skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That was half the appeal back then in the days of early CD-ROM. Instant access to a database much larger than what even would fit on your HDD, often 30, 40 or even 20 megabytes.

Even several years later when drives were larger, it would feel like a decadent luxury to install the contents of the CD fully onto a HDD. In 1995 my computer came with a 420 megabyte, a CD would not fit even on that. I upgraded it to a full gigabyte drive a couple of years later, I still had no room for a full CD install. I had the OS, some programs and an album on mp3.
Seemingly Healthy Food for Kids That Have Shocking Amounts of Sugar
I'd still say it's not the likelihood or the payoff which matters, it's the expected return. If the payoff is massive enough to overpower how unlikely it is for Georgia to win, then it's worth setting up. It's also worth setting up situations which pay off if Russia wins, and the higher likelihood of that outcome should make us accept situations with lower payoffs in that case.

I can think of a few reasons not to follow this strategy:

- If our uncertainty is too high, we might want to avoid the risk; e.g. even if Georgia wins, we might not get anything out of it.

- If the commitment is too high, e.g. a Martingale.

- If setting up one outcome puts another at risk; e.g. if we fund Georgia's war effort, such that Russia would retaliate if they win; or the other way around; or both!
I think there is still a qualitative difference between far-left and far-right. The former are not as stupid as the latter. This does apply to the far-right, not the people media outlets often call alt-right or something like that.

I think Europe fully displays its insignificance with laws like that (I am from Europe and speechless about it). Not only does it neglect foreign policy interests, since it is just a free present for any autocracy, it also fails to find domestic support because of the reasons you mentioned.
This has happened to me.

Long story. Incompetent (and dishonest) IT person. In fact, I was attacked for “harassing” the IT person.

Nothing was done about it, until the HR DB got borked, and there was no backup.

DR and backup are profoundly unpopular topics. They tend to be expensive, and difficult to test. They also presuppose a Very Bad Thing happening, which no one wants to think about.

I have scars.

I now have multiple layers of backup, and keep an eye on them. I can’t always test every aspect, and have to have faith in cloud providers, but I make sure that, even if we have a tornado, I would still be able to recover the important bits.
I don’t have much to say beyond what I already did re “testable” code; forcing code to be “testable” can be bad, but in reality making code more testable probably mostly amounts to breaking it down into simpler, functionally pure bits.

Not everything unit tests terribly well. I haven’t seen it work very well for things like React or Angular components. It does work well for small bits of apps. Like for example, lets say you have a component where a good deal of what it does is extracts information out of a URL. You might have tests that exercise the entire UI, entering URLs and checking the HTML output.

The “more testable” version of this, imo, would be separating the URL parsing and extraction bit to a single free-standing routine that outputs some data given an input URL. You can then table test that bit. Then testing that this ties into the UI correctly could be done in the integration or end to end testing.

In case of table based unit testing, I think it often works great, as it can act as a running log of regressions and newly discovered edge cases that can even serve as a sort of document of expectations for other developers, and while it cannot be used to test all sorts of code, it has wide applicability and you can see it in webapps, Go servers, the Wine and libinput sources, etc.

It’s easy to get stuck on a single strategy to rule them all, but I think that often is a bit presumptuous and maybe dogmatic. Tests are a toolbox. Not every problem is a nail.
That’s not a forgiven loan and you would have to pay it back. Let’s not just make up bullshit for the sake of trying to make a point.
They aren't built at the same scale, they're much larger than the final structure and lenses are used to scale the image down to the desired size.

Here's a video form Intel on how they are made: https://youtu.be/u3ws0UebnSE

Apparently they use "electron beams", not sure what those are, they sound similar to lasers but with electrons, from this video: https://youtu.be/PWV9pvdRBNY
If you hand them GDSII then fiddling with it is very time-consuming and difficult, but can be spotted by looking at the resulting chip under a microscope.

(Not entirely simple at 130nm as this is shorter than the wavelength of visible light!)
>disguise your drinking problem as laughing matter

That's why I caught the implication of social fun while drinking != bad.

If it isn't the case, then I don't see what's specific about drinking games that makes them necessarily a drinking problem.
Doesn't leakage increase again below 22nm because of tunneling losses, though?

Of course, the lower gate capacitance allows for lower switching losses. But adiabatic computing could theoretically recover switching losses, allowing for higher efficiency at older nodes. That can be approached by using an oscillating power supply for instance, to recover charges. If someone was to design something like this for this run, it could be very interesting.

Now I'm wondering if this isn't some covert recruitment operation by Google: they will likely comb trough application, select the most promising ones, and the designers will get job offers :)
This is really beautiful craftsmanship! It will definitely influence my own projects in the future, thanks for sharing.
All your SPF are belong to us: Exploring trust [ ] through [ ] SPF Mining
It's the discount. E.g.: $10 buys you a $12 gift card .. buys you a $14.4 gift card... ad infinitum
By the nine!
"> Amazon, Microsoft, and Google have continued efforts to ensure federal regulation that offers a stable and profitable market in which facial-recognition technology is, in fact, used by law enforcement, in direct opposition to the movement the companies claim to support."

if these Tech companies were serious about fighting inequality it would be more effective to start banning racist AI/facial recognition instead of scrubbing Technology language from words like "blacklist", and "master/slave".
Does Google have a silicon team?
well, if Sue K liked it...
Show HN: Daily email summary of your calendar, weather and more
I think it is responsibility of the company to show that meaningful consent was freely given.
And the aviation industry is not exactly a massive innovator at this point. The most commonly used commercial aircraft today were developed before the world wide web was even a thing.

Why don't we just skip a few steps ahead - delete the internet and go back to cable TV? That's where we're headed for anyway.
Absolutely. I've worked in places which enforced this decouple-everything-from-everything approach, and it just grinds work to a halt, makes test failures commonplace and uninformative.

I think there's a definite problem with terminology when it comes to testing. I've written about this before; the latest example being http://chriswarbo.net/blog/2020-07-07-more_testing_terminolo... (just submitted to HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23757346 )
the downside of this method is that it is impossible to discard duplicated negative answers.
> To me there's still too much "testing is my religion" amongst developers

Maybe some developers. On the French web market: almost no one is.

> What's the return on investment on writing tests?

I only write end to end tests. Because I come mainly from a maintenance background: unit test for test coverage are a hindrance. But testing functionalities of an app? That's what a client want. They don't care about how you implementing things, only that it works. And that old bugs don't come back.

Yes it means new functionalities have higher estimates. But they tend to not come back once done. And doing it with end to end tests means you should easily be able to trash all the code and replace it with something else doing the same work.

The problem is the tooling. Mocking external APIs tend to be a pain even with Wiremock. Testing a GUI is not easy: a Sikuli server to drive a GUI with screenshots would be a boon. And it tends to be slow. But that's because most of the work has been going to JUnit-like tests for years.
What happened to AV1 ?
Ancestry Study Points to Gene Associated with Male Susceptibility to Covid-19
It seems like database schema and domain api are very coupled. They should have nothing to do with each other. You should be able to change your database schema without changing your api....

If you want to expose extra features or change the api design, you version your api.

Reporting is a problem, but most large business have some kind of datalake/datawarehouse where all of it comes together anyway these days.
Hang in there.
I have a friend who's in a similar position, she's interviewed and been ghosted a few times and it has really gotten her down.
It can take time but eventually a company will come to their senses and realise your value.
Looking for answers in the place where coronavirus started
Technically with GDPR defaulting to 1 is the only correct option. MS were only ahead of the time :)
Kosher search engine powered by 4 car batteries on a passively cooled server
CSS Only Slider
> - the experiment was very constrained and the whole algorithm would have never worked in real life, which is what I had supposed for the first few months (meh)

This has been my experience with a large number of papers that make all sorts of wild claims. Whilst technically true they are more often than not are not actually very useful for any practical application.
that should not matter, the obvious choice would be to ask every time until they say yes. It is also the simpler choice, if the user opts out of all tracking then you cannot track their choice.
I think they're all Quantcast websites. I like that Firefox extension that adds a "I refuse" button: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/qookiefix/
> Which is why GDPR, although theoretically a good idea, is pretty much useless in practice.

This is very much not true. GDPR isn't restricted to regulating tracking on websites. It also restricts and regulates what companies can do with the customer data they are in possession of. Through my day job I constantly interact with large enterprises (Fortune XXXX) that have vast amounts of personal data through their regular operations (banks, telcos, car manufacturers, airlines, insurance companies and the likes). Nearly without exception they go to great lengths to ensure the data is managed correctly, not used for purposes the customer hasn't explicitly consented to etc. This is as a direct result of the GDPR.
Database Developer's Roadmap 2020
Yes, this is what Google is doing with this project.
>For many services there is simply no (online, i.e. practically relevant) alternative, because none of the market players have an incentive to be privacy preserving (think major news outlets) or because the service is not interchangable due to network effects (facebook, twitter etc).

But here's the big question: would these services have even existed in the first place if these laws had been in place? The internet has gained massive popularity because most of the resources on it are free. Look at porn - all of the known sites and run on ads, all the paid sites are essentially unknown. I don't know anybody who uses the latter. Wouldn't Facebook, Twitter, news sites etc have gone the same way if they required you to pay? Just look at what happens when a paywalled article gets posted. Either somebody posts a way to bypass it or a lot of people will never read the article.
I see you are an Enterprise Developer From Hell https://fsharpforfunandprofit.com/posts/property-based-testi...
The problem is that analogue IC design is a field that even digital IC design people regard as black magic. It's clearly possible for that to happen but the set of people who have the skills to do it is very narrow and most of them are probably prevented from doing it in their spare time by their employment agreements.

I wonder how many "test chips" Google will let a non-expert team do to get it right? And whether they provide any "bringup" support?
Richard Burton was probably one of the most interesting people from the XIX century. It's odd how few people know about him nowadays.
His books are just amazing and I really recommend both "Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al-Madinah & Meccah" and "Goa and the Blue Mountains".
I tried Tech Crunch without adblocker and I would have to click out 16 "partners" after clicking "read more" two times. There is like hundreds of "IAB Partners" of which an unspecified amount need separate opt-out on their websites. It is not clear if "select all" opts out or in on the "IAB Partners".

So I guess exactly zero visitors opt out there in the intended way. So 100% "opt-in".

I tried to opt-out from all to see how many cookies would be set anyway but gave up after 5 minutes.
>what if it really was you needing help

And people think Pascal's wager is a good argument and you lose nothing believing in hell.
DNT. Has been sabotaged from the beginning. Default on leads to sites saying "we don't accept DNT".
The Complete Spectrum ROM Disassembly
Agreed.
I'd guess for ~90% of web users, GDPR popups have lost all meaning. The thought process is not about opting in or out, it's more "how do I close this popup as quickly as possible?".
Not much use for huggin' right now, due to the epidemiological situation.
I heard about this for the first time. Will check it out. Otherwise all my work is done through cron jobs and bash scripts.
The difference is that "do not track" isn't enforced at all.

It would be much better to make a browser-side dialog like it's done with location tracking and desktop notifications, and also provide a checkbox in the settings. Most importantly it would take away control from shady websites to implement it on their shady terms(though admittedly giving that control to Google's browser may not be ideal either).
> It doesn't work that way.

It does according to Europe and their extraterritorial law called GDPR.
I mean someone else said the software to design chips is 5 figures per seat so probably a multi billion dollar industry.

My guess would be a cloud based chip design software is in the works. This would accelerate AI quite a bit I should think?
> At least they will trick you with button colors

I agree with the broader point, but principles of a nice user interface also apply here.

Unless the website tricks you into clicking a button that you did not intend to click (like with your double negative example) it is not a trick. If you do not read and just click the most colorful rectangle to make the pop-up go away that is the user problem even under the GDPR
It may be the German implementation is different in this regard, but IIRC the GDPR did not create a personal right; enforcement is solely at the discretion of the relevant authority. I thought that was intentional; as a way to limit frivolous lawsuits, but I'm no expert by any means - are you sure this is actually possible?
OP is not trying to comprehensively explain the dynamics behind holy wars, but simply to figure out why there are holy wars about some things and not others. OP's answer (holy wars are about 'platforms' with sizeable network effects) makes at least some kind of sense.
Steve Jobs wouldn't have existed in the first place without his biological father.

He certainly wouldn't have been born in the US, gotten adopted into the particular family that he was, and received the opportunities that he did had his bio father not emigrated.

I had to look up who the Night Stalker was, now I wish I hadn't. Not going to be able to sleep now :-/
Yes, although you're more likely to be extradited from most of the West to the US than to China. So if you're a dissident against the US you may be safer using Chinese technologies.
This is the main reason why we are building Nextjournal [0]. By using immutability of Datomic + Clojure the code (and the results) are immutable and permanent.

[0] https://nextjournal.com
> Your broader point stands though.

Well no, you've neatly disproved it.

The reason it works for commercial aviation and not anything else -- not even aviation in general -- is that the bureaucratic processes used for commercial aviation incur a massive overhead. When you have a product which costs a hundred million dollars a unit anyway and can kill 300 people in one shot if it fails, you pay the cost. For anything else it's too expensive, but spending less money causes the bureaucracy to be ineffective.

And even in commercial aviation, the overhead is still there, it's just capable of eating the loss. (Or maybe it isn't, given the miserable lack of competition in that industry now. And then where does that lead us on safety, Boeing?)
Chirality (Chemistry)
They created TPU's right? So somewhere inside the alphabet group they must have some expertise
Examples

- Stats are completely borked - eye candy that is totally inaccurate and useless.

- Switch ports flapping when saving config

- Port forwarding broken

- No support for my /29 on WAN port

That was just what I came across in the first couple of hours of playing.
The forgiveness is not based on need. It’s based on how you used the money. The current application makes no requests for any financials besides proof of where that money went.

Did some businesses end up not needing the money? Yes, sure. But there were weeks of uncertainty and unknown closure times. The effects on the economy are still unknown really. I don’t think anyone should be punished from taking money just in case, and luckily they were able to make it. States are shutting down again, so who knows.
Could I ask how are you defining your terms? For example, what counts as the "unit under test" (UUT) in your opinion? What would count as "behaviour"? What counts as a "component"?

I'm curious since I think there is a lot of cross-talk when it comes to the terminology around testing.
> it seems insane to me that the whole thing is predicated on the idea that simulated physics is the best way to play a board-game online

I disagree that's the approach of Tabletop Simulator. I mean, yes, it is a physics playground, but it is also much more. It includes some common actions like flipping, shuffling or drawing from a deck of cards. It includes grids to easily align game pieces. And most of all, it includes scripts which actually put some constraints on the "simulated physics" part, automating "maintenance" parts of a game, while also potentially enforcing game rules.
I can guess why he removed them: it’s a really bad example in support of carousels.

The carousel on that page is one of the very few clickable things, and literally the only thing on the entire page that doesn’t either take you to obviously-unrelated content (by which I mean a different site, or the blog or privacy links in the footer), or start the program (log in, sign up, get started, start now)—that is, if you want to know more about what this thing actually is, the carousel is your only hope, if you don’t want to sign up or start the program yet, and I expect that to be true for most visitors.

The measurement is made even more bad by the fact that the carousel inherently encourages a large number of clicks: there are three slides, but because there’s no indication of that (no progress indicator, and no transitions) I honestly expect the typical person that interacts with that carousel to click the arrow at least eight times: maybe once and a half through, then “wait, was that it? Did I waste my interaction time on that?” and a bit more fiddling to confirm that yes, that actually is all that’s there. So in that heat map, divide the carousel arrow clicks by at least eight to get a more realistic picture of things. (The heat map reveals other problems with the site, too, things that look like they might be links and people click on them, but they’re not.)

The carousel on that page is terrible and should be abolished with prejudice. Just flatten the slides, lay them out vertically! It’d be substantially superior, make the concept much easier to grasp.
I don't find this style unique to the New Yorker but more to romantic colonialism.
> Discord also thinks that Altium Designer is some kind of Anime MMO

Hardly Altium Designer's fault, but I too would avoid using it.
> Do you know how it was achieved? With finely tuned and ruthlessly efficient bureaucracy.

Not to dispute the effectiveness of a finely tuned and ruthlessly efficient bureaucracy, but pilots and airlines have a strong incentive to not have fatal accidents; websites however have a strong incentive to track their users.

To use an analogy, enforcing this will be less like mandatory driving exams and more like net-zero carbon emissions.
A bit of a plug, but this is exactly the reason why we are building Nextjournal [0].

We've built the platform from the ground up with immutability in mind, leveraging Clojure and Datomic which are a great fit for this architecture.

[0]: https://nextjournal.com
The strangest thing is the supposed use of a human(?) cancer cell enzyme. While cancer genomes mutate a lot, I doubt that starting from some canonical human protein it is feasible to get an enzyme competitive in performance with enzymes from bacteria, fungi or algae. There are millions of species of these with bunch of weirdos living anywhere from hot springs to hipersaline marshes and surfaces of the icebergs.
I’m not really arguing which one is easier to run, maintain, or anything; I was just making a point about abstractions and system modularisation.

Hypothetically, I should be able to take a well-designed monolith and “deconstruct” it into a distributed system by deploying modules individually and replacing function calls with network calls. Going the opposite direction, I should be able to do the reverse with a well-structured distributed system.

This pattern of modularisation exists across the software stack; it goes as far as the digital logic level with lumped-element abstraction. In general, we trade-off some benefits with a more complex messaging mechanism, akin to threads sharing the same memory space VS processes communicating through sockets or files. In general these are all technical details that help us accomplish what we need our system to do, but pinning the right abstractions helps us actually reason about our system.
They just have to create judicial precedent a few times and the system can easily hand out an impressive amount of warnings and fines.
They have a slack channel... :-)

https://wiki.apollo-accelerators.com/doku.php/about_us:links
There is an interesting Twitter thread about how this process worked in a UK bank, although their turnaround was about 4 days

https://mobile.twitter.com/Joe8Bit/status/115631296526570701...
I wish there was a cheap way to calibrate low-cost or surplus radiation monitors.
Surprised no one has mentioned the systems that, if opted out of, redirect users to a 'privacy policy' page and won't allow access to content without opting in.

Or the sites that don't bother with compliance and just show a message to the effect of 'this site operates under a jurisdiction that may have different privacy laws to your country' and leaves it at that.
Could I ask what you mean by "external" and "internal" here? Could different parts of a codebase ever count as "external"?