skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm currently on my first project involving a graph database . Dgraph coincidentally, and I somewhat like the product.

But this is a horrible article that would immediately leave a bad taste in my mouth if I were researching the product.

It boils down to a shallow dismissal of relational databases that does not have much more substance than "Relational dbs are old and bad! Graphs are awesome because relations and queries!".

Graph databases are often immature, don't enforce schemas, have little tooling, poorly understood or hard to tune performance characteristics, are somewhat messy when it comes to query languages (OpenCipher? weird GraphQL dialect? homegrown solution X?). The list goes on.

A colleague who is an expert in this domain recommended to use (current) graph DBs only if you care more about the are relationships than the data. And probably only for data that you can lose, eg as a secondary storage.

Criticizing the relative awkwardness of relations in relational DBs is valid, and has both historical and practical reasons.

But the author wrote it himself: relational DBs are the first choice for developers. Not by accident, or because the internet told me to. But because they are excellent, mature, well understood, versatile products that can handle most of a regular applications requirements very well.

No, you should not throw away every database and write all your future applications with DGraph. You may investigate if a graph database fits your specific use case, if the product is mature enough to rely on it, and if the added complexity (from devs to ops) is worth it.

Vendors should promote the strength of their products, but also be clear about when it might not be a good fit.

This kind of writing does not inspire trust in the quality of DGraph, rather the opposite.
OP claims that the relational database is a software engineering fail. If anything, it's one of the longest run successes-- 50 years?
The contacts on the lightning cable can be cleaned, which is often my problem. But because they're exposed they have to be cleaned.

Pocket lint in the socket also keeps it from seating. Digging that out is like playing Operation. The bits you can break are on the sides, so you have to push straight in to scrape out the lint.

I really should learn to put my phone in my pocket wrong way up so it doesn't catch all that crap...
It took me a moment to realize that the poster is trying to use a different definition of ad-hominem which isn't actually a logical fallacy. He's just criticizing the fact that the OP is bothering to criticize article's author at all. Personally, I don't like that usage because it cheapens the definition of ad-hominem and makes it harder to call someone out when they make an actual logical fallacy.
Create Go App CLI: Focus on writing code. The CLI will take care of the rest
if anyone wants to do this. i have a threadripper build with 2 2080ti. would be cool to do a group project.
write pm if you want. i am located in amsterdam, europe
How easy do you think it would be to create share links with the canvas state? Would be cool to share links to these things.
Yes you're spot on. We are taking the conservative approach for now by operating as a sweepstakes. We haven't had any issues with mail-in entries. I suspect because in our case the EV of a single entry for a single week is less than the postage cost.
It has, Safford Unified School District v. Redding is probably the canonical case here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safford_Unified_School_Distric...
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/01/the-bad-kind-of-unionism/
I don’t know how these folks sleep at night, lying to the public, their users, and their customers in the same breath.

> The monitoring seems at odds with claims from both Twitter and Dataminr that neither company would engage in or facilitate domestic surveillance following a string of 2016 controversies. Twitter, up until recently a longtime investor in Dataminr alongside the CIA, provides the company with full access to a content stream known as the “firehose” — a rare privilege among tech firms and one that lets Dataminr, recently valued at over $1.8 billion, scan every public tweet as soon as its author hits send. Both companies denied that the protest monitoring meets the definition of surveillance.
back to square 1 :-)
What is https://www.barnesandnoble.com/ https://www.indiebound.org/ and https://bookshop.org/ (probably among a hundred others)?
Wait until you find out about doctors.
Seconded! How did you do it?
> oppressed peoples can't speak their mind freely

They can't? The government is arresting these people for speaking? If so we have a 1st amendment violation.

Private corporations? That's an issue between the person and the corporation. We don't have rights protecting speech there and protecting that agreement [staying employeed]. However, the private insitution do not have the right to imprison someone over speech they do not like.

> may not have the information to be able to understand their situation fully

Are you talking about the education about this? The federal system has a minimum amount of education guaranteed per person. Typically most of the economy is run by people who have the education and skills. As an individual you do have the right to congregate with others and speak with each others about situations. Creating a union is legal. (Although that's an annoyingly controversial practice)

> To claim that just because you ask someone "are you being oppressed" and they say "no", that they are therefore not being oppressed seems naive at best.

That is your judgment and evaluation of the situation. Why should we believe this guy Latty on the internet about a third party's situation?
The problem is that you're basically creating a brand arbitrage opportunity. Big corporates are going to do their own things, premium brands are going to get courted by Uber Eats & Door Dash with special deals and cuts, so you end up with small independents who don't draw in big business - there's all sorts of screw ups both good faith and bad that are going to impact your brand, not theirs.
We have “Unitime”, in a sense, because we have RFC3339 and ISO-8601. What we don’t have are good date time handling in standard libraries.

In spite of Unicode we also have a bunch of programs and libraries that mangle text.
> The problem with this is that there is no context. It's impossible to verify or evaluate what happened.

This is usually what a first stage phone interview is for, especially if that piece of information is critical for the hiring decision. I agree the wording should be more precise about the capacity in which the candidate helped, but there's also a balance to strike between providing that context and brevity (which is valuable in resumes).
>Because the dominant source of public education funding is from local taxes, there are vast differences in the per-student level of funding across the country.

This is what I said as well. There is also vast difference in per-student spending within blue states and blue counties. This is evidence that the problem crosses party lines.
How do you know this? Many posters here commenting authoritatively about two educational systems...
I'm amazed that someone with the title of "Assistant Director of Communications" actually wrote this meaningless, word salad of gibberish:

>"We looked into this and confirmed with our IT Department that API was a tool that was previously available at one point, but has been discontinued / turned off. The API Access site is stagnant and not being monitored and should have been pulled down once the tool was no longer publicly accessible, and as a result, requests for access were not being reviewed.”

The best translation I can come up with seems to be "The API used to exist, but was turned off because it was turned off".
• I had a client with a Novell IntraNetware 4.1 network. I did a bargain-basement system upgrade for them. With a local system builder, we took a whole storage closet full of decade-old 386 and 486 desktops and turned them into Cyrix 6x86 166+ clients. The motherboards had integrated graphics and NICs (rare back then), 32MB RAM and a smallish local EIDE hard disk, say 1.2GB. No CD drives, original 14-15" SVGA CRTs.

A 2nd Novell server would have been too expensive, so I put in an old Pentium 133 workstation as a fileserver running Caldera OpenLinux with its built-in MARSNWE Netware server emulation. It held CD images of NT 4 Workstation, the latest Service Pack, the latest IE, MS Office 97 and a few other things like printer drivers. Many gigs of stuff, which would have required a new hard disk in the main server, which with Netware would have meant a mandatory RAM upgrade -- Netware 3 & 4 kept disks' FATs in RAM, so the bigger the disk, the more RAM the server needed.

On each client, I booted from floppy and installed DOS 6.22. Then I installed the Netware client and copied the NT 4 installation files from the new server. Ran WINNT.EXE and half an hour later it was an NT workstation. Install Office etc. straight off the server. (An advantage of this was that client machines could auto-install any extra bits they needed straight off the server.)

For the cost of one fancy Dell server & a NOS licence, I upgraded an entire office to a fleet of fast new PCs. As a bonus, they had no local optical drives for users to install naughty local apps.

• Several 486s with PCI USB cards, driving "Manta Ray" USB ADSL modems -- yes, modems -- running Smoothwall, a dedicated Linux firewall distro.

http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/36102/Alcatel-Stingra...

https://www.smoothwall.org/

This was at the end of the 1990s, when 486s were long obsolete, but integrated router/firewalls were still very expensive.

Smoothwall also ran a caching Squid proxy server, which really sped up access for corporate users regularly accessing the same stuff. For instance, if all the client machines ran the same version of Windows, say, Windows 2000 Pro, then after the first ran Windows Update, all successive boxes downloaded the updates from the Smoothwall box in seconds. Both far easier and much cheaper than MS Systems Management Server. (And bear in mind, at the turn of the century, fast broadband was 1Mb/s. Most of my clients had 512kb/s.)

There was one really hostile, aggressive guy in the Smoothwall team, who single-handedly drove away a lot of people, including me. The last such box I put in ran IPCop instead. http://www.ipcop.org/ After that, though, routers became affordable and a lot easier.
Sure, but a police operation surely could attempt to swap the book cipher out for a compromised one, no?

I think the idea that communication ought to be categorically out of reach of intelligence is very novel. I don't think it was even conceivable decades ago that, with legal justification, intelligence could not hack or be completely locked out of the communication of some network. For criminals who are savy enough, tech has made it much harder, not easier for the government to do their job.

I think there is also a very paradoxical side-effect. A harmstrung government may resort to outsourcing its intelligence work. I read a story about private firms in the US collecting license plate information and selling it back to the police. Clearview AI is certainly another example. If the agencies are limited, there is a real chance of both ineffective policing and a huge unregulated surveillance grey market. I would rather equip the government with enough capacity, but strong legal checks.
Is Tesla Disruptive? (2018)
>There are approximately 570,000 homeless people in the US[1]. Jeff Bezos has a net worth of $188 billion[2]. The median price of a house in the US is $218,000. Jeff Bezos could buy every homeless person in the US a house at that median price, and still have $63.7 billion[3], leaving him the 5th richest person in the world[4].

What about the people living in those homes now? Where do they move? And: Wouldn't the price of homes rise if Jeff Bezos were to start buying them up?
That's a good question. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it would be problematic if Congress could make those decisions. That would allow them to de facto create ex post facto laws by contriving "interpretations" of past laws. It might incentivize intentionally ambiguous laws that allow them flexibility in the future. At that point, the Supreme Court would be in the very odd position of deciding whether something is a plausible interpretation of a previous law.
Restaurant deliver can be worse when the driver is overloaded and your food sits at the restaurant waiting for them to pick it up, or when the driver picks up multiple orders at once (likely) and yours is delayed or is last to be dropped off.
Vital Signs: The Woman Who Needed to Be Upside-Down – Discover Magazine
MuZero performs a "formal search". In many more ways than one, for example optimisation is still a search for an optimal search of parameters. But I guess you mean that it doesn't perform a tree search? Quoting from the abstract of the paper on arxiv [1]:

In this work we present the MuZero algorithm which, by combining _a tree-based search_ with a learned model, achieves superhuman performance in a range of challenging and visually complex domains, withoutany knowledge of their underlying dynamics.

(My underlining)

If I remember correctly, MuZero is model-free in the sense that it learns its own evaluation function and reward policy etc (also going by the abstract). But it retains MCTS.

Indeed, it wouldn't really make sense to drop MCTS from the architecture of a system designed to play games. I mean, it would be really hard to justify discarding a component that is well known to work and work well, both from an engineering and a scientific point of view.

_________________

https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.08265
i liked it, but i do work with bigger data sets... make it easy? orm... if its active record or even datamapper just try throwing 100k new rows in a table every day, and then the joins... bah, skip the orm and start working with any sets that add couple hundres of thousands rows every day and you will very quickly see the aches of using sql... and the price of hardware you need to run it smoothly... and then if they related and youre using locks... probably a lot ppl have same feelings as me
It isn't two wrongs, it's a wrong and the recognition of a right.
We should make this for regular people to use!
There are languages without obvious genderless pronouns without grammatical acrobatics.

I wonder how they will tackle that in translations
The Federal government has the power to apply consent decrees to specific police departments when those departments are found to have used force excessively, per the 1994 Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act[0]. This essentially opens police departments up to lawsuits if they exhibit a pattern of bad behavior. In fact, this law explicitly requires DOJ to issue an annual report on "the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers", although they haven’t.

> The fact that voters fail to hold their lower-level governments to account does not mean that all power (and failure) should be centralized.

0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_La...
Believe it was due to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23711867
Given that police officers

(a) are first-responders whose central job is public safety,

(b) are regularly sent into situations where their life and safety is on the line (6 have been shot to death in the past two months), and

(c) regularly face violent and hateful prejudice as an identity, just for putting on the uniform,

it's hard to justify that they don't deserve advocacy from a group of people with shared experiences.

It doesn't mean that unions should always get their way or that unions should be officially recognized, but police can and should exercise their rights to collectively bargain and strike if necessary.
Thanks, and I agree that there's an increased and harmful tendency to assume bad faith in political and other discussion--we should engage as much as possible with the arguments presented, regardless of what motivations we think exist behind them. I try to avoid suspecting bad faith myself, but in this case I didn't see how.

> For example, the reporter obviously has access to several of SSC posts. If the reporter believed that deleting the blog caused it to be forever lost to history, then he couldn't possibly have written this piece. So obviously he's aware that at least some of the controversial content of SSC is still accessible. In fact, he believes that enough of the content is accessible to write an entire long-form New Yorker article about the controversial content. So surely he must believe that enough of the content is available to write an NYT article about the content.

So we agree that the content remains readily available, to journalists and others. So I think that means if Alexander "feared that a Times reporter wouldn’t have to poke around for very long to turn up a creditable reason for negative coverage", then we agree that deleting the blog wouldn't (and didn't) help.

> It doesn't seem to impact his argument in any way, because it's possible to simultaneously know about the Internet Archive and also believe Alexander deleted his blog to dodge/mitigate negative press.

So this is where I don't understand. Alexander surely knew about the Internet Archive (and his e-book, and whatever other countless copies of his popular content existed). So why do you think it's possible that he'd delete his blog in order to dodge/mitigate bad press due to content that a journalist might uncover there, when he knows that action would be ineffective (and indeed probably counterproductive, due to the Streisand effect)? That seems so implausible to me that I'm unable to believe the argument was presented in good faith.

In any case, I agree that journalists do important work, and I have great respect especially for those who reveal information of public importance, against the wishes of powerful governments, companies or other entities that seek to conceal it, sometimes at the cost of the journalists' lives. This (and most "tech" and "culture" journalism) seems pretty far from that, though.
Federal supervision of state powers, while not explicitly outlined in the constitution, has been developing based on the commerce and supremacy clauses since the Civil War. We do not currently live in a strict constructionist country, and frankly that type of government is significantly flawed. Madison correctly pointed this out during the Constitutional Convention, and while his negative was not put in, it was later taken up by the Supreme Court as judicial review.

I would argue that the death knell for the state's rights reading of the Constitution was the Civil War. It's fairly clear that the development of the government post-war, especially illustrated by the punishments levied against the southern states, created a national government rather than a federation of allied parties.
Sometimes I wish the SCOTUS would reinterpret things that were obviously wrong... but I'd much rather have the SCOTUS interpret the law as it was intended, and have Congress fix the actual problems with the law.
Lol at your last point. It works very well for the Jews. Not so well for those who oppose Israel. The initial way that Israel acquired the land was by ancestral right, but it’s since defended it by war. Additionally, most of the land that is disputed never had any legal ownership as recognized by any ruling government.

The rest of your post is utter nonsense and not worth addressing.
The Federalist Papers #10 [1] deals with this. The original design was made very different and was intended to blunt the force of tyranny by majority by splitting power centers. One major issue is that over the centuries, the system was changed to be like what Fed #10 warned about.

It is an amazing read, but the things that stand out to me are these.

1. Have diffuse/decentralized power centers to make it harder for special interest groups to gain power and control things. The last two centuries have had a tendency to move power from states to federal government; and from Congress to the President. So the balance of power has centralized.

2. Avoid a direct democracy because they tend to get subjected to demagogues. The direct election of senators was a major turning point in helping centralize power; since states became more and more irrelevant.

I am always impressed by how much Madison understood the nuances of political power and tyranny.

[1] https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary...
That depends on if you are shipping tests to customers. Most companies are shipping code, not tests, so time spent on test is time not spent on code. You only want tests that make code easier to write.
Show HN: Quick animations – Put words in characters mouths
Why not? imo it's not an implausible take, even if you don't agree with it.
In the UK it’s illegal for the police to unionise for exactly that reason.
In Japan there are specialists called "night-moving agents" that helps people to disappear from life situations they are unable to cope with.

They are called "johatsu" or "evaporated" people.
Enter the sentence you want the character to say.

Choose a character
Choose export format (gif/mp4/webm)
Click GO

The resulting animation can be shared on Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, Wechat...
Why Gov.uk sets role=“button” on some links
Next-gen consoles: why we'll still be playing games at 30fps
Whatever the reason for why people can't write, I agree it's a big problem.

I've found from experience that if I write to colleagues using jargon that they don't all necessarily understand what I'm saying or some accuse me of omitting essential detail. When I try to remedy the problem and rewrite using simpler terms then I'm accused of stating the damn obvious and or being prolix.

It seems to me that there is no satisfactory answer, that is unless one has the good fortune to be a member of that very small and gifted group who can write both succinctly and clearly.
> My point is that this becomes an issue in every part of life when dealing with the government.

What is "this" that covers universal healthcare, police, schools, environmental regulations, food safety, workplace safety etc?

Many people believe that there are parts of social life which are too important to entrust to privately-controlled, peofit-driven hands. The only alternative in our society is to entrust them to local, state or federal government. The reason why is that, unlike private entities, we the people actually have some amount of control over the government.

Now, when we see parts of government consistently escape any kind of control, like police or intelligence agencies, then we start demanding something to be done about it. If police unions are part of the problem, as it seems they are, then those also need to change, or be removed. Schools are not in any way near the same level of out-of-control as police have been shown to be.
Teleport 4.3: Modern Replacement for OpenSSH
It's ironic, isn't it? Our system was designed as a compromise, and has resulted in compromise becoming essentially impossible (or at least unpalatable.)

It's amazing that it worked for as long as it did.
Fundraising remotely and “remote washing” in tech
Covid-19: what will happen to the global economy? [video]
Interesting that so many fellow Dutch people being surprised "that kind of stuff can happen over here". They seem to forget we're the main worldwide exporter of XTC and a huge distributor for other drugs.
The second paragraph of the article covers this:

> I wanted to find the vulnerability used in unc0ver and report it to Apple quickly in order to demonstrate that obfuscating an exploit does little to prevent the bug from winding up in the hands of bad actors.