and became successful in America.

I agree that there are also many cases where America did inflict trauma on immigrants, and they can rightly hold America responsible in such a case. But that's not what the person I was replying to was talking about.
I mean, if you just cant stream video over CAN, but for infotainment MOST is fine. But you need something faster and better for your surround cameras (even if its just to stream to the driver for parking assistance)
It isn't censoring anything. Your url is incorrect.
Not knowing anything about how a car is actually built... how does the "skateboard" concept differ from what VW has in their modular platforms? For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_MEB_platform

It is a difference of just how independent the "skateboard" is from the top?
I think you're thinking of the wrong definition for "meaning." OP is talking about what code in a language means, i.e. when I see the code say `1 + 2` does that mean that the numbers signed or unsigned? Are they arbitrary precision or a certain size? What errors can result from the addition? Etc. It's essentially saying that you can look at a piece of code and formally define what it means to the computer
I have the impression you purposefully messed the URL so you could leave that snarky comment.
You don’t have a license to copy the program, the gpl does not grant you a license to use the program as you do not need a license to use a program.

If you don’t agree to
The gpl normal copyright law applies and you can’t copy the program outside of fair use in your jurisdiction
> Why is it a good idea to abstract the formula for a sphere's volume into its own method? Because if mathematicians ever found out they got the formula wrong, you would want to go through all the places in your code that you used the formula and update it to be correct. That is, we know ahead of time that we want the code to be in lockstep.

This is actually not the main reason you'd want to abstract, and I think the whole article kind of gets it wrong. The main reason to abstract is not to keep code DRY, but to "abstract away" things that are not important in a certain context (or layer). You want to put the formula for the volume of a sphere aside when it's not relevant to what the code at hand is doing and would get in the way of trying to change or understand that code. For example, a really strong case for abstracting that formula is if you're writing code that is calculating the volume of several shapes.

Yes, code duplication is often a sign that you've screwed up your abstractions (ie they correlate), and creating the right abstraction will often make your code more DRY, but it's the means, not the end. The end is code that is easy to read, understand, and change.

My high-level "sniff test" is essentially rubber-ducking (try to explain to yourself, someone else, or a duck) what the code is doing. For instance, you might explain a function called calculate_remaining_space_in_box:

1) we get the volume of all shapes (including spheres) in the box

2) we get the volume of the entire box

3) we calculate the difference between them

In that explanation, you realize there's really no extra benefit to a reader of that code at that level to knowing the exact formula for the volume of a sphere (or any shape for that matter).

There are, of course, other signals to measure whether you've abstracted correctly beyond just code duplication. For instance, and the Single Responsibility Principle is a good example (https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2014/05/08/SingleRepon...). Code that changes for the same reason should usually be grouped together, and code that changes for different reasons (or at different frequencies) should be grouped apart. But again, this is in service of the end goal: making code easy to read and change.
For the paranoid, there is this newfangled tech named "ebook". No chance to transmit biological viruses through downloads.
it'll work better for some people than others. the only stuff I (deliberately) leave in my car is a tire pressure gauge and a bicycle pump, along with the spare tire and related tools that came with the vehicle. if it's not my car and I'm allowed to just ditch it and get another one whenever there's a problem, I wouldn't need any of that stuff.
Wind turbines can coexist with agriculture without many issues. Pretty common here in Denmark. The biggest problem with building wind turbines on land here is probably NIMBY-ism.
I don't think anyone really knows whether this kind of transmission is relevant or not.
I assume, that only here I can find a technical girl. IMHO the "whole websites dedicated to doing this" are almost useless.
HTTP1.0 is old. But we're nearing HTTP3.0 now. Not that HTTP1.0 has gone away, nor would it need to; but for the devices that need the features it offers, the newer versions are better.

I think the author is pointing at that concept, with the idea that CAN hasn't evolved over time in the same way as HTTP. Ideally there'd be a CAN2.0 for the cars that want it, that's backwards-compatible with CAN1.0 readers/etc.
It's not censored. You just have to use the correct URL.

https://bible-api.com/luke%2014:26
I mean, if you'd rather point to the vaguely relevant and not really dispositive citations you gave to someone else's arguments than respond to anything I'm saying, then I guess we're done here? I'll admit I was hoping for better, but if you don't want to go to the trouble, then I suppose that's your lookout.
Wouldn't that increase weight? Steel is much stronger and not much heavier, so it can be made very thin while still being strong (unibody). Also, it would make recycling cars much more difficult.
Some people take it less as an apology, and more as an admission of guilt - a self-picked target for harassment and worse.